Calling all USS Nautilus SSN-571 fans

[T. Dougherty]

If you want to do research, then you should check this first as to the rules:
http://ussnautilus.org/library/libraryuse.shtml

Wendy Gulley is the Senior Archivist, and a huge help to researchers. That said, I don't know whether they will have that kind of information on the Nautilus, even though it is the museum ship.

[571Nautilus]

Yup, I'm familiar with the rules. I was there a few years ago looking up stuff on early fleet boats.

Neat place.

[Gator52]

I recently got the Micro Mir kit and was looking for any additional opinions/clarifications on the paint for the approximate timeframe of the Polar cruises...so far it looks like red lower hull, med/dk gray upper hull & sail, & black decks...? If that's accurate, what gray would you recommend?

Thanks

Jonah

[Tom Dougherty]

Depends on your time frame. Nautilus went to sea with medium gray and black lower hull. It was later that she was repainted in black, red lower hull and refitted with a new stern and 7 bladed propellers. I seem to recall that the MicroMir kit is for her original North Pole expedition, with the upper deck sonar outfitted. She should be gray with black lower hull and with the original 5 bladed propellers. See this R/C Nautilus for some guidelines on paint (lower part of the page) http://subcommittee.com/forum/showthrea ... tion/page3 and this build of the MicroMir Nautilus, also in Polar cruise configuration (with gray above and black below the waterline). viewtopic.php?f=59&t=155502

Note that the MicroMir kit does not feature the prominent under bow bulge to house the BQR-4 passive sonar. This sonar was useless above 8 knots due to self-noise from the submarine. It was moved up to the top of the bow on Seawolf (SSN 575).

You can see the BQR-4 installation here: http://navsource.org/archives/08/571/0857133.jpg and here: http://imgur.com/9QIo0gu
Some more bow shots from an R/C model project on 571 by Matt Thor:

http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 3.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 4.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 3.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 8.jpg.html

[Gator52]

Thanks for the info Tom, definitely helpful!

Jonah

[Vepr157]

Note that the MicroMir kit does not feature the prominent under bow bulge to house the BQR-4 passive sonar.

Actually, it does (excuse the current crappy paint):

http://i.imgur.com/8Fr9RXR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QVpbELv.jpg

[Tom Dougherty]

Yes it does! Subtle, but then so is the original bow sonar. The front angle is convincing, thanks.

[Ed Kotapish]

Hi,

Can anybody confirm that the Nautilus is 324ft long and 334in (27.8ft) of beam? I see differing info on both dimensions.

Thank you in advance,

Ed

[Vepr157]

Hi,

Can anybody confirm that the Nautilus is 324ft long and 334in (27.8ft) of beam? I see differing info on both dimensions.

Thank you in advance,

Ed

Friedman says 323' 8.5" and 27' 8" in US Submarines since 1945, which is a pretty reputable source.

[Guest]

Much appreciated! Now all I have to do is figure out the hull shape with 11 sections and a load of photos!!!!!

Ed

[Tom Dougherty]

I have a very large (3 feet in length, 2 feet wide), complete set of half hull sections with probably 30-40 stations represented, as well as side, top & bottom views (including flood ports for ballast tanks). These were drawn by Jim Christly employing the original ship set of plans now at the Submarine Force Museum & Library in Groton, CT The overall hull shape is correct, as far as I can tell. Length is listed as 319' 6" and 27' 6" beam.

I have no idea how to reproduce something as large as the 3 sheets of drawings.

[Tom Dougherty]

Much appreciated! Now all I have to do is figure out the hull shape with 11 sections and a load of photos!!!!!

Ed

I received your email via the website requesting the drawings, but there is no direct reply link to you in the email. There are no email or PM buttons below your post above.

I have had made at Staples full size copies of the three Jim Christley Nautilus drawings (made at Groton from the original SSN 571 Nautilus plan sets; including roughly 40-50 hull cross sections) and have a mailing tube to send them to you. However, what I don't have is your email address, or your name and mail address. Your email to me was devoid of all of these details.

[EKotapish]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for going ahead and printing the plans. I've checked my settings and it looks like I am set up to show profile, private message, etc. And it appears to be working now.

Ed

[Tom Dougherty]

Ed,
The three large plan sheets are in the mailing tube, all addressed and ready to go. I will go to the Post Office on Saturday morning to mail the tube, so you should see these sometime the middle of next week.

Tom

[EKotapish]

Thanks again Tom!

The money is headed your way.

Ed

[Van Hagen]

Last week I bought a large model of the SSN 571. It is around 150 cm long and I would like to share some photos with you guys as I don't know anything about that model. Maybe you have some infos on this. Is it a regular model set or one of a kind� Thank you.

[Tom Dougherty]

We would need some more photos from several angles to really judge accuracy. I can't tell whether it is photographic distortion, but the bow shape at the extreme left looks ....slightly weird; see: http://navsource.org/archives/08/571/0857161.jpg for bow shape on the real thing. Also, the sail appears to have a forward edge sweep back. Nautilus has no leading edge sail sweep (see: http://navsource.org/archives/08/571/0857124.jpg ). If you zoom in on this photo, it gives you a good side view of Nautilus sail and bow (http://navsource.org/archives/08/571/0857117a.jpg ).

One of the earliest Revell Nautilus models had, among other inaccuracies, a swept forward edge on the sail. That could be the source of this feature.

[CC Clarke]

"Note that the MicroMir kit does not feature the prominent under bow bulge to house the BQR-4 passive sonar. This sonar was useless above 8 knots due to self-noise from the submarine. It was moved up to the top of the bow on Seawolf (SSN 575).

You can see the BQR-4 installation here: http://navsource.org/archives/08/571/0857133.jpg and here: http://imgur.com/9QIo0gu
Some more bow shots from an R/C model project on 571 by Matt Thor:

http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 3.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 4.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 3.jpg.html
http://s264.photobucket.com/user/mdthor ... 8.jpg.html"

The lower chin mount dome you're referring to is for the AN/BQR-2, installed on both the Nautilus and Seawolf. The BQR-2 had 48 phones in a circular array, which even though it was circular and hung level with the keel, still had about a 60 degree baffle area. The BQR-4 was also installed on both boats; it had 58 hydrophones in a conformal array which was housed inside the superstructure above the torpedo room. The BQR-4 had a lower frequency response than the BQR-2, so it was the primary passive long range search sonar when conducting narrowband searches. It was basically an upgraded German WWII design, with 58 tube-based pre-amps mounted in little trays in the upper section of the (single) console. The compensator switch (which connects the hydrophones to the audio processing circuits) was manual - the steering wheel had the comp switch attached directly to it, whereas the BQR-2 was electrically turned and housed in a cabinet in another compartment. Very simple and effective system, though an antique even in the early 70's.

The analog BQR-2 was later replaced by the digital BQR-21, (built by Honeywell in West Covina) which used virtually the same style 48-phone circular array. All of the old boomers got it --except for the 598 class.

As a projects boat, the Seawolf had its BQR-2 upgraded to the 21 during its final overhaul. Likewise, Parche had one mounted above the engine room. It was a great little system; easy to operate, decent digital trackers, and very reliable. If it did fail, it was easy to troubleshoot, unlike the BQR-2 which required a heavy background in synchro theory. Nautilus also carried the BQS-4 active sonar, with it's 'ducer mounted in the chin mount. The BQS-4 was part of the BQR-2 suite. In the case of the Seawolf, in her final configuration, she had a surface ship SQS-51 active sonar (mounted upside down because of the active beam lobe offset) in a topside dome mounted on the bow. Like the BQS-4, it was basically useless unless you wanted to give away your position. It was ALWAYS tagged out with the transmitter cabinet fuses removed prior to a mission.

The BQH-2E was installed on both Nautilus and Seawolf. It was a single-channel LOFAR gram display/processor. Pretty grim compared to the 3-foot wide BQQ-3 Gram-makers the big-boy SSNs' carried, but the ozone output caused by the stylus burning the paper on each update pass was considerably less on the BQH-2. And sometimes, less is good! (Hey, it was bad enough being trapped in a space the size of a master closet with a watch section of chain-smokers for six hours at a stretch!)

I live in CT and always enjoy taking friends and family aboard the Nautilus for tours, especially for a peek inside the sonar shack.

CCC

[Tom Dougherty]

Thanks for posting this information! Always great to hear from someone who has first hand knowledge.
I used to live in Cheshire, CT, then in Montville, CT. Glastonbury is a bit of a haul down Rt.2 to Groton.

[Vepr157]

Interesting info!

You've got the positions backward on the Nautilus' sonar. The BQR-4 array was below the torpedo tubes and the SQS-4 active sonar (not BQS-4) was above the torpedo tubes. This was due to a rather unnecessary requirement to be able to use the passive array while surfaced. For the Seawolf, this requirement was lifted and the BQR-4 was moved to the top of the bow, which made the bow drier while surfaced and slightly increased surfaced speed. I think the SQS-4 was below the torpedo tubes, but I'm not sure. There definitely wasn't a separate keel dome when she was launched. The Seawolf also had a BQR-3 (modernized JT) dome early on, which I'm guessing was replaced by an SQS-51 as you mention. The Nautilus appears to have had a BQR-3 dome topside for a short time.

I have seen models of the Seawolf in her special projects phase that show a small dome added to the keel, which I assume is a BQR-2. I'm curious why the Parche would need the BQR-2 if she already had the BQR-7 and the spherical array. Any idea?

Jacob