Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi,I was wondering,when Polar Lights reissued the Seaview model was it possible to include the pieces to make it into the Seaview as it appeared in the later seasons.It would have been a nice option the Aurora model didn't have.Also is the Aurora Seaview a good representation of the Seaview from the Movie and first season,Thank,Guy Schlicter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
527 Posts
I think what would have been nice would be a few accessories with it. Say, like that oftused underwater lab that looked like a fire hydrant. Or the seaweed monster. Or some mines or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
I feel the Aurora Seaview's tooling initially started out to be a reasonably accurate model of the original Four foot miniature, -the one that appeared behind Walter Pidgeon in his quarters in the feature film. In profile, other than the engine nacelle tube lengths (too long) it is fairly good. However it is about 1/4 inch too wide (25% too wide) as the hull itself should be a 1 inch diameter tube at this length (about 13" overall.) I have "corrected" one of the more recent P.L. releases in this manner plus many other modifications to the sail, decking, front fins etc. to make it a truly accurate representation. When an unmodified P.L. model (which isn't quite as good as the Aurora in several areas) is compared along side the corrected version, the correct one seems a little thin or anemic. I'm therefore speculating that the tooling by Aurora was initially more accurate and upon examination of the first test shots, I can imagine the executives at Aurora said something like "Beef it up" to the toolmakers. There is evidence of this as the decking sides should extend beyond the hull diameter. If this was the case, and the toolmaker "went back in and re-engraved the hull sides deeper" as us toolmakers say, then the resulting ovoid shaped hull with original decking sides now too narrow appearing would result. This does indeed seem to be the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
Super 7 said:
I feel the Aurora Seaview's tooling initially started out to be a reasonably accurate model of the original Four foot miniature, -the one that appeared behind Walter Pidgeon in his quarters in the feature film. In profile, other than the engine nacelle tube lengths (too long) it is fairly good. However it is about 1/4 inch too wide (25% too wide) as the hull itself should be a 1 inch diameter tube at this length (about 13" overall.) I have "corrected" one of the more recent P.L. releases in this manner plus many other modifications to the sail, decking, front fins etc. to make it a truly accurate representation. When an unmodified P.L. model (which isn't quite as good as the Aurora in several areas) is compared along side the corrected version, the correct one seems a little thin or anemic. I'm therefore speculating that the tooling by Aurora was initially more accurate and upon examination of the first test shots, I can imagine the executives at Aurora said something like "Beef it up" to the toolmakers. There is evidence of this as the decking sides should extend beyond the hull diameter. If this was the case, and the toolmaker "went back in and re-engraved the hull sides deeper" as us toolmakers say, then the resulting ovoid shaped hull with original decking sides now too narrow appearing would result. This does indeed seem to be the case.
Did you want to see the Aurora blueprint of the Seaview? I've got a tiff file of it. It comes in at 33 megs. The prints state the scale of the model, that the hull is a 55 degree ellipse, and some other notations.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,661 Posts
Super 7 said:
I have "corrected" one of the more recent P.L. releases in this manner plus many other modifications to the sail, decking, front fins etc. to make it a truly accurate representation. When an unmodified P.L. model (which isn't quite as good as the Aurora in several areas) is compared along side the corrected version, the correct one seems a little thin or anemic. . . I'm therefore speculating that the tooling by Aurora was initially more accurate and upon examination of the first test shots, I can imagine the executives at Aurora said something like "Beef it up" to the toolmakers.
Most modelers agree there are three major inaccuracies in the Aurora/PL Seaview: (1) The nose profile is somewhat "squashed" front-to-back compared to the studio miniatures; (2) The sail profile is too rounded on top; (3) The rear lower fins project out from the exhaust tubes at a pronounced downward angle, where they should be nearly horizontal (for some reason, nearly all commercially produced Seaview models get this wrong). I never gave it that much thought but, now that you mention it, the hull diameter does seem a bit too wide — or else the sub is too short!

Would it be possible to post some pix of your accurized PL Seaview? And how is the stock PL kit not as good as the Aurora original? The PL was back-engineered from the Aurora kit, so dimensionally all the parts are exactly the same as the original. In fact, the PL repop is much cleaner (no flash, sinkholes, thick sprue gates to clean up) and has better parts fit.
There is evidence of this as the decking sides should extend beyond the hull diameter.
Are you saying the free-flooding deck structure should overhang the main hull on both sides? That can't be right, can it? Please clarify!

EDIT: Actually that's exactly what it does. It's easy to see on the filming miniatures. I was just having a hard time visualizing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,719 Posts
The Seaview has always been my very favorite "spaceship". I think from all angles she is just beautiful. The fact that she makes no sense at all is beside the point - who cares if you can't fit the diving bell/minisub bay behind the missle room or that the FS1 is in an entirely different scale. Or she was designed as ~404' long and is described as +600' in promo material (which would make the windows on the 4 window version very, very tall). You love her enough, that just makes it more fun trying to figure out how you can make it all work. Add ~3" to what should be a 2' model to make room for the mini-sub/cargo area and she looks just fine.
Anyway, I have never yet seen a plan of her that's close. Many are amazinly whacky, esp ones you have to pay money for. So I started a new thread with.... well, it explains itself. And I'm sure it'll cause more controversy than it'll settle. But, tough. Word of honor, those tracings are from a 1/2 reduction of Fox plans I have of the 4' minature, amendments as noted.
I'm sure the 4' didn't match the 8', and I'm sure the 8' didn't match the 16-18'. But they should be pretty darn close to one another.
I don't know if I can delete postings, attachments yet (I'm a newbie here) but in another month or so, I'm going to need the attachment space for another project, so if anyone wants to save these drawings to anywhere and re-share them with anyone, be my guest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
starseeker said:
Anyway, I have never yet seen a plan of her that's close. Many are amazinly whacky, esp ones you have to pay money for .
No kidding!

I've got a roll of plans sitting just a few feet away from me...cost me $40.00 and they aren't even good enough to use as toilet paper! I wouldn't insult my backside with such trash.

If you find my Big Spindrift thread, the reason I'm scratcbhuilding a Spindrift instead of a Seaview is because I couldn't get decent Seaview plans. The crap plans I found were, I'm guessing, drawn by Stevie Wonder.

You have a very valuable asset in those plans. You should find some way to both preserve them and have them converted into usable drawings. If a guy like me will pay $40.00 for the "soon to be garden mulch" plans I have, you can imagine that I'd gladly pay for REAL plans.
 

·
Curmudgeon
Joined
·
6,594 Posts
Considering the popularity and relative availability of the Seaview kit, I'm a bit surprised nobody has created an accurizing kit to replace the oversized periscope and radar detail on top of the sail, and/or a photoetch set to correct the horrible outer hatches on the sides of the sail. Or perhaps one photoetch set to correct both. I know these are relatively easy to scratchbuild; it just seems with all the accuracy/detail fanatics out there, this is one area of the kit that has been largely overlooked as far as aftermarket parts are concerned.

BTW, I agree Polar Lights missed an opportunity when they didn't include parts to build the TV version. How much extra could it have cost for an alternate set of bow windows, two radar bumps, and an in-scale flying sub? (He asked, knowing full well that nothing in the world of retail is that simple...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,979 Posts
Fortunately, I was able to get decent Spindrfit plans including small versions of the studio plans so I'm not too worried about the shape. Sure looks like you've got some real good stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,661 Posts
starseeker said:
The Seaview has always been my very favorite "spaceship". I think from all angles she is just beautiful. The fact that she makes no sense at all is beside the point - who cares if you can't fit the diving bell/minisub bay behind the missle room or that the FS1 is in an entirely different scale. . .
Or that she has way too many superfluous FINS! Like those 1960 Cadillac monsters on the tail, or the distinctive "manta ray" nose (which would wreak havoc with pitch control on a real sub). Who cares? The Seaview looked gorgeous in 1961 and she still looks gorgeous today!

How many human movie/TV stars can make that claim?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
The Aurora kit was likely taken from the studio-built model which was almost exactly the same size (it was about 12 inches long). Don't know where they got the idea that the hull was eliptical in cross section when the studio plans are clear about it being circular but it is probably because that little model was a somewhat loose interpretation.

I would be willing to bet that, barring repairs to damaged models like in the case of the 8-footer bow dive planes, you would find that the various scale models built by the studio are extremely consistent in shape (if not in minor details) as originally built. This is because of the methods used to make them, based on the elaborate contour drawings prepared by the Fox Art Dept. They may not be "wind tunnel" accurate but I bet they are so close that casual study when placed side-by-side would not reveal differences. Textural details attached later such as the decks with limber holes along the sides or the shape of the stern fins, may vary but the main hull itself is probably very consistent in contour from model to model (not counting the 12-incher, which appeared to have been eye-balled).
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top