Hi David, Chase and Bryan, I just talked to Ralph who's been busy making both QE/Valiant hulls and I-400s. Like me he's found the I-400 hulls a real pain to lay up with their narrow catapult slot and the box keel, and the need to keep the topside weight down. He and I used somewhat different lay-up procedures. Ralph said he'll have all 4 sets of I-400 parts done after this weekend. He didn't use as many layers of light weight glass in the box keel as I wanted. If it's going to be holding lead ballast it has to be stronger so I've asked him to double the thickness of the keel. Suggest all of you contact him next week to arrange payment and shipping. Bob
I've been watching this thread with some interest, and now desire one of these hulls. Who do I need to contact to arrange this?
Hi Darren, Ralph Coles, he is the man to get hulls from. I don't know the details ie cost time etc, but he is on this forum as ralphster30 and can answer any questions. H
Hi Darren, Ralph's email address is ralphster30@hotmail.com . When I met with Ralph last weekend he said he might make a few extra hulls beyond those ordered and had already made extra conning towers and hangars. I gave him permission to make and sell as many I-400s as he can before it gets too cold to continue. You can probably get one from him this month. Ralph will be returning the molds in 2-3 weeks. My wife will be working in Germany for 10 days in November so I'll be able to fiberglass in the basement and will make 1-2 more I-400s. When those are done I plan to sell the molds. I've lost interest in making hulls to sell but will continue to make new molds and sell them to hull producers. Battlers Connection has my German Z23 Class DD mold, Rich Wands of the OAF has the molds for HMS Courageous/Glorious and SNS Espana, and Strike Models has my molds for HMS Hood, HMS Roberts/Abercrombie, HMS Gorgon/Glatton, HMS Furious, the Kent Class and Spanish Canarias Class heavy cruisers, the Warrior and Duke of Edinburgh Class armoured cruisers, and Thai Sri Ayuthia Class coastal defence gunboats. I'm starting a new mold for Soviet CL Krasni Krim to replace the defective original that's flaking off bits of gelcoat from the casemate edges with every hull made. The next project will be the fast minelayer HMS Abdiel. Bob
Darren, Those Italian BBs were never completed so aren't allowed to compete under IRCWCC and MWC rules. They'd be OK in Treaty and Big Gun but I doubt there's enough interest in them to make a profit on hull sales, or to entice any 1/144 hull making companies to buy the mold if I made one. I don't know of any fiberglass hulls made for hypothetical warships. I'd like to bulld a British 1921 Invincible Class battlecruiser mold but haven't been able to find plans that show the the hull below the waterline. One RN naval historian wrote that there was a bulge similar to Hood's abut another said the hull was similar to the Nelson Class with an internal "bulge". (The Nelson Class was a downsized, slow version of the 1921 BC design.) Bob
I know your posts were from a good bit ago, but do you by chance still have any i-400 hulls availible? or even the ability to produce them?
I have the I-400 molds but have no I-400s in stock. They are very tricky to lay up due to the confined space in the molds and complex shapes. I farmed out all of but 2 of the previous I-400 orders to Ralph Coles and don't know what he charged for them. I'll probably be in touch with Ralph this weekend and will ask if he'll borrow my molds and make another I-400 for you. If he won't I could do it in mid-late August after vacation. Bob
Before you go through with anything, could you pm me more info? price, any scale diffs because of how crowded it is/maintain stability etc? Thanks.
The first I-400 I built was a modified Battlers Connection hull, long out of production now. Those have been made to dive dynamically. There wasn't enough space inside to made a static diver with CO2 operated ballast tanks so I deepened the BC hull 3/8", turfed the superstructure and molded a more accurate hangar and conning tower. You can see a pic of my sub, now owned by Bryan of the OAF, on page 14 of this thread. That model had a light weight spurt cannon in the hangar and could do static dives and shoot after diving, but was unstable except in absolutely calm water. If a turn was too sharp it would tip to 45 degrees and stay there. I was in the process of transferring lead weights out of the hull and onto the hull bottom parallel to the box keel 1/4" lower when the model was sold - stability was improving. When our NABS working group decided to make a new I-400 mold we kept the hull above the waterline exactly as in the plans and used the conning tower and hangar molds I'd made years before, so everything above the waterline is scale. Jay Jennings is a real life submariner with the RCN and recommended a deeper hull than BC's to solve the stability problem. If I remember correctly we deepened the hull by 1/2" and the plan itself was about 1/8" deeper than the BC hull, so the new hull is about 1/4" deeper than the BC hull I modified. Our hull has considerably more volume than the BC hull because it is deeper and considerably wider from amidships to the bow. The aft end of the BC hull was fine but the front end started tapering from amidships and was too narrow - no where near as tubby as in the plan we used. I can't comment on stability because neither Jay nor I have built a model from the new hull yet. Several I-400s were sold to captains in Ontario and the US but I don't know if any models have been finished. Maybe those captains can comment. I believe Ralph was charging in the $100-120 range plus shipping by air mail (around $20 last year). Considering that a one-piece Liberty ship hull will cost about $110 plus shipping, the sub price is fair IMO. There are 4 components and they are much more difiicut and time-consuming to lay up than a simple freighter hull. I'm waiting to hear from Ralph as to whether he'll make a hull for you. I'll loan him my molds for free as usual. Bob
So, that would include the deck and superstructure correct? also, how much (% wise) of a change is that from what the true scale size would be? If you dont mind, i would love to ask you some questions about your sub before you sold it. if not, just ignore this. 1. How deep could you submerge (Loss of radio signal? Balsa imploding?), and how could you keep track of your sub? 2. How did you seal the deck? It looks like,from one of the pictures in this forum, that you had plexiglass windows ontop you just used to seal off the rest of the compartment. is that true? 3. Why would you go for a co2 dive system? that sounds extremely complicated and weighty, compared to a simple water pump and bladder or piston. 4. did you ever battle it or get any kills hehe? 5. I realized the other day, that since subs dont get to have any bilge pumps, even 1 hit will be fatal to a sub eventually. was this a problem for you? this is only a 10 page thread as for the hull-thanks for the support. I cant actually afford to buy one right now, but I am saving my cash for it, should have enough within a few weeks.
I ordered one of the I-400 which Ralph molded. If you get what I got, you will get the hull which is two pieces (top & bottom halves split at what I think is the waterline), plus the superstructure (conning tower). Ive seen bobs old i400 in person when Bryan brought it out. You are correct about #2. As for #3 you are free to try any type of system you can get to work more or less. I havent tried building mine yet, but subs are more or less uncharted water in this hobby and the rules dont offer much guidance for construction. I dont suspect they will ever be any kind of serious threat given the slow speed they are allowed and the difficulty of construction.
I did find by using a new battery pack I was able to drop the weight lower in the hull (and extend my run time to like 55 minutes) this helpped considerably with the stability, another thing was to put a light piece of cling wrap on the gun barrel with a small elastic to keep out the water (shallow dive to about 1 foot). For a radio stay away from the 2.4 Ghz radios as they have almost no penetration in water, but stay with a surface radio with fixed crystal, this will penetrate up to 3-5' depending on water range and charge etc. penetratable areas of the hull are open to the water at the bottom anyway so no issue with balsa implosion. I can send you a copy of the rules as they are right now if needed. will look up some photos (old maybe) http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/69/New_Additions_to_the_Western_Fleet_of_the_OAF#photo=4 http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/69/New_Additions_to_the_Western_Fleet_of_the_OAF#photo=6 http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/69/New_Additions_to_the_Western_Fleet_of_the_OAF#photo=10 http://ontarioattackforce.multiply.com/photos/album/69/New_Additions_to_the_Western_Fleet_of_the_OAF#photo=11 hope that helps a little.
I have no idea where i came up with the lack of being able to use a bilge pump. it was probably in one of the rulesets, been reading all of them. I dont get what you mean about the penetrable areas being open to water? how? and how does it sink then? you said your ballast was skinned with 1/32 balsa, is it a box? doesnt it get blown open by co2 pressure? so a fixed radio can do 3-5 feet? ok. 2 should be max i think. thanks for the warning about the 2.4, had been looking at buying one.
Both the MWCI & IRCWCC rules permit a bilge pump in a sub so long as it can only be used to pump in and out of an enclosed ballast tank.
In the mwc if it's a warship it can split up it's units into guns and pumps. If it's a convoy then it can have a pump for ballast change, without using a unit it does not have.
IRCWCC rules (construction state it quite clearly... G.PUMPS 4.A submarine may have a pump provided that the pump can only be used to pump water into and out of an enclosed ballast tank. The pump shall not be used for damage control. Using a balloon in a open bottom and topped tank makes much more of a win win and only needs 2 poppit valves (one fill and one release)WITH ONE SERVO to control both of these, a simple elegant system.
TSSA stands for Technical Standards and Safety Act. If you read the sections on what the act (regarding Boilers & Pressure Vessels) does NOT apply to, you might realise that the kind of pressure vessels people might use aboard a small RC submarine are not regulated by the act, and therefore, not going to get people in trouble. Here is the act in question: http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/8e277549-5432-46e2-8f6f-9db336c7402a/15/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1 (this of course, applies only to Ontario, but I have read similar legistlation from other Canadian provinces).
I'll try to answer your questions: I have no idea what percentage of a true scale hull was added by the deepened versiont. Percentage increase in volume isn't a measured factor in R/C naval combat to my knowledge. Some rule sets limit how much a hull can be deepened and some don't. It was clear the sub would not be a workable project unless it was deep enough to a) be stable with a lower center of gravity, and b) have space for equipment. 1) Diving trials were in only 2' depth. I don't know how far down it could go without losing signal and there was no room for an electronic fail-safe to automatically resurface the sub as in much larger R/C sub models. The sub had to be used in clear water and at shallow depth to keep track of it. It was clear that using traditional construction methods was not feasible as balsa panels would be expected to fail at a very shallow depth. Probably 4' or less. For that reason I wrote a revised set of sub construction rules that was posted and discussed on the IRCWCC website 8-9 years ago. The first I-400 I built had free flooding aeas at bow and stern that were penetrable and the amidships ballast tanks were also sheathed in balsa and penetrable. The rest of the lower hull was fiberglass. The upper hull separated from the lower at the waterline (as in the new hull), was free-flooding and penetrable on its sides, folowing the IRCWCC formula for hull penetrability. All of the penetrable areas were full of water when suberged so there were no issues with balsa panels failing. Due to the limited penetrable area I recommended upper hull hits should count for 20 points vs 10, and below waterline hits would be worth 100 pts vs 50. The scale waterline area was completely impenetrable because that's where the solid edges of the upper and lower hull sections met. With its very low reserve buoyancy the sub could easily be disabled or sunk by hits on the ballast tanks, which had penetrable areas about 4" long x 1" high to port and starboard. A hit on one ballast tank would cause it to flood to varying degrees depending on how high the hit was. Even a partial loss of buoyancy would cause the model to tip to that side, reducing or eliminating steering control. A hit high on the tank would cause a severe list and possibly a sink. With the sub healed over and with reduced ability to maneuver the idea was the attacker could go around and hole the second ballast tank, which should be more easily hit due to the list to the previously damaged side. That would guarantee a sink. 2) I made a lt. wt. fiberglass deck and cut access hatches in ti. They were sealed by plexiglass covers 3mm thick and secured by brass bolts set into the deck. I originally used 1/16" neoprene gaskets but found a qucik smear of vaseline gave a waterproof seal. Only the amidship battery hatch and forward hatch for the CO2 capsule and radio battery had to come off regularly. I don't make or sell decks for the new I-400. 3) No room for another electric motor to operate a ballast pump or piston, no room for piston or pump and insufficient battery capactiy to run a third motor. I had to remove one of the two drive motors to get reasonable running time. I don't know if Bryan reinstalled the second motor after getting much better running time with a different battery. The CO2 system was simple: 1 microservo with 2 MAV-2s to vent the tanks and blow out the water via brass and polyurethane plumbing. There was enough gas in the 20 gm CO2 capsules from BC to empty the spurt gun (it fired 5 BBs per shot) and dive and resurface at least 5 times. 4) It only battled once against a Lutzow but was too unstable to be effective. After a sharp turn it tipped to one side and dropped the stern a bit so the cannon had zero effective range and the sub was barely steerable. I was working on the lead ballast to lower the center of gravity when Bryan bought the model. Seems from his report that it's more stable now. 5) Theoretically my I-400 could have been sunk by a single hit high on either ballast tank. The penetrable tanks took up about an 8th of the total length per side so accurate and/or high volume shooting would be necessary. The design at least gave the sub a chance whereas under IRCWCC rules a fully penetrable sub with no ballast pump wasn't worth building. One hole anywhere and it would quickly sink. Ralph says he has no interest in making any more I-400 hulls. I won't have time to make one until Sept. if you decide you want one. I should sell my I-400 molds to someone with time and facilities to produce the hulls and could make a deck component for the lower hull. Between Rich Wands of the OAF (Courageous and Espana), Battlers Connection (Z23), and Strike Models (multiple hulls) nearly all of the hulls I developed for R/C naval combat are being produced and sold by other people. Bob
