AMP - Accurate Model Parts
1MC - Shipwide Announcements => AMP NEWS => Topic started by: dougie47 on 27 Jul , 2014, 06:41
-
Hello folks,
In the next two months we will be releasing a new PE set - AMP7202 1/72nd Type VIIC deck and floods set. Here is a photo of the test sheet -
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/AMP7202_photo_2.jpg)
It will be a 168 part set intended for the 1/72nd Revell VIIC U-boat kit.
This set has been designed over the course of several years. It has taken us so long because we have not relied upon any plans and we have not simply copied the Revell pattern. It was designed solely using period photos of real Type VIICs. Here is some information (copied directly from our instruction booklet) which provides info on the research and design -
Aftermarket sets have been previously released to replace the deck on Revell’s RV5015 Type VIIC U-boat kit. However, when we researched Type VIIC decks in detail we found numerous areas that could be further improved and corrected, both in the kit deck and the aftermarket alternatives.
With many hundreds of Type VIIC U-boats built, slight differences existed between the slots upon the decks of different VIICs. These slight variations in slot patterns ensure that it is impossible to design one drawing which covers every single boat. This set cannot, therefore, be entirely accurate with regard to the slot pattern of every single VIIC. This set does, however, correct the inaccuracies in the Revell deck (such as slot sizes and the position of hatches and details) and provide a much improved slot pattern. The set also includes many of the small deck details that are missing from the kit deck and aftermarket alternatives.
Although VIIB and VIIC deck plans do exist, we have found them to be inaccurate with regard to position and size of features. They cannot, in our opinion, be relied upon to design an accurate deck. At the time of the kit’s original release, a decade ago, we did not possess enough period photographs to design an entire VIIC deck using only photos. For this reason, and our reluctance to rely upon plans with accuracy issues, we were not in a position to design our own photo-etched brass deck. After years of collecting more period deck photos, it slowly became possible to cover every aspect of the VIIC deck, all the way from the metal section at the bow, through the main wooden deck (which ran on top of most of the boat), to the metal section at the stern. Even with hundreds of deck photos, and the studious use of a magnifying glass, it was only just possible to achieve this goal. Although we did refer to deck plans, the design of the AMP VIIC deck was completed using only period photos of Type VIIC decks.
As previously mentioned, a deck design which is perfect for all boats is precluded due to the slight variation in slot patterns between boats. However, other than the slot patterns, a deck design which is accurate with respect to every other feature does exist because of the nature of the slot-based wooden deck and the relative slot-to-feature system inherent in this design. An explanation of this is provided below.
On Type VIIC U-boats the wooden “slotted” deck was built with slots which allowed water to drain through the surfaces of the deck. As can be seen on the drawing below, adding wooden spacers in between wooden planks left a distinctive pattern of slots on the deck.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/slots_2.jpg)
This distinctive style of planks, spacers and slots was used on all U-boats in the immediate pre-war and early-war period. Therefore the decks of the Type IIs, Type VIIs (of all variants) and Type IXs built in this period all had this characteristic type of deck. Around the autumn of 1942 new U-boats were built with a simplified “planked” deck. This planked style was not retrofitted to existing boats so any VIIC launched before the autumn of 1942 retained their slotted deck until their demise.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/slots_1a.jpg)
On AMP set 72-01 we created a photo-etched Type IIA deck similar in style to the VIIC deck. With both sets it was imperative that we ascertained at the earliest opportunity the exact slot width and length, plus the distance between slots. The drawing below shows the important measurements.
After calculating the Type II and Type VIIC deck slot measurements independently, we found that each of the four measurements for A, B, C and D were exactly the same in both types of boat.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/slots_3.jpg)
Distance A is the main feature which is noticeably too large on the Revell plastic deck. Other distances on the Revell deck (and other aftermarket decks which copied the Revell deck measurements) were fractionally out with regard to B, C and D. For example, distance B (slot width + plank width) is slightly too large on the Revell kit. This can be evidenced just behind the cook’s hatch: on the plastic Revell deck, 21 slots fit across the deck, whereas on the AMP deck (and real boats) there is space for 23 slots to fit across the deck. This is an example of the cumulative effect of small inconsistencies having a noticeable effect upon slot patterns.
The reason that these measurements are important is because once accurate slots dimensions are ascertained the pattern of slots creates a grid. The size and position of all the deck details can be determined by their size and position relative to this grid. An example can be found below. Imagine we are looking at a photo which shows a hole in the deck next to a hatch and we wish to determine the exact position. We can determine the horizontal position because we can see that the centre of the hole is aligned with the left hand side of slot A. We can determine the vertical position because we can see that the hole lies midway between slots B and C.
On the AMP VIIC deck (and Type II deck in set 72-01) this relative slot-to-feature system was used to design every part of the deck.
By doing so the AMP deck has several original features or improvements, many of which have not featured in other sets –
· Correct slot sizes and distances between slots; this allowed the correct number of slots to be placed across the deck.
· The small round holes along the deck edges; these were used for the removable deck railings on the real boats.
· The incorporation of the extra “dashed” lines of slots on the deck on either side of the tower. As can be seen in Stage 1, these dashed lines were features of the early Germaniawerft VIIBs and VIICs (and can easily be filled in to model other VIICs).
· The anti-slip bumps on all the metal deck surfaces.
· All metal hatches are provided separately so that the slight gap around the hatch can be depicted on a completed model.
· The small openings used for the torpedo loading apparatus; this includes both the rectangular or circular holes in full-etch plus the surrounding surface detail in half-etch.
· Corrected placement of hatches, bollards and deck details.
· An air identification plate (with authentic placement offset to port) with bolt heads. We included the holes in the deck where the plate was attached to the deck in case the modeller wishes not to use the identification plate.
· A full set of strips – complete with anti-slip bumps - around the 88mm deck cannon and capstan.
· Improved pattern of slots around the 88mm deck cannon.
· Semi-circular holes on the wooden hatches on the aft deck.
· All the other deck details required to build an accurate deck.
Due to the desires expressed by fellow modellers, we included saddle tanks hatch covers and sacrificial anodes as a bonus. Another bonus is the one-piece wooden tower seat used on the railings at the rear of the tower on early Germaniawerft boats (including popular boats such as U 69, U 94, U 96 and U 201).
As soon as the first shots of Revell’s RV5015 Type VIIC U-boat kit became available online, it was evident that there were deficiencies in the free-flooding vents in certain areas of the hull. The first and most obvious problem is that some slots are produced as rectangles in the kit; unfortunately the real boats had oval slots. This was especially apparent in two main areas –
· Front floods - the group of vents just behind the forward dive planes
· Rear floods - the group of vents just ahead of the read dive planes
Our floods pieces K1 to K4 have the oval shapes.
Please note that there is a sizing issue with the front set of floods on the Revell kit. This has not been corrected in other PE sets but has been corrected in our 7202 set.
The set will come with a 20-page instruction booklet, 2 parts identification guides and one plan. As a bonus the first few production runs will come with a free brass nameplate -
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/AMP7202_nameplate_photo.jpg)
We estimate being ready to release this set in the next two months. Details about price will follow when it is released.
Cheers,
Dougie Martindale
Accurate Model Parts
-
i like the larger slots
-
:) This PE Set will be a great improvement to what is already out there.
Looking foward to it's availability.
Dan
-
Hello folks,
We now have our Type VIIC deck and floods set (AMP7202) in stock and can be ordered for €39.95 + €7.95 shipping. This can be found at -
http://amp.rokket.biz/am_type7set.shtml (http://amp.rokket.biz/am_type7set.shtml)
Cheers,
Dougie
-
Hi Dougie,
stunning piece of craftsmanship. Congratulations to you and your team. I admire the endurance and consistency to accomplish this PE set. Hope this set will find many purchaser.
Regards
Falo
-
I really wish i had gotten this AMP 1/72 VIIc brass PE deck set. I can see it is superior to the one i purchased.
-
Thank you for the kind words! Dougie always does a stunning job. It's his research and attention to detail. You could always sell your other one... :D
-
This is really a superb set. If only AMP would now offer a "Day Stretcher" so I could have more time!
Cheers,
Bill
-
ya, and a time machine, pretty much be perfect
-
Just bumping this, because i am very impressed with this product, not just the PE but also the instruction book is so very thorough that it identifies this as truly a quality product.
One of my biggest gripes about getting kit mods is usually not getting adequate instructions with them. That is not the case with AMP kits.
-
I bought this set and really love it, it is great fun to use it. The only issue I really had was with the front flood vents that are positioned just a little behind under the torpedo doors. I had to trim off the metal to be able to get a good fit. I eventually succeeded, but that may be something to look at. Adjusting the size a bit saves a lot of time when putting them on the model. For all else I really love this set:)
-
Dougie, while doing your research for the deck, did you work out that the large wooden pole featured on the port side of deck (stern) was for?
-
Hi Simon,
Nice to see you are working on the deck and hope your studies are going well.
If I am understanding you correctly then I think the pole on the port side was for hauling in ropes when docking the boat. On the slotted deck there were usually two poles on the aft deck; these were on their own with no wooden blocks on either side.
On the planked deck there was one pole on the port side. This was secured to the deck with the same fasteners as on the early decks. But what was different is that the planked decks had a series of wooden blocks on either side of the pole. I think the pattern varied between boats and yards.
Below can be seen the wooden blocks to the starboard side of the wooden pole. Note there are two blocks wiht a large gap in between. The red arrows show where these start and end.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/U985_2.jpg)
This one below shows the series of wooden block on the port side of the wooden pole. Note how there are loads of gaps.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/U963_1.jpg)
Below is a better quality image of an unknown boat. You can see how the wooden blocks had rounded edges and maybe yuo could estimate the height from this image.
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc118/dougie47/VIIC_danzig_com_6.jpg)
Cheers,
Dougie
-
Nice to see you are working on the deck and hope your studies are going well.
Yes, putting all me late war deck research into a 3-D model. I’m trying to build the deck based on measurements, not on photographs and plans. This has been very difficult as there are very few original German measurements I can find. I ended up using as many of the original German measurements I could find plus under the decking pipework, frame measurements and a MSExcel spreadsheet with all the original frame measurements and my predicted deck width and height measurements. I will make available the Excel spreadsheet to anybody who wants it shortly.
At the same time as building the deck I am modelling the deck framing. Yesterday I had an interesting moment with the deck framing, I suddenly remembered there a good picture of the deck framing in the book by E. Wetzel on U-995. On looking at this pictures I noted my modelled deck framing was almost identical to the wartime photograph :) (It was great recognition to know that I am building the deck correctly) I only had to change one little area of deck framing around one of the hatches that of the incorrect.
My studies are going good, been reading about dielectric permittivity of snow (the measure of resistance that is encountered when forming an electric field in a medium).
If I am understanding you correctly then I think the pole on the port side was for hauling in ropes when docking the boat. On the slotted deck there were usually two poles on the aft deck; these were on their own with no wooden blocks on either side.
On the planked deck there was one pole on the port side. This was secured to the deck with the same fasteners as on the early decks. But what was different is that the planked decks had a series of wooden blocks on either side of the pole. I think the pattern varied between boats and yards.
Thanks for the information, I will post my model soon. Do you think the pole was made of wood? I estimated the pole was about 5 m long, would wood be strong enough?
On the planked deck there was one pole on the port side. This was secured to the deck with the same fasteners as on the early decks. But what was different is that the planked decks had a series of wooden blocks on either side of the pole. I think the pattern varied between boats and yards.
Dougie, there an incredible amount of variation in the planked decks. The two key elements are plank width and date of construction. The plank width, would govern the width of some of the hatches and the date of construction would govern the material of the hatch, as metal hatches were being replaced by plain, simple, wooden hatches near the end of the war as metal became more scarce.
Yesterday I looking at a photo of U-250 and I could not see any gaps for the hatch for the aft reserve torpedo container, then I realise they had completely covered up the aft reserve torpedo container. Dougie, if you have time could you please have a look at your planked deck photo collection to see if this was a common practice for planked deck U-boats nearing the end of the war, thanks.
-
Hi Simon,
I would be happy to look through photos. I know where the big hatch was for loading torpedoes into the stern torpedo room. What I am not too sure on is exactly where the hatch for the aft reserve torpedo container was. Can you let me know?
When I tried to estimate the plank width and slot width on the slotted decks using loads of photos I came up with 75.2mm for plank width and 24.2mm for the slot width. They would have used whole numbers so my estimate for the slotted deck is a plank width of 75mm and a slot width of 25mm between planks. Can I ask what the exact plank width you have gone with is? Does the planked deck have completely different measurements, perhaps with a wider plank?
I've always thought of the pole being wood as there are two colour photos showing the pole being wooden in colour (not covered by black wood preservative). I suspect that on quite a few boats the pole on the deck was covered with the black wood preservative during refits. I suppose the pole could have been hollow metal on some boats depending on the materials at hand.
Cheers,
Dougie
-
When I tried to estimate the plank width and slot width on the slotted decks using loads of photos I came up with 75.2mm for plank width and 24.2mm for the slot width. They would have used whole numbers so my estimate for the slotted deck is a plank width of 75mm and a slot width of 25mm between planks. Can I ask what the exact plank width you have gone with is? Does the planked deck have completely different measurements, perhaps with a wider plank?
I estimated the plank width and slot width for the ‘Planked Deck U-boat’ as 100 mm and 10 mm.
I've always thought of the pole being wood as there are two colour photos showing the pole being wooden in colour (not covered by black wood preservative). I suspect that on quite a few boats the pole on the deck was covered with the black wood preservative during refits. I suppose the pole could have been hollow metal on some boats depending on the materials at hand.
Thanks, I will make my pole of wood :)
I would be happy to look through photos. I know where the big hatch was for loading torpedoes into the stern torpedo room. What I am not too sure on is exactly where the hatch for the aft reserve torpedo container was. Can you let me know?
It’s the long (5500 mm) hatch (Green) directly behind the loading torpedoes hatch (Red).
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5783/30496830261_d28bee8ebf_o.jpg)
-
Hi Simon,
I've had a look through my photos but unfortunately I can't tell if they covered up the aft container hatch. Annoyingly there are crewmen standing over this part of the deck and I can't see it properly. But I would guess you are right that the very late VIICs and VIIC/41s such as U 250 were buildwith no aft container hatch. There was no opportunity to change to spare torpedoes due to Allied air cover so this makes sense. Sorry I can't provide evidence for you.
In regard to the plank width I have looked at this for the first time tonight for the planked deck. You are right, there are differences. All the early boats with the planked deck had the same number of planks as the slotted deck (as mentioned my estimate is 100mm for the width of both the plank plus the space between). But the very late VIICs and VIIC/41s such as U 250 have fewer planks (with the planks themselves being wider). Here are some quick figures I noted down (these are the number of planks across the deck at various locations) -
Around the position where the 88mm would be - slotted (38 planks); early planked (38 planks); late planked (32 planks).
Around the ammo hatch directly behind the tower - slotted (26 planks); early planked (26 planks); late planked (22 planks).
Around the bollards on front deck - slotted (20 planks); early planked (20 planks); late planked (16 planks).
Around tripods on aft deck - slotted (20 planks); early planked (? planks); late planked (18 planks).
This isn't a proper study but enough to think that there were at least two different plank widths on planked decks. The first would be the same number of planks as on the slotted deck. The second would be on much later boats such as U 250 which had wider planks (and so fewer planks were needed).
At a very quick guess I'm thinking that on the very late boats such as U 250 the width of both the plank and the space between the plank added up to 120mm (since 38 / 32 = nearly 1.2). I haven't really looked at what the breakdown would be, perhaps 100mm for the plank and 20mm for the space (?) but I haven't tried to estimate this properly. However, your estimate of 100mm and 10mm might well be right and better than my own quick look at the matter.
Cheers,
Dougie
-
In regard to the plank width I have looked at this for the first time tonight for the planked deck. You are right, there are differences. All the early boats with the planked deck had the same number of planks as the slotted deck (as mentioned my estimate is 100mm for the width of both the plank plus the space between). But the very late VIICs and VIIC/41s such as U 250 have fewer planks (with the planks themselves being wider). Here are some quick figures I noted down (these are the number of planks across the deck at various locations) -
Around the position where the 88mm would be - slotted (38 planks); early planked (38 planks); late planked (32 planks).
Around the ammo hatch directly behind the tower - slotted (26 planks); early planked (26 planks); late planked (22 planks).
Around the bollards on front deck - slotted (20 planks); early planked (20 planks); late planked (16 planks).
Around tripods on aft deck - slotted (20 planks); early planked (? planks); late planked (18 planks).
This isn't a proper study but enough to think that there were at least two different plank widths on planked decks. The first would be the same number of planks as on the slotted deck. The second would be on much later boats such as U 250 which had wider planks (and so fewer planks were needed).
At a very quick guess I'm thinking that on the very late boats such as U 250 the width of both the plank and the space between the plank added up to 120mm (since 38 / 32 = nearly 1.2). I haven't really looked at what the breakdown would be, perhaps 100mm for the plank and 20mm for the space (?) but I haven't tried to estimate this properly. However, your estimate of 100mm and 10mm might well be right and better than my own quick look at the matter.
I realised very early on there was variation in the planks width in the late planked boats. My gut feeling is the boatyards were using whatever they could get hold off during the end of the war. Therefore, I believe there’s variation, but with a tendency to have wider planks nearing the end of the war. I chosen 10 mm over 20 mm as I initially thought it look too large of a gap between the board’s. But now after relooking at a late boats I believe 20 mm is more correct than the 10 mm gap.
I believe U-826 (Launched 9 Mar 1944) had 100 mm / 20 mm and U-1020 (Launched 22 Mar 1944) had 80 mm / 20 mm. This is the variation in the planks wide cause by boatyards get hold off any size timber near the end of the war.
I going to redo all my wooden deck with the 20 mm gap, is will take me about +20 hours to fixes :'(
I've had a look through my photos but unfortunately I can't tell if they covered up the aft container hatch. Annoyingly there are crewmen standing over this part of the deck and I can't see it properly. But I would guess you are right that the very late VIICs and VIIC/41s such as U 250 were buildwith no aft container hatch. There was no opportunity to change to spare torpedoes due to Allied air cover so this makes sense. Sorry I can't provide evidence for you.
I had the same problems in a few of my photo's also. :D
-
I going to redo all my wooden deck with the 20 mm gap, is will take me about +20 hours to fixes :'(
Some early modelling with the 20 mm gap look great :)
-
Hi Simon,
That's great, hope the deck design goes well.
Cheers,
Dougie
-
From Upgrade set 72-02 1/72nd scale Type VIIC U-Boat Deck & Floods Set Instruction booklet, page 5 "His drawings of the saddle tank hatch covers also proved useful during the design of our hatches. The size of our hatches coincides with Simon’s design, while the locations of our various hatches are very close to his design."
Hi Dougie,
I think you were talking about the position of Hatch ‘I1’ (page 16). You were correct, I had miss place this hatch :o It should be location 500 mm aft.
Simon
-
Hi Simon,
Thanks for your help with the hatches, much appreciated.
Cheers,
Dougie
-
I've had a look through my photos but unfortunately I can't tell if they covered up the aft container hatch. Annoyingly there are crewmen standing over this part of the deck and I can't see it properly. But I would guess you are right that the very late VIICs and VIIC/41s such as U 250 were buildwith no aft container hatch. There was no opportunity to change to spare torpedoes due to Allied air cover so this makes sense. Sorry I can't provide evidence for you.
Dougie, we know that on U-250 had no aft reserve torpedo container hatches, but I just noted it has the bow reserve torpedo container hatches ::)
-
Hi Simon,
The photos won't be telling lies and provide evidence to support your drawings. Could the bow hatch have been retained but used for a different purpose?
Cheers,
Dougie
-
Dougie, do you own Wolfpack: U-Boats at War, 1939-1945 by Philip Kaplan & Jack Currie?
There a very clear photo on page 216 & 217 of the reset for the large deck pole on the stern. It very clearly show the half around shape on the pole ('D2' on page 12 - Upgrade set 72-02 1/72nd scale Type VIIC U-Boat Deck & Floods Set Instruction booklet) being made of wood and not part of the pole in anyway. Its look like it just a stopping to stop the pole sliding forword.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91hO4dhrcUL.jpg)