German 212 1/96 scale as a dry hull boat?

[roedj]

Group,

I realize that this question may wake the dragons but for informational purposes only--

How feasible would it be to build the Caswell/Merriman German 212 as a dry hull boat?

Please don't tell me I shouldn't do it - tell me why (if true) I couldn't do it.

Thanks for your time - I can hear the beasts stirring now,

Dan

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Group,

I realize that this question may wake the dragons but for informational purposes only--

How feasible would it be to build the Caswell/Merriman German 212 as a dry hull boat?

Please don't tell me I shouldn't do it - tell me why (if true) I couldn't do it.

Thanks for your time - I can hear the beasts stirring now,

Dan

OK, Dan, just for you: I'll can the hysterics ... for the moment.

Sure, you can make it a dry hull, follow the German practice of the radial split near the stern, securing and making the two joined areas watertight with a set of O-ring equipped bayonet rings. Check Norbert's catalog for a size of rings to fit.

I hereby disown you!

David,

[roedj]

David,

Wait, it was just a hypothetical question, nothing more. I read one of your much earlier "reports" which I found somewhere on the net, perhaps your earlier D&E site, where you discussed the relative merits of wet vs. dry hulls. Your argument FOR a dry hull seemed to make sense for a smaller model such as the U212 - hence the curiosity and question. I am also about to acquire an unbuilt Thor 1/96 Seawolf, perhaps I'll try it with that.

Please don't kick me out into the cold cruel world. It's lonely out there and I'll miss your warm and friendly words of encouragement not to mention your pink shorts.

Dan (wearing sackcloth and ashes)

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

David,

Wait, it was just a hypothetical question, nothing more. I read one of your much earlier "reports" which I found somewhere on the net, perhaps your earlier D&E site, where you discussed the relative merits of wet vs. dry hulls. Your argument FOR a dry hull seemed to make sense for a smaller model such as the U212 - hence the curiosity and question. I am also about to acquire an unbuilt Thor 1/96 Seawolf, perhaps I'll try it with that.

Please don't kick me out into the cold cruel world. It's lonely out there and I'll miss your warm and friendly words of encouragement not to mention your pink shorts.

Dan (wearing sackcloth and ashes)

Dan,

It was a fair question and one deserving a straight answer.

My discussion of the merits and liabilities of the dry and wet hull type submarines was valid for the time I wrote that piece. However, my position has been tempered a bit in the intervening years owing to the reduction in size of the components one has to cram into the available dry space. A WTC/SubDriver has much less available dry real-estate when fitted into a model than the dry space available if the same model was assembled and outfitted as a dry hull.

Just five years ago the 1/96 Type-212 would have been impossible to out fit as a wet hull type r/c submarine. But, with the availability of the much smaller servos, ESC's, receivers, and other devices -- and most importantly, high density, light weight batteries -- such small volume vessels are now possible as wet hulls with a fully capable WTC/SubDriver.

(And if I can be a whore for a moment: Caswell companies taking on the risk of commissioning the development of some of the above devices, and stocking up and selling most of the stuff we need for our r/c submarines from a single source -- this too has done much to make the smaller r/c submarines possible as wet hull types. Mike ... you know where to send my check)

Yes, the ALFA is a much better candidate for the bayonet rings. And you'll have a ball, the Thor 1/72 ALFA is a great kit to assemble and is the meanest looking boat out there today. I'll be running mine at Lake Trashmore tomorrow afternoon, chasing Kevin's 1/144 BURK around as I endeavor to make those waters safe for Communism.

David,

[roedj]

Yes, the ALFA is a much better candidate for the bayonet rings. And you'll have a ball, the Thor 1/72 ALFA is a great kit to assemble and is the meanest looking boat out there today.

David,

Uh...OK. Not sure where that came from. I am about to acquire a 1/96 Thor Seawolf and I assume you meant that it would be OK to try the dry hull route with the Seawolf.

Although I do have a 1/72 Thor Alfa waiting to go as well but way on the back burner for now.

Dan

[Albion]

having nuilt a dry hull boat, and spent ages trying to make sure i had a pressure tight seam. My suggestion if you want to go that route, would be to open out out all the drains in the hull. and have a pvc lexan, piece of old drain pipe whatever, as your inner hull. Fix the tub inside your opened up hull and still use a bajonet to remove the stern. This will A enable you to see into the drians and other holes, adding to realism, and B be a lot better pressure containment than fibreglass

[roedj]

My suggestion if you want to go that route, would be to open out out all the drains in the hull. and have a pvc lexan, piece of old drain pipe whatever, as your inner hull. Fix the tub inside your opened up hull and still use a bajonet to remove the stern.

Albion,

I've considered that but with a boat this small by the time you've inserted an inner pressure hull you've lost most if not all advantage you may have gained in increased inner volume by going the dry hull route.

You might as well have used a WTC. I do appreciate the realism gained by having "functioning" drain holes. Of course, I could be wrong.

Oh well, it was just a thought (I do occasionally have them).

Dan

[redboat219]

Roedj beat me to the question. I was also thinking of building the Type 212 as a dry hull. I got the idea from recent acquintance who built a HMK 1/72 Permit, a hull design for a wet hull, into a dry hull type with a piston ballast system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-x2X9KL0-M
If I'm to duplicate this I would rather try it out with a smaller hull ( either a 1/96 Permit, Sturgeon or Skipjack)

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Roedj beat me to the question. I was also thinking of building the Type 212 as a dry hull. I got the idea from recent acquintance who built a HMK 1/72 Permit, a hull design for a wet hull, into a dry hull type with a piston ballast system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-x2X9KL0-M
If I'm to duplicate this I would rather try it out with a smaller hull ( either a 1/96 Permit, Sturgeon or Skipjack)

Damit, redboat! Read your own signature line!

"Make it simple...".

David,

[redboat219]

Please understand over here clear acrylic tubing for wtc is either very hard if not expensive to acquire. So the simplest and better alternative would be to use a length of PVC piping or go with a dry hull type construction.

Would going with a semi-dry hull wherein only the lower half of the hull is utilized have any advantage over a full dry hull?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Sure, that would work fine. Make the top lid/closure plate from 1/4" Lexan sheet.

David,

[Albion]

Albion,

I've considered that but with a boat this small by the time you've inserted an inner pressure hull you've lost most if not all advantage you may have gained in increased inner volume by going the dry hull route.

OK your back on the type 212 i was on the seawolf which is big enough for the inner hull to work, if one so desired.

Something else to ponder when looking into a dry hull, and i assume when going dry hull you will be thinking piston tank. Maybe you are maybe you arent.

The standard Engel ring has an od of 97mm, so you need to cut your hull where it has a 4" od (roughly).
The ID of this ring is 84mm, so whatever goes inside must pass through this hole, not as easy as it sounds. If you look at my Koryu thread you can see some photos showing how tight the fit is. engel now do a small size piston which will fit better. Have a look at your hull and see where it is 4" od, is that really where you want a break point? there are smaller / larger rings by norbert, but smaller = tigher fit bigger = where on the hull.

Once assembled dry hull boats are quite sweet, but you need a lot of thought before hand as to how it will fit and how you are going to maintain it

[redboat219]

Something else to ponder when looking into a dry hull, and i assume when going dry hull you will be thinking piston tank.

A very nice alternative here would be to use a water bag/pump.

[roedj]

Something else to ponder when looking into a dry hull, and i assume when going dry hull you will be thinking piston tank. Maybe you are maybe you aren't.

Here's the thing....

Dry hulls?

Seawolf - definitely possible

212 - maybe not a good idea.
The problem is if we were to go with an Engel tank, just for an example, the dimensions are 87mm by 76mm looking at the end - disregarding the length for the moment. OK that might just fit in the hull but what about the rings? Norbert has only one size that might possibly fit in the hull and that's 88mm OD with 74mm ID. See the problem?

OK, dry hull but no piston tank. Well, you must have a ballast tank in the hull somewhere, but now it has to be bigger because now you've got to sink a larger volume above the surfaced water line because you've gone the dry hull route. Is there room for that larger tank and all the rest of the "stuff"? Maybe but things are going to be real crowded.

OK, so we go dry hull in the lower half of the hull, as has been suggested to reduce that upper volume. Possible, but I'm betting you'll end up with less room for "stuff" than if you had just used a Sub Driver.

The more I analyze the situation, the more I'm thinking DM's purpose built Sub Driver. And before anyone gets their knickers in a bunch, NO, I have no monetary interest in Caswell.

Dan

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Here's the thing....

Dry hulls?

Seawolf - definitely possible

212 - maybe not a good idea.
The problem is if we were to go with an Engel tank, just for an example, the dimensions are 87mm by 76mm looking at the end - disregarding the length for the moment. OK that might just fit in the hull but what about the rings? Norbert has only one size that might possibly fit in the hull and that's 88mm OD with 74mm ID. See the problem?

OK, dry hull but no piston tank. Well, you must have a ballast tank in the hull somewhere, but now it has to be bigger because now you've got to sink a larger volume above the surfaced water line because you've gone the dry hull route. Is there room for that larger tank and all the rest of the "stuff"? Maybe but things are going to be real crowded.

OK, so we go dry hull in the lower half of the hull, as has been suggested to reduce that upper volume. Possible, but I'm betting you'll end up with less room for "stuff" than if you had just used a Sub Driver.

The more I analyze the situation, the more I'm thinking DM's purpose built Sub Driver. And before anyone gets their knickers in a bunch, NO, I have no monetary interest in Caswell.

Dan

In who's name do we make the check out to?

David Douglass Merriman lll
Chief of Human Resources
Caswell-Merriman Empire
Payoff and Enforcement Division