I'd like to see the interior equipment and layout. It appears to use a gas system for ballast and shooting, like my old I-400, but is far more stable than the one I built from a modified Battlers Connection hull. I wonder if it uses one of the deeper I-400 hulls I started selling in 2010. By the way, I'm selling the I-400 molds to Strike Models this month.
I've got some pics of his internals on my laptop. I'll post 'em up in this thread when I get a chance....
Some from a few years back to tide you over while @irnuke waits for a chance: Photos - Frank's I400 @ MWC Nats 2012 | R/C Warship Combat
Back in the distant past (early 70's) I remember an extremely well engineered motorized I400 kit I put together. Dual props, brass reduction gears, brass plate rudder and diving planes, grease filled stuffing boxes. Learned a lot from that kit. Would love to find another one.
Thanks Nick. It didn't use one of my hulls (the stern is quite different in shape), but it looks like my two piece conning tower and hangar. I think I can see the deck planking detail that's scribed in my mold. It's amazing how Frank got all of that equipment inside! The crucial differences between our models are: 1) His uses the entire depth and length of the hull. Mine had less internal space due to free flooding areas in the bow and stern, and a free flooding upper hull that detached immediately above the waterline. The gun in the hangar fired aft and was connected to the pressure hull's CO2 capsule system by a quick detach hose. 2) His ballast tank is high in the hull whereas I used a pair of saddle tanks the full depth of the lower hull amidships. That meant the small gel cell battery had to stand up between them, raising the center of gravity and making the sub unstable unless the water was mill-pond flat. There was enough room inside my model for the equipment but I should have put the ballast tanks in the bow and stern instead of making those areas free flooding and useless. The real navy submariner in NABS (Jay) was sure the new I-400 hull would work fine if the ballast tanks were installed fore and aft. My sub would do static dives easily and the self-draining light-weight spurt gun design fired reliably after dives.
That's wild. I'm assuming that it too can be penetrated and sunk like other ships? Has anyone attempted this in big gun?
Yes it can be sunk. I accidentally ram sank it last year when I lost track of my SMS Gneisenau while walking behind a crowd of people.
If the hull is penetrable balsa I suspect the crush depth is quite shallow. Has Frank tested it for depth of expected hull failure?
At Statesboro, he pretty much stayed around "periscope depth" (conning tower just under surface). Presumably more so he could see it than to avoid implosion. The window area is small enough that I'd expect it could tolerate reasonable pressures (say 2-3 feet), but in most ponds that would be beyond visual range, so why risk it?
I'd proposed a different set of rules for submarine construction so they could safely submerge and sit on the bottom at least 3' deep. They were applied to my I-4oo, that could do static dives using CO2 and saddle type ballast tanks. It was only tested to 3' depth but could dive, resurface and fire the spurt gun in the hangar reliably. There were balsa-sheeted free-flooding penetrable areas at bow and stern that would not implode during a dive, and the flooded ballast tanks (also penetrable) couldn't implode either. The amidships ballast tanks were about 4" long and 1" deep below the waterline. The detachable hull above the waterline was 85% penetrable and free-flooding. The sub didn't have a pump and could potentially be sunk by BB holes in either ballast tank because the CO2 'plumbing' linked them. Having a sturdy fiberglass pressure hull and waterproof plexiglass hatches it was not going to implode if sunk in more than 3' of water. I thought the rules I came up with would make RC combat subs a little more useful - instead of being sunk by a single BB hole anywhere, some skill would be needed to hit the ballast tanks - and the sub's small offensive capability remained unchanged. Though the I-400 is the largest possible combat sub in our scale the hangar would only hold a 1/2 unit standard BB cannon. The only way to use the 1.5 combat units available was a 1.5 unit spurt gun. Mine was built to fire 3 BBs per shot so there were 5 opportunities to shoot at an opponent. I thought an I-400 would be most useful in IRCWCC Campaign Lite, shooting at pumpless convoy models.
