Author Topic: Ouch another U-552 (Read 10601 times)

Trierarch · « **on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 11:38 »

Hello everyone,

First let me introduce myself as I am novice on this forum.

My name is Jean-Luc, I am 45 years old, French, and I live presently in Germany close from Luxembourg. I have lived already on quite a few different countries on our small planet for professional reasons.

My interest in modeling goes back to when I was 6 years old and my mother had offered me a new toy to try to keep me quiet, a 1:72nd Airfix Buffalo in a bag! Wow what an idea! Needless to say it was the beginning of something big for me (otherwise I wouldn

NZSnowman · « **Reply #1 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 12:29 »

Welcome aboard. I am sure that we will be able to found the answers to all of your questions. I have found this forum a great bowl of information, and its only seen to get better, with each new member that joins. I wish you all the best with U-552.

Simon

dougie47 · « **Reply #2 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 12:58 »

Hi Jean-luc,

Welcome to the AMP forum, I hope you enjoy being here. U 552 definitely did not have the netcutter and the wind deflector at the same time, I'm afraid.

U 69 and U 96 were some of the very few boats which had the netcutter and wind deflector at the same time.

The best of luck with your U 552.

Cheers,

Dougie

Siara · « **Reply #3 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 15:12 »

You finally made it here Jean-Luc!

I tald you all your questions will get answered, we have such wide array of experts here it just couldnt be different.
Hope you enjoy your stay, and good luck with the build- im looking forward to another U-552.

Trierarch · « **Reply #4 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 16:26 »

Hello,

Thank you for your prompt answer.

I have already made too many modifications to the hull to change it into another boat. I am pretty close to gluing both sides together, so I will have to live with it and thus go for an earlier version of U-552.

It will be too long to list all the modifications there, so I post a few pictures this way you can tell me if you think I did something wrong so far.

One thing I did too was to modify the front dive planes locations by advancing them by 5.12mm. In the plans that I have, and on the photos that I looked at, the front support was located just under the UT system. I also added the kind of metal plate reinforcement around it.

Keep in mind that I still have quite a bit of sanding to do to make things better.

Cordially,

Trierarch · « **Reply #5 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 16:36 »

Quote from: Siara on 07 Feb , 2009, 15:12

You finally made it here Jean-Luc!
I tald you all your questions will get answered, we have such wide array of experts here it just couldnt be different.
Hope you enjoy your stay, and good luck with the build- im looking forward to another U-552.

Yes I wrote directly to Wink, a great guy, and apparently they had a kind of bug on the program. He solved it very quickly. You were right about the question I asked, but I followed your advice and asked here for confirmation. The answer came faster as the blitzkrieg itself. Very impressive.

While I am here talking to you, if I can give you a little advice. With the paint you bought for your figures, you do not need to prime them. It is surprising, but all the new Spanish champs in this category don't!!! even on metal... It was hard for me of the old school to try it, but it does work even better. I just give you that hint in order for you to save time, as we are all dying to see your next pictures.

Trierarch · « **Reply #6 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 16:41 »

Other shots

By the way if someone knows a better technique to post as the one I am using, please let me know.

Trierarch · « **Reply #7 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 16:48 »

Anchor well and anchor modification. They are not completely finished yet, but well under way.

For the anchor, I took the original that I down sized a little, and re-sculpted almost entirely.

Trierarch · « **Reply #8 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 16:51 »

Ship rear bottom view

Siara · « **Reply #9 on:** 07 Feb , 2009, 19:33 »

I like what you doing here Jean-Luc. Good start.
Only reservations are about position of the bow dive planes supports. I just imagine the anchor droping straight on top of it. Are you sure the position is right? BTW- i like the reinforcing plate around the support- nice touch.

Mr.Mox · « **Reply #10 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 01:12 »

Welcome Jean-Luc, a good beginning, and it looks like you have take care of all the kits inaccuracys.

I would give et a light coat with primer at this stage, as it makes it much easyer to spot the places that needs extra attention.

Cheers/Jan

Trierarch · « **Reply #11 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 02:48 »

Hello Siarra,

Thank you for your interesting comments coming from an expert eye, and for the compliment.

I will try to explain my choices so you can tell me what you think.

Bow dive planes:

The problem here once again is a matter of choice. The model is wrong, that is evident.

I join you one of the plans that I have, but all of them show the same, that is the front support starts under the UT.

Once again we need to compromise; I took as a starting point the road supporting the dive planes (Black and White squares in a circle) on the plan. They are located as on the photos at the first intersection of the bottom flood holes. From that point I measured and modified the whole thing.

At that time I did not realize that the flood hole pattern in metal, also a big improvement, is faulty too. It biggest drawback is the angle of the grids that forced me to change the angle and the length of the riveted reinforcement passing through it.

What I should have done was maybe is to start from the front and work backward, this way I would be 1 or 2 mm safer in the front, but then wrong in the back!!!

Anyway what you see in the photo is just the base of the support, the support has a very strong angle at that point and it just leaves 1mm extra for the anchor to drop safely. But I wouldn

Siara · « **Reply #12 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 03:23 »

You are right about compromising here, and there. One question is- how accurate are the plans. During my build i came accross some plans that are simply loughable. Having 3 different plans, and 3 different looking detail layout, it came to common sence.
I just compared the pictures- if available, and guessed- most times with good results- where the detail should be, and how it looked like.
Heres my effort at the dive planes- without the support plate:

By your plans- the Unterwasser Telefunken should be moved slightly back- on top of the central line of the dive plane support.
It realy isnt that noticeable, especially with the GHG array drawing the eye of the person watching the model.
The main thing is now the crew can drop the anchor without fear of loosing the starboard plane.

I wouldnt worry so much about it- it probably is too late for correction- i personally would leave it as it is.
Carry on Jean-Luc, theres still lot of work to be done, and you dont wonna be still doing that model in 5 years time.

Trierarch · « **Reply #13 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 04:01 »

Hey thank you for your wise advise,

The truth is that I haven't seen your work before I started this kit... too bad I would have made some modifications a bit differently here and there, and maybe didn' waste so much time on things I had to correct later

.

We do have the same problem, a lot of plans contradict each others, as as you say some might have smoked the carpet when they were drawing them...

This particular set is coming from a set of ten large plans from Germany based on U-boot archiv real plans. Also not perfects as some detailed parts are missing in some areas, they are very well made in others and for me I trust them a bit better than the others.

Talking about the anchor weel, I have another question about it. One of these stupid details that probably won't show, but that can influence weathering and interest you as well.

Did a lot of U-boot's had these two drain holes that we see on this picture?

As for spending time on details, I am building this boat for fun and personal challenge. It will stay in my house when completed and I bet very few persons will ever see it. You are right nevertheless and sometimes I spend too much time on areas that do not really deserve it. My problem is that I am used to look at very little details because of archeology, and once I have seen it it bugs me if I do not reproduce it.

Thanks for the photo, every time I see your boat, I measure how much I still have to learn, but whow what a beauty she is.

Siara · « **Reply #14 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 06:32 »

Thanks for good words.

Now- the two holes, isnt that the dent caused by winding the anchor in? I have feeling it may be chiped paint, and slight dent to the cavity. The paint was knocked off, and rust made some discolouration, and streaks.
I never seen these 2 holes on any boat before.

dougie47 · « **Reply #15 on:** 08 Feb , 2009, 06:42 »

Hi Jean-Luc,

Well done on fitting the U-Brass cheek pieces and the Modelbrass rear piece. Looking very good.

I'd agree with Siara on all the points he has made. When Wink and I did the U-Brass set we paid particular attention to the area around the forward dive planes and torpedo doors. We came to the conclusion that the dive plane and supports were in the correct area on the Revell kit. Also that the UT was a little too far forward in the Revell kit. Siara is correct that the anchor should be able to drop down without obstruction.

I'd also agree with Siara on U-boat plans. On all the plans I've seen I've found a few errors. This is pretty frustrating. So we have to work with period photos wherever possible, I think.

Photos of the anchor well with the anchor removed are quite rare. There is a photo of U 404 with the anchor out. U 404 has these two holes in this location too. Perhaps they are there to help keep the anchor in position? I would think that if the anchor was lowered at any point it would chip off paint on the hull.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Dougie

Trierarch · « **Reply #16 on:** 09 Feb , 2009, 15:33 »

Hi Dougie,

Thank you for your encouragements and advices.

Advices like yours are very helpfull; this area is indeed very tricky, and I had to work from plans because I never found a correct picture depicting this place. I would need a picture taken with the right angle, but all I have found so far are pictures oriented with such an angle that I couldn

NZSnowman · « **Reply #17 on:** 09 Feb , 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: Trierarch on 09 Feb , 2009, 15:33

As I was talking about holes, do you know if I should reproduce the 2 small holes below the backward tube in the middle of the blue circle on the photo?

Hi Trierarch
I have just check pictures of U-955 and it has the same holes also, however, both of them have patches on them now. They maybe acces holes to the stern torpede tube

Simon

Siara · « **Reply #18 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 09:25 »

I must have looked 1000 times at that picture, and never noticed these 2 holes.

Only consolation being- when the boat is done- you can not see that area at all.
Another detail i have spoted, but never got to replicate is the horizontal bar accross the 2 rudder supports. Question is- was it there just in the dock, and dissapeared when the boat was lounched? I only seen this bar on this picture.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #19 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 10:31 »

Quote from: Siara on 10 Feb , 2009, 09:25

I must have looked 1000 times at that picture, and never noticed these 2 holes.
Only consolation being- when the boat is done- you can not see that area at all.
Another detail i have spoted, but never got to replicate is the horizontal bar accross the 2 rudder supports. Question is- was it there just in the dock, and dissapeared when the boat was lounched? I only seen this bar on this picture.

Yes all Type VII had the horizontal bar. There a good picture at U-Historia.

English
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.u-historia.com%2Fuhistoria%2Ftecnico%2Fvisitaguiada%2Fhidraulicos%2Fhidraulicos.htm&lp=es_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Spanish
http://www.u-historia.com/uhistoria/tecnico/visitaguiada/hidraulicos/hidraulicos.htm

wildspear · « **Reply #20 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 10:48 »

great site, that got saved in the fav's

Trierarch · « **Reply #21 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 11:07 »

Hello Siara and NZsnowman,

Concerning the horizontal bar, I had not noticed it yet as I concentrate on the hull at present. It matches perfectly however with what is on one of my plans. Siarra, I just send a photo that I did for NZsnowman to you about it by PM.

You might have missed these 2 holes Siarra, but you have seen so many other details that most others ignore or just don't see that your model is still for me by far the most accurate one I have ever seen.

For the bar, my plan will show you the water drop profile and the right place for it. Up to you to decide to add it or not as almost everybody ignore its there anyway.

I am very impressed by both of your works and I am very glad if I can help both of you has you have provided me and others with so much informations already.

Cordially Yours

Siara · « **Reply #22 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 12:38 »

Looks like i have to make a little correction, and add that bar in.

Shame the boat is alreay painted.

Well see....

dougie47 · « **Reply #23 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 15:33 »

Hi guys,

Thanks for the kind words, Jean-Luc. Yes, Wink and I did the U-Brass set. There were certain areas of the Revell kit that we knew no aftermarket company was going to fix. So we just did it ourselves and called ourselves U-Brass. Then we sold the rights to White Ensign. Later Wink and I teamed up to do more sub stuff, this time as AMP. Our forthcoming Type II set is pretty much a larger and more developed version of the U-Brass set, only this time addressing everything on the model rather than merely the holes.

Yeah, I'd add the two holes and the horizontal bar. The horizontal bar was definitely on U 99 and U 442. The photo you posted is of a Blohm & Voss boat, not sure which U-number.

Concerning the anchor well, I'm not entirely sure about the two holes at the top. However, if you are modelling U 552 with the anchor in place, then it doesn't matter too much as the anchor will cover this area anyway. It is my understanding that U-boats didn't use the anchor very often. So I'd be inclined to model your boat as if the anchor hadn't been dropped.

Thanks for the kind words on the Australian fires...a terrible disaster. Wink lives in Australia (while I am in the UK) so I'm sure Wink will appreciate your words.

Cheers,

Dougie

Trierarch · « **Reply #24 on:** 10 Feb , 2009, 16:40 »

Hi,

I do not want to publish the whole set of plans as it would be unfair for the editor, but in occasional cases such as this one I think everybody could benefit from this info.

So here is part of the plan covering this particular bar we are talking about.

I am glad about the work you are putting on the Type 2 as it will be my next sub project and I am certain that your add on will bring a terrific improvement.

Talking about future projects, did you ever think of a set of decals or others to super detail the 88 gun?

dougie47 · « **Reply #25 on:** 11 Feb , 2009, 13:32 »

Hi Jean-Luc,

Thanks for the plans showing the bar location. We haven't thought about more VIIC decals. Our hands have been rather full in recent months with the Type IIA set!

Cheers,

Dougie

Trierarch · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 Feb , 2009, 04:14 »

Hi,

I am searching documentation on the mechanism that open and close the outer torpedoes doors.

If someone has photos or plans on that subject it could really help me.

Thanks in advance for looking,

Cordially,

NZSnowman · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Feb , 2009, 00:08 »

It looks like to me from these pictures that both doors open/close at the same time. You can see a rod on the back of the tube door, that should move the torpedoe door.

Pictures from http://www.uboataces.com/u995.shtml

Trierarch · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 Feb , 2009, 01:19 »

Super,

This does answer the two questions. The tube door, open the outer door and get behind at the same time. Simple and clever technique. that they use. It looks like the "keep it simple stupid" rule was applied to U-boot's too.

Thank you very much for this great info.

Cordially,

Siara · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 Feb , 2009, 02:01 »

Quote from: dougie47 on 10 Feb , 2009, 15:33

It is my understanding that U-boats didn't use the anchor very often. So I'd be inclined to model your boat as if the anchor hadn't been dropped.
Dougie

True- im yet to see the first picture of anchored U-Boot, or film schowing anchor being droped.

The torpedo door- i used the same set of pictures depicting the door on my boat. The mechanism was similar on american boats too.
PE by White Ensign Models offers lovely torpedo door, which when mounted correctly will never be seen.

Few schots of the boats with the torp door open- the tube lid is non visible:

Trierarch · « **Reply #30 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 02:08 »

Thanks Siarra for the precisions.

All this talk about anchor use is quite interesting. I think this is probably why, on later types XXI and XXIII they didn't built anchors at all.

A personal reflexion too, is that in time of war, if the anchor is dropped and suddenly the skies become very unfriendly, you will waste very precious time recuperating it. Even if you want to abandon it to go faster, time to release the chain will be probably too long too.

Their operational territory also didn't really provided them with safe places to anchor.

Conclusion, it seems logical to paint the whole place as if it is never used.

Now I ask myself, even if the anchor is never used, doesn't the chain wheel and these two holes produce some small rust streaks just as a lot of other parts that do not move does?

The truth is they build these anchors to give future modelers headaches... and something to talk about. Maybe they had foreseen the use of forums to sort them out too!!!!!!!

Siara · « **Reply #31 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 02:36 »

Some streaking is required, as i think the chain will produce rust itself. Too many modelers make the area look like junkheap- no need. Some delicate rust streaks, maybe few darker chips or knocks, is what is needed.

billp51d · « **Reply #32 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 06:19 »

You will certainly get discoloration from dissimilar metals also..The anchor was cast iron ...the anchor well, common plate, probably hot rolled...
Bill

Trierarch · « **Reply #33 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 11:31 »

Hello,

Yes I think you are both right

, here is a photo of an original from the Chicago museum. Although it belongs to a type IX, it is the standard shape for type VII also. This is the main photo I used to reconstruct my anchor.

You can clearly see that it is cast iron.

Cordially,

Siara · « **Reply #34 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 12:18 »

This is exactly same foto i used for my anchor.

NZSnowman · « **Reply #35 on:** 15 Feb , 2009, 12:29 »

I believe all u-boat use this as a standard anchor.

Trierarch · « **Reply #36 on:** 17 Feb , 2009, 06:58 »

Hello,

I cant believe it, I had part of the answer about the forward tubes in one of my books from David Westwood, and I just noticed it now!!!

I think I have looked those pages hundreds of times, and not noticed it before.

Along with NZsnowman superb s photos, they provide the key to how the whole system was put together.

I think I will share this info with you as it might be useful for other modelers.

Cordially,

Author Topic: Ouch another U-552 (Read 10601 times)

Mr.Mox