Talk:USOS Seaview

I would very much like to see a reference for this statement:

Ironically, the US Navy was so impressed with the idea of a flying submarine that they actually conducted wind tunnel tests on a miniature identical to the one from Voyage, but obviously the project didn't go much further than that.

I'd also like to know why it is ironic, but that's not quite some important. ➥the Epopt 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Models

The end sentence of the article says that the largest of the original models ended up at the Los Angeles (if spelling mistake is really one) Planet Hollywood. Problem is, there is no Planet Hollywood in LA, and if the wiki article is reliable, there never even was one that closed. so just what did happen to it, and if it still exists, where did it end up? --Svartalf 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad design

While the Seaview may look cool, it's actually very poor handling. This guy built a 57" long radio controlled replica of the submarine. http://www.culttvman.com/david_merriman_s_57__seaview_p16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

USS George Washington (SSBN 598)

I have deleted the lines about Seaview resembling USS George Washington (SSBN 598), for the following reasons:

Seaview's control room was large and spacious. Washington's was cramped, according to a Life magazine cover story in 1963 ("Polaris Sub Prowls the Sea," by Robert Brigham, photographs by Paul Schutzer. Life, Vol. 54, No. 12, March 22 1963, photo-caption on page 24.)
Washington's missile compartment was higher than the rest of the hull and it was almost squared off at the top. The lines of Seaview's hull continued uninterrupted past the missile compartment.
Washington had an Albacore hull fore and aft of the missile compartment. Seaview did not.
Please see U.S. Ballistic Missile Subs in Action, by Al Adcock (Warships Number 6, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1993, Carrollton, Texas), for photos and drawings of USS George Washington and its sister ships.

USS George Washington began the first deterrent patrol with Polaris missiles in 1960, the year before the film Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea was released. So Washington may have inspired Seaview's armament of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.SWMSEMFEM2 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refit and the The Flying Sub

Did anyone in the series ever say that Seaview was overhauled and re-fitted between the 1st and 2nd seasons? If not, what is the source for the 1st line in the section "Refit and the The Flying Sub"?SWMSEMFEM2 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion System and Speed

I wrote in the article, "USS Triton (SSRN-586), the real-life submarine whose hull Seaview most nearly resembles, was slower when submerged than on the surface." In the series, there are many shots of Seaview running on the surface with the bow higher than the stern, and water splashing at the bottom of the bow. But there are also a few shots of her running on the surface and properly trimmed fore and aft - that is, the bow and stern are level. In these shots, the water flows up and over the bow, similar to a sub with an Albacore hull. See the photo in the article USS Skipjack (SSN 585) to see what I mean. So perhaps Seaview was faster submerged than on the surface. I will add this to the article when I can cite specific episodes with such shots.FFPC161260 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - it was Ftfrk61 who first wrote that USS Triton (SSRN-586) was slower when submerged than on the surface, on 29 August 2009.FFPC161260 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USOS Seaview (film) and S.S.R.N. Seaview (series)

The name of the article is "USOS Seaview." It should be "USOS Seaview/S.S.R.N. Seaview" to reflect the difference between the film and the series. I can't figure out how to change it. Would someone who does know please make the change?SWMSEMFEM2 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]