Albacore continued

[Slats]

Me.

It's the 'beauty' model Skip used to promote the product.

I got another a-building that will knock your collective socks off.

David

Well that's probably the best paint job I have seen yet on any sub. Might be a good piece to document for the Gazette -(as if you didn't have enough to do already).

J

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

What I learned when painting and weathering miniatures for video and film recording was: OVER-STATE!

Unfortunately, what appears subtle and appropriate in a picture taken by the less than exacting optics of a ground-glass lens system (big screen motion picture, and stills) is a bit too garish when the same work is examined directly by the MK-1, Mod-0 hairy eye-ball.

David

[Slats]

Well it looks **** hot to me.
Then again I have the Mk 1 Four-eyed system in permanent operation.

[Albion]

What I learned when painting and weathering miniatures for video and film recording was: OVER-STATE!

Unfortunately, what appears subtle and appropriate in a picture taken by the less than exacting optics of a ground-glass lens system (big screen motion picture, and stills) is a bit too garish when the same work is examined directly by the MK-1, Mod-0 hairy eye-ball.

David

unfortunately i find that the new mega pixel all singing all dancing cameras with flash seem to make subtle look garish

[greenman407]

I took these photos today to give me a reference to where the WTC and foam and weights are in the before modification state.

[greenman407]

[greenman407]

You can see here one of the tasks ahead is to compress all the same stuff thats in this WTC rear compartment into that same space after this new engine bulkhead with dual motors is put into place. The single motor in the old configuration is comepletely housed inside the motor compartment that you see atached to the WTC now which effectively is outside of the dimensions of the Acrylic tube. A tight squeeze to say the least.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Let me help you with that POS WTC, Mark. E-mail me ... or suffer my wrath!

David,

[greenman407]

Email on the way.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Email on the way.

You're e-mail keeps bouncing back to me. We'll work it here, then:

Tell me the length of this 3" WTC cylinder and the locations where I stick the forward and after ballast bulkheads. I'll build one up for you.

AND STOP IT WITH THOSE STUPID WATERTIGHT SERVOS!

David,

[Slats]

Mark,
have to loudly echo David on those "so called" WT servos. WT servos do not exist, there are some on the market that are water resistant but these are not designed for continuous submerged operation. I know the BB ship clubs have various methods of trying to protect servos when they go for a drink, but the issue is for longevity you won't achieve much.

The key overarching problem that WILL arise is not the servo per se, but the connection to the WTC. I have been there and done this many times and I will not have ANY external power connections to the WTC anymore. (A key reason why I pestered and threatened to break David's legs if he did not come up with a 3.5" SD with a forward battery compartment linked via conduit to the rear motor section). You can grease these connections, sleeve friction fit them through silicon tubes etc, and the water EVENTUALLY will find a home in these connections, causing problems.

David,
I am keen to know whether or not you produce an a different motor end cap for the 3" WTC (which is Out of production). I'd love to buy one where I can like your 2" and 3.5" SD range, it has snort connections and an easier to service gear box etc.

Whilst you no longer make the 3" if newer parts are available, I think a lot of guys might like to upgrade this old workhorse with them. I would certainly buy one. The old version with tapered arse end I'd love to replace with a flat ordinary end cap as per you 2" and 3.5" series SD.

Best

John

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

John,

I was going to surprise Mike, but might as well confirm that your ideas are actively being pursued: I'm re-introducing the 3" SD, with newly designed bulkheads. And, yes, it will be snort ready (THERE, Mike, I said it ... 'snort').

I'm open to suggestions as to design details and capabilities -- I won't start in on the bulkhead and hardware masters for a few weeks yet. There will be single and duel motor versions. You guys kick in ideas, I'll reduce the good ones to drawing features, share those documents with you all here, and we kick it around till we finalize the design. Just don't get stupid on me, that's all I ask.

OK, then. Floor's open to input, guys.

David,

[Slats]

John,

I was going to surprise Mike, but might as well confirm that your ideas are actively being pursued: I'm re-introducing the 3" SD, with newly designed bulkheads. And, yes, it will be snort ready (THERE, Mike, I said it ... 'snort').

I'm open to suggestions as to design details and capabilities -- I won't start in on the bulkhead and hardware masters for a few weeks yet. There will be single and duel motor versions. You guys kick in ideas, I'll reduce the good ones to drawing features, share those documents with you all here, and we kick it around till we finalize the design. Just don't get stupid on me, that's all I ask.

OK, then. Floor's open to input, guys.

David,

(my response is below, but rather than hi-jack Mark's excellent Albacore thread, should this go into a new posting? - If so Mr Caswell please move this on.)

-The 3" should have all the features that the 2.5" and 3.5" currently has. For the motor end cap the gear box contained in the dry amongst the two joined endcaps is by far the best setup. It is easy to maintain / service and is a great use of functional space. The standard 4 fitted 1/16" push rod seals should be supplied as is the snort fittings in the usual centre most location.

Inside the motor end cap tray, can we try an avoid the folded metal and go for a cast resin / moulded style tray setup. The folded metal is waiting to snap just like scored styrene. The longevity is inferior to the resin / moulded style arm and trays supplied in the older 3.5". The cost might be higher but as an end user I'd pay a little more for a resin / moulded style tray.

There should be room, for simplicity and availability of different sized servos. Be this micro sized, mini, the 3/4 "mid sized" servos, or the stock standard larger ones (if you are only running 3 control servos). I am a fan of the micro servos but I have to say I noticed (not sure why), that the smaller servos will stall far easier than the full sized ones, and can chuck out higher amps under load (not stalled) than the full sized ones too. The 3" D&E WTC was originally designed in a time when standard sized servos were the most abundant and affordable, the 3" can amply accommodate three of these with no problems. Let the end user determine what they want to use by NOT limiting the tray mounts to a particular size.

The ballast tank area needs perhaps to be a bit bigger volume. Perhaps you could let the end user determine at ordering this length. The original design as yourself and other Albacore skippers attest to, provided ample ballast for that boat, perhaps you offer that size as the standard and let customers at extra cost obtain a larger tank if necessary.

Dump the gas saver as standard equipment. You won't need it in a snort fitted boat. Do fit / supply a gas tank and mount it in the vertical plane.

The battery compartment is the perfect size for 7.2v "stick" batteries, and given that some nanny state run model boat clubs have got there knickers in a knot over the risk of Lipo fires, having the option of using this sized battery is a good one. This size also allows the Lipos to be fitted, and or putting the ESC in this compartment to.

Best

J

[greenman407]

Ok, the existing 3" acrylic tube is 16 5/8" long. The Battery compartment is(between the bulkheads) 5 7/16". Maybe we should increase that to 6". The Ballast tank bulkheads are set at 4 5/8" center of oring to center of oring. Maybe we could increase that a smidge as well. The existing engine compartment is 5 3/4" long but by the time you get the twin motor bulkhead in there you have lost quite a bit of that . So if we increase the engine compartment to say 8", that would help.

[greenman407]

And thanks for all the help guys, your suggestions carry a lot of weight with me.