USOS SEAVIEW - Ship Of The Week #9 1/16/15

[Redfern]

I will say this. That sub cruises like a mutha' in the swimming pool!

A built the Aurora kit a few times over the years. Around 1973 to '74, I would take one of the models I assembled to the community pool for the apartment complex where I lived. Immersing it into the water and making sure all air was dispelled, I'd give it a gentle tap upon the stern. All those silly fins (the manta ray shapes at the bow, the diving planes upon the "sail", the "Chevy" fins aft...) made the craft "fly" straight as an arrow! Of course, like the "sun dive" stunt ship mentioned in "HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy", it may have swum like a fish, but it steered like a cow. But as a kid, you didn't care about practicalities like that. It just looked d*mned cool!

Sincerely,

Bill

My brother! I did that all the time in our swimming pool.
And the Aurora Flying Sub did a nice "falling leaf" maneuver when it sank.

I should clarify my buddy Kyle and I would immerse the Seaview model during the warm months when the pool was "open" to the residents. After all, though it cruised relatively straight, the plastic did make it ever so slightly heavier than the equal volume of water, meaning the sub would gently settle to the bottom of the sea, uh, pool after cruising several meters. That meant we had to be in the water to retrieve it.

A variation on this activity was to swim under the model to get an underside view and start expelling some air from our lungs, recreating a particular maelstrom shot from the series as the craft was caught in churning froth of bubble, rocking back and forth.

Kyle and I also tried "cruising" assembled kits based upon some real world designs. While the real subs obviously worked, their kit counterparts, not so much. We'd immerse them, shake all trapped air from the interior and give them a tap. Bloody things carreened in bizarre corkscrew paths like drunken dolphins! So, being the kids we were, ignorant of concepts like fluid dynamics, the mind boggling pressures water generates, etc., we assumed the Seaview was the superior design and wondered why real subs were not built like it.

Ah, the innocence (read: ignorance) of youth.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, the Seaview has sentimental value to many? Neat!

 

[scotpens]

I've always liked the Seaview. Sure, it's totally impractical, but it's sleek and gorgeous. It's what a submarine should look like. I also much prefer the original, eight-window nose to the revised four-window version (the filming miniatures were modified to accommodate the Flying Sub hangar for the second season).

Trivia note: In the 1961 feature film, the submarine was designated "USOS" Seaview (United States Oceanographic Submarine?), but in the TV series it was referred to as "SSRN" Seaview (the "R" presumably standing for "Research") which is more in keeping with standard naval classification.

 

[J.T.B.]

I expect a lot of Meh votes with this one. She always looked to me like a submarine designed by Cadillac in the fifties.

Cadillac would probably do a better design; Seaview strikes me more like American Motors.

The movie was OK (though ridiculous), but the series never connected for me, so, yeah, meh.

 

[Admiral2]

I've always liked the Seaview. Sure, it's totally impractical, but it's sleek and gorgeous. It's what a submarine should look like. I also much prefer the original, eight-window nose to the revised four-window version (the filming miniatures were modified to accommodate the Flying Sub hangar for the second season).

Trivia note: In the 1961 feature film, the submarine was designated "USOS" Seaview (United States Oceanographic Submarine?), but in the TV series it was referred to as "SSRN" Seaview (the "R" presumably standing for "Research") which is more in keeping with standard naval classification.

Except, naval classifications (SSN, CVN, DDG, etc.) are usually used as suffixes to ship names, by which standard "SSRN Seaview" is technically wrong. Prefixes (USS, USNS, USCGC) are used to establish ownership. That's why I used the movie version for the thread name.

If we want to be really anal about it, her full name should read "USOS Seaview (SSRN-1)."

 

[J.T.B.]

Trivia note: In the 1961 feature film, the submarine was designated "USOS" Seaview (United States Oceanographic Submarine?), but in the TV series it was referred to as "SSRN" Seaview (the "R" presumably standing for "Research") which is more in keeping with standard naval classification.

Interesting, since there had already been a famous real SSRN (nuclear radar picket submarine), USS Triton, which had circumnavigated the globe, underwater, in 1960.

 

[scotpens]

I've always liked the Seaview. Sure, it's totally impractical, but it's sleek and gorgeous. It's what a submarine should look like. I also much prefer the original, eight-window nose to the revised four-window version (the filming miniatures were modified to accommodate the Flying Sub hangar for the second season).

Trivia note: In the 1961 feature film, the submarine was designated "USOS" Seaview (United States Oceanographic Submarine?), but in the TV series it was referred to as "SSRN" Seaview (the "R" presumably standing for "Research") which is more in keeping with standard naval classification.

Except, naval classifications (SSN, CVN, DDG, etc.) are usually used as suffixes to ship names, by which standard "SSRN Seaview" is technically wrong. Prefixes (USS, USNS, USCGC) are used to establish ownership. That's why I used the movie version for the thread name.

If we want to be really anal about it, her full name should read "USOS Seaview (SSRN-1)."

I swim corrected.

 

[Forbin]

In prep for the supposed blizzard last night, we filled the tub with extra water. And I set my Aurora flying sub in it.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

It's a cool set, but they got Seaview's back end wrong, one propulsor instead of two water jets. Did that ever bother you, RDR?

You are correct, Admiral2! The single vertical fin rather than the pair of 'Cadillac' fins, was another anomaly. I must have gotten used to the toy's color early on, though, because I don't remember that bothering me as a kid (despite the color of the toy, the crew of the Seaview did not "All live in a Yellow Submarine!").

I wish the toy was in better condition today, but sailing through the sand box took for all those hours took its toll. I am glad, however, that I got so much good use and enjoyment out of it. I don't regret taking it out of its protective packaging!

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I always wondered why toy makers so often got details wrong on toys like these especially when it came to colors. When I was little my best friend had a Space: 1999 Eagle made by Dinky. It was a horrible greenish color that didn't look like the ships from the show. I always preferred my Mattel Eagle which was at least a little closer to the eagles on the show. I still have it.

 

[Admiral2]

You know what gave me insight into that? Bayformers.

Think about it: can you imagine how expensive modern Transformers would be to buy if they transformed exactly how they did in the Bayformers movies? Heck, the G1's were expensive enough back in the day.

It may be the level of detail depends entirely on the market you're trying to reach. A super-detailed Seaview might be less easy to mass produce for a bunch of crumb-crunchers than a close but no cigar version. You just end up having to pay more for a better copy.

 

[publiusr]

Think about it: can you imagine how expensive modern Transformers would be to buy if they transformed exactly how they did in the Bayformers movies?

They actually have that--it's called the Webb space telescope..only it has even more moving parts.

You just end up having to pay more for a better copy.

It doesn't have to be that way. Takes this beauty for example
http://www.disneystore.com/vehicles...estroyer-die-cast-vehicle/mp/1364606/1000268/

 

[Admiral2]

Think about it: can you imagine how expensive modern Transformers would be to buy if they transformed exactly how they did in the Bayformers movies?

They actually have that--it's called the Webb space telescope..only it has even more moving parts.

You just end up having to pay more for a better copy.

It doesn't have to be that way. Takes this beauty for example
http://www.disneystore.com/vehicles...estroyer-die-cast-vehicle/mp/1364606/1000268/

Huh...leave it to Disney to put out decent Star Wars toys...

 

[Warped9]

Many, many years ago I visited the Totonto Boat Show. In one hall they had a large pool/tank to display RC boats in action. One fellow had this rather large Seaview model that he cruised around the tank. It did everything above and below the surface and it was freaking awesome.

It worked exactly as one imagined the real thing would. It was very, very cool.