Heinkel Model’s/Ron Miller Nautilus 1:75 scale Build

[jagolden01]

When I saw this on the Forum I just had to get it.
Love the antique/steampunk look of it, and the book and movie are so good.

First hings first, I want to shout out to a Forum and Facebook member who has built this submarine. He immediately contacted me and offered and sent me his very detailed notes on the trouble spots in the file and build. I won’t name him without permission but he know’s who he is. Again, thank you to him.

I wanted to get this thread started. I’m still just finishing up the Kanpfflieger Fokker - tomorrow should do it.

The scale of this Nautilus state 1:100. I’ve enlarged it to 1:75 scale. I’ve printed out all the parts sheets on 182 gm Epson Premium uncoated photo paper. There are seven pages of parts, if I counte$ correctly.

The supplied note aside, from the directions they leave out building and placement of a number of main pieces - will have to eye-ball them from the phones and drawings. I find those to be inexcusable omissions.

There will be much trimming and test fitting of parts while assembling and sanding down or building up of formers.
One thing that I really don’t care for is the circles for the round formers aren’t even true circles. They are made up of a series of straight lines joined to approximate a circle. That’s lazy design work or not using the proper software to create the drawings-amateurish. It also creates guesswork as to wher the actual cutting should be made.

None the less I am looking forward to building this sub, it’s just fascinating me!

[missileer]

I normally don't do this, but I have to jump in on this one. If you find problems with the building of a model, the nice thing to do is contact the designer and conversationally list the defects. And we all list the problems we encounter in our build threads. But there is never a reason the insult the designer. When you use terms like lazy and amateurish, think about how you would feel, if someone used those terms to describe your model build. Just saying.

[PAPER FAN]

If a ship like this were actually built in the time frame of the novel the plating for the hull sides actually wouldn't be curved on a vessel as large as this in 1870, they would be a series of flat plates riveted into place and sealed. Even welding in this period wouldn't be used.

The model looks to be a fun build, although I don't have one myself.

[jagolden01]

Originally Posted by missileer

I normally don't do this, but I have to jump in on this one. If you find problems with the building of a model, the nice thing to do is contact the designer and conversationally list the defects. And we all list the problems we encounter in our build threads. But there is never a reason the insult the designer. When you use terms like lazy and amateurish, think about how you would feel, if someone used those terms to describe your model build. Just saying.

These are not little things that need to be fixed, they are glaring problems. A commercial product should not have them.
Since someone at/for the publisher built the model (there are photos), that’s where/when the problems should have been reported and corrected.
The buyers should not be a test bed.
Not my job to instruct publishers on proper software or usage of it or to not leave parts placement to guesswork. That input is reserved for people trying to improve their skills.
If his had been a free model I would not call these things out as I did, but it’s not.
I’m not the only member here who will tell it like it is.

[Rubenandres77]

The designer of this kit, Heinkel111, is a member of this forum. He made a design thread in this same forum here (from 2011):
1:100 Jules Verne's Nautilus by Ron Miller
You can follow the design process as the author himself developed the kit.

Here at Papermodelers, and in the Spanish forum too, I remember reading discussions about the best way to approach the building of this kit. Apparently, people has had trouble in the past with the way parts were numbered, and with the instructions.

I've also seen this kit built, complete. So it is buildable after all.

Sadly, I don't own the kit and am in no position to talk about those details. But it certainly has been a topic already mentioned in the link above, and the designer is well aware of similar criticism that has been directed in the past.

Since we have Heinkel111 as member, you can reach him easily. A good idea would be to approach the designer directly and ask for help/clarification on those issues. No one better to answer them and to provide help than the man himself.

[jagolden01]

Originally Posted by Rubenandres77

The designer of this kit, Heinkel111, is a member of this forum. He made a design thread in this same forum here (from 2011):
1:100 Jules Verne's Nautilus by Ron Miller
You can follow the design process as the author himself developed the kit.

Here at Papermodelers, and in the Spanish forum too, I remember reading discussions about the best way to approach the building of this kit. Apparently, people has had trouble in the past with the way parts were numbered, and with the instructions.

I've also seen this kit built, complete. So it is buildable after all.

Sadly, I don't own the kit and am in no position to talk about those details. But it certainly has been a topic already mentioned in the link above, and the designer is well aware of similar criticism that has been directed in the past.

Since we have Heinkel111 as member, you can reach him easily. A good idea would be to approach the designer directly and ask for help/clarification on those issues. No one better to answer them and to provide help than the man himself.

I'd edit my original post to reduce the harshness to more reasonable observations but I can't see how to do that.

[Llaut Mallorquin]

Hi I have made 2 !!! on the same scale as you. One is for my nephew. It is very good cutout and everything fits perfectly, except for the G3a and G3b pieces which are a bit short. The holder serves to throw it away. I have designed this one that adjusting it to your scale fixes the keel of the boat so that it does not turn. Any questions you have, write me. Good luck and go ahead!
The radius of the holder's circumference arc, is identical to that of the two circumferences at the ends of the central piece

[jagolden01]

Originally Posted by Llaut Mallorquin

Hi I have made 2 !!! on the same scale as you. One is for my nephew. It is very good cutout and everything fits perfectly, except for the G3a and G3b pieces which are a bit short. The holder serves to throw it away. I have designed this one that adjusting it to your scale fixes the keel of the boat so that it does not turn. Any questions you have, write me. Good luck and go ahead!
The radius of the holder's circumference arc, is identical to that of the two circumferences at the ends of the central piece

Beautiful builds on both of those, and thank you for the advice and holder.
I may be taking you up on your offer of answering questions.

I just finished the Fokker plane I was building. Going to take a few days off from building. This will give me time to study all the model sheets more carefully and get a feel for it.

[jleslie48]

[heinkel111]

Originally Posted by jagolden01

When I saw this on the Forum I just had to get it.
Love the antique/steampunk look of it, and the book and movie are so good.

First hings first, I want to shout out to a Forum and Facebook member who has built this submarine. He immediately contacted me and offered and sent me his very detailed notes on the trouble spots in the file and build. I won’t name him without permission but he know’s who he is. Again, thank you to him.

I wanted to get this thread started. I’m still just finishing up the Kanpfflieger Fokker - tomorrow should do it.

The scale of this Nautilus state 1:100. I’ve enlarged it to 1:75 scale. I’ve printed out all the parts sheets on 182 gm Epson Premium uncoated photo paper. There are seven pages of parts, if I counte$ correctly.

The supplied note aside, from the directions they leave out building and placement of a number of main pieces - will have to eye-ball them from the phones and drawings. I find those to be inexcusable omissions.

There will be much trimming and test fitting of parts while assembling and sanding down or building up of formers.
One thing that I really don’t care for is the circles for the round formers aren’t even true circles. They are made up of a series of straight lines joined to approximate a circle. That’s lazy design work or not using the proper software to create the drawings-amateurish. It also creates guesswork as to wher the actual cutting should be made.

None the less I am looking forward to building this sub, it’s just fascinating me!

This design is 9 years old, it is one of my first designs and I did not handle 3D software well as now.It is not laziness, it is ignorance, ok?
I have to "clean" my first designs to correct this. But this does not harm the quality of the design, the formers are within the model.
In the design thread in this forum, the model is tested by several modelers. No one talks about poorly designed pieces, all conversations are about the difficulty of building with section formers, a very difficult Polish method that requires experience. I repeat EXPERIENCE.

Therefore, the model has been tested and approved in 2011! . I find it very funny that 9 years later a person tells me that a piece is poorly designed.

My designs are difficult to build and obviously not suitable for clumsy modelers.