A Modular Design - Good for suppliers and consumers....

[don prince]

I have been a Subcommittee member since 2001... I believe our hobby would be better served if we were to adopted standards for model design and construction. It would be more profitible for the suppliers, and a better product for the consumers.

We already have a scale classification; 1/96, 1/72, 1/48, 1/32, etc, and this is a good start. What about the internal components? If all the scale identified models were designed to accept any standard module such as; a WTC electronics module, a ballast module, and a power module. I think everyone can see where I'm heading with this line of thought.

The WTC would vary in size according to the scale and simply drop into place. Eack kit supplier's model would come with the standard mounting structure.

The Ballast system would be designed according to the scale requirements and their would be a choice of ballast systems; gas, pump, piston, etc. The consumer could then choose the system, and later upgrade to what ever he or she desires. It would simply be a "Plun N' Play" upgrade.

The drive systems could very widely from a standard motor and power amp, to the exotic brushless motors, or even jet pumps.

Just think of the possibilities? OTW's U-boat hull, Merriman's WTC, Manley's ballast system, Thor's drive system, and another vendors torpedo launching system, and all are designed to fit and work within that kit. The consumer would have the choice to build the best model within his or her means, and the suppliers would have more sales because our hobby would be expanding to a mass market.

The whole idea is to expand this hobby and grow our membership. I believe if it were easier for a new comer to get their first boat into the water and experience the hobby, then half our efforts in a membership drive are over.

I don't mean to put our vendors and the Subcommittee executives on the spot. However, this week a friend dropped by my home and left a few SCR's from the past. As I read the articles there seemed to be a greater degree af enthusiam about our hobby because it was new and exciting. I hope my suggestions can help expand "The Subcommittee" membership and start something new and exciting...

I don't believe it would be impossible for there to be an exectuive meeting and get input from the vendors to create these standards. I realize everybody has turf to protect, but think about the future. The Subcommittee is the only International group that would have the backing of it's members to get the job done.

Comments, or suggestions?

Regards,
Don_

[paul von braun]

I agree In principle. The

I agree In principle. The model railway fraternaty have their own standards, the NMRA standard (National Model Railway Assosciation, in the USA although the UK and the continental manufacturers also adhere to these standards for digital control systems). I feel that it would be excellent if the various hull manufacturers could agree to make the fitting of the following WTC sizes standard to their hulls]http://www.subcommittee.com/forum/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[wadester13]

Don,
First I would like

Don,
First I would like to say it is great that you got to sample some of our SCR's. There are many stories and information in them. I would like to ask you, would you be interested in a membership to read all the upcoming reports? With me being the new editor I would like your input. And I encourage you to submit an article so that everybody can see what you have done and the goods and bads you have been through of making a sub.

I have not built a kit sub, I like the scratch built. I am still in the process of building mine. And believe me there will be a story with this one!

As far as the vendors are concerned I'm not sure about the economics of it all but it would be nice if all the cars were like you explained.

Brian

[JWLaRue]

Brian,

I probably should have provided

Brian,

I probably should have provided a list of submitted, but unused articles for you! Don has already submitted an article on his experience-to-date on building his OTW Type VII. (You should be able to find it in the "unused articles" folder I sent to you! )

-Jeff

[wadester13]

I am sorry. Please forgive

I am sorry. Please forgive me. There is a lot of material here to go through.

Don I will look at your material and make a point to add it to the SCR.

My apologies.

Brian

[dietzer]

I agree In principle. The

I agree In principle. The model railway fraternaty have their own standards, the NMRA standard (National Model Railway Assosciation, in the USA although the UK and the continental manufacturers also adhere to these standards for digital control systems). I feel that it would be excellent if the various hull manufacturers could agree to make the fitting of the following WTC sizes standard to their hulls]http://www.subcommittee.com/forum/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I'm not sure what you're proposing is that simple...you also need a smaller range of WTC's than exist today if you want to do 1/96 and even some 1/72 scale subs.

For example, most WWII subs in 1/96 would need a 2" WTC (or smaller), and even with WWII subs there was great variation. For example, a Gato/Balao or I-19 would work with a 2" WTC, while the larger I-400 could handle a 3.5" or even 4" WTC in 1/96. But some of the smaller WWII subs could only use a 2" WTC in 1/72 scale, and may well be impossible or at least impractical to build in 1/96.

Also, even though the diameter of the WTC may be the same for some subs, this does not mean that the size of the ballast tank is the same, especially between modern subs and WWII subs. So the lengths of the ballast tanks will have to vary between certain sub classes, especially if they use the same diameter WTC but are at different scales.

I'm not saying what you're proposing is impossible -- just a bit more complicated. Setting fixed size WTC's by scale alone is not going to work for all sub classes, I'm afraid. But you can, I think, get a standard on the size of the WTC and ballast tanks by considering [I]both[\I] sub class [I]and[\I] scale.

Regards,

Carl

[paul von braun]

You can, I think, get

You can, I think, get a standard on the size of the WTC and ballast tanks by considering [I]both[\I] sub class [I]and[\I] scale.

Regards,

Carl

Carl,
you make a number of good points here and introduced a couple of concepts that I had not considered. I didn't mean that my ideas should be a definative list, but more of a starting point. If we all put our ideas into the pot then perhaps we will be able to come up with some excellent suggestions. I think your last point (see quote) is a really good idea, and perhaps we should work from that - refining the idea as we go.


Paul Brown.

[don prince]

Gentlemen,

The reason for my suggestion

Gentlemen,

The reason for my suggestion was that I figured there are too many partially finished sub kits of former members sitting on a garage or workshop shelf unfinished. Because building a working sub requires a great deal of time, money, and engineering skills. Everyone will lack, or be limited in, one of those resources. Any of these limitations creates a disheartened member who may go on to another hobby that doesn't make these demands. Believe me, I have been to this point many times during my attempt to build the OTW Type VIIc hull, and I'm a highly experienced and technical person. My profession for the past 41 years has been in the computer main frame support, PC design and support, and software support for Self Checkout systems, at the NCR Corporation.

Regards,
Don_

[Guest]

Gents,
Although I think this topic

Gents,
Although I think this topic may stimulate some valuable discussion, I think the vendors, manufacturers, parts suppliers and entrepreneurs have generally done a good job catering to a very limited but diverse group of sub modelers.
WTC's exist in many forms and shapes. Hulls are available. Complete hull kits are available. Model builders have built kits for newbies for a fee, or have helped them by giving free advice.
Many sub model cottage businesses have failed or are near extinction. I say, don't limit them.
Standardization will help major manufacturers make RTR products and off the shelf ARR(Almost Readt to Run) mass produced "toy model subs", if that is what you want.

I like to add a personality to my models, so I have to innovate. Personally, I don't have the skill to make a decent hull, so I buy ready made hulls. I don't have the knowledge to make electronic devices, so I buy them. I don't have a machine shop so I fabricate the parts I need by hand.
I guess what I'm saying is do what you want, and what you can. The "stuff" is out there.

Art

[dietzer]

Art raised some good points.

Perhaps

Art raised some good points.

Perhaps a better approach is to come up with a database of WTC and ballast tank sizes for various sub classes and scales that becomes part of the FAQ or something. In other words, not burden the vendors with this, but keep a running tab of what's been built by SubCommittee members to show people building new boats what the possible solutions are based on actual working examples (i.e., completed subs). Think of it as a list of reference designs that you could use to build the hull you want in the scale you want.

This may be of limited use for a scratch builder, but would help someone who buys a hull for which there is no active ballast hull kit available. This would include dynamic diving hull kits that have been converted by members to static operation.

Thoughts?

Carl

[petn7]

i like the idea of

i like the idea of a database for sub configurations.