Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[goingdown]

I am considering a Bronco type 23 conversion based around the R&R model engineering cylinder.  Has anyone converted the model with this cylinder and did it perform ok?  I imagine the skipjack performs better but I prefer the hull shape of the type 23.   


I would prefer a true static diving submarine in appose to a hybrid vented tank approach but it would be significantly more expensive to import a maximus modellbau conversion kit or any of the other options available.  I am however hoping that if ballasted correctly, the R&R model could have similar underwater performance.


Guy

[Peter57]

Hello Guy,


I appreciate this does not answer your question, but I am currently building a Skipjack (my first attempt at a submarine) with an R&R Model Engineering cylinder. I talked to Ron (at R&R) before starting because I had been thinking about the type 23 as an alternative. Ron advised me against the type 23 due to the amount of work involved and the delicate nature of the finished model.


You are probably aware of this anyway, but I thought I would share the information in case it was useful.


Peter

[goingdown]

Hi Peter, the extra work was one of the issues I was thinking about as I will fully admit I am not the fastest builder.  However, sourcing the skipjack model is a bit more difficult now


I have built 2 submarines before 1 successful, the second less so.  Although as the 2nd model was the awful krick viib I think that might have been the terrible design rather than my execution.


With an r&r module you have the difficult bits done for you in a nice leak free package.

[Subculture]

If you have previous experience then the XXIII shouldn't present any major issues. The Revell/Moebius Skipjack was designed for R/C conversion from the start, so had sturdy mould thickness and was equatorially split for easy access.

The XXIII has thinner mouldings, and has axial splits, so needs more work to make it into a stout boat if you want an equatorial split. Still plenty have been converted, so lots of advice out there. The Nautilus Drydocks forum is worth a gander for this boat as a few have converted this boat, and the techniques apply regardless of WTC manufacture.

[goingdown]

Thanks Andy, I wasn't aware of the plastic thickness being different between the two.  An axial split would be nicer from a strength point of view so I will take a look at the forums for the various options.

[Subculture]

I prefer axial splits personally, but I know many prefer a removable top for access, so just making it clear.

Easy to make it either way for anyone with basic skills.

[Davy1]

Sorry to be a bit picky, and this is more a note for the Admins, but this useful thread would perhaps be better under "Submarines". (It is not really R & D.)


David