Model Fleet

Gus Hager's TYPE 206A SUBMARINE

Posted by Gus Hager (via Matty) on December 9, 2010, 12:13:35
Message modified by board administrator January 7, 2011, 12:02:57

--Posted 1/7/11--
DM Type 206A SSK
Attack Submarine (non-nuclear powered)

Click on Image for FULL RES
Revell 1:144
by Gus Hager

"Have finished the...second try (at my)...Type 206 and...here's (her) pix:

Click on Image to Enlarge
-FULL RES------------FULL RES
Before you give me grief about the color, go (take a look at the) Type 206A (pics at PrimePortal.net)...I think I nailed it...

Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RES(Here, in the background ) you can (also) see the Type IIB taking shape...

...Thinking about starting the 1/144 Revell Type 214 to work alongside the Type II.

Damn, but you build a NICE SUB, Gus!

Posted by Matty on January 7, 2011, 14:20:22, in reply to "Gus Hager's TYPE 206A SUBMARINE"

Yet another just phenomenally-good build, Gus - Bravo-Zulu, sir!

And that camo color is very interesting - I did go to the PrimePortal (dot-"net", not "com") site, and looked at every one of those 206A pics - and noticed a striking difference between the appearance in full-sun, vs (even a little bit) in the shade, where the reddish tinge completely disappears - to the point where it looks not only a medium-dark gray, but sometimes even with a bluish-green tinge to it.

Apart from possible camera color-balance problems - of which I don't see any evidence, in those pics - there is one possible explanation that comes to mind: fluorescence - specifically red fluorescence, of the camo paint. Not the intense, "Day-Glo" type flourescence, but just a little bit of flouroescent pigment in the paint, giving off proportionately more red light, when brightly illuminated. And there is a whole lot of connection between red fluorescence, marine plants and their organic detritus and the light environment in exactly the coastal waters where these boats are designed to operate - which I won't go into, here - but I am sure this is what is behind this (seemingly) bizarre camouflage scheme.

In any case, it's yet another gorgeous build - just top-notch - from you, Gus. And it's your call - whatever you want to paint it - even Mountbatten Pink, if you want to! Oh...wait...that's exactly what you did do...

!

Cheers,

-Matty

Type 206A submarine

Posted by Gus Hager on December 9, 2010, 18:50:24, in reply to "Type 206A submarine"
Message modified by board administrator January 7, 2011, 11:21:04

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

I posted this query on HyperScale Ship Chat and got no response. Maybe someone here has a clue. Here goes..."Beginning to build the Revell 1/144 kit of the Type 206A submarine and am already stumped. Can someone explain the rationale behind the "sculpted" bow planes on this boat? According to the instructions, it appears that only one plane is to be deployed at a time. This would lead me to wonder if the planes are designed more for steering underwater than diving/surfacing? Or is it possible that one plane is utilized for diving and the other for surfacing? And the manner in which these planes are shaped like an aero-(or aqua-)dynamic "airfoil" would seem to favor a turn to port (left) when either are deployed. I am in hopes someone can explain the actual performance of these planes and either confirm or refute my understanding of their function. Links to any pictures of these planes deployed would be very helpful also. Thanking you in advance, I remain chilly and confused in Orange Park, Florida."

Gus' contrition: "I'll do it MY way!" (LMAO)

Posted by Gus Hager (via Matty) on January 7, 2011, 11:37:38, in reply to "Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/17/10--

"Confession is good for the soul...or so some believe...(thus, I gave Matty permission to publish this) post...(to report a) major casualty at the Orange Park Unterzeesbootwerke yesterday. Whilst masking off the bow section for the non-skid runner from the tower to the bow cap, one of the retracted bow planes parted ways with the remainder of the boat and fell INTO the fully-enclosed hull.

I wish I could blame it on sabotage, but believe this injury to be self-inflicted. After much advice gathering, I had elected to show both planes in the retracted position. (Editor's note: Oh Boy - here it comes...) That position turned out to be not fully conducive to a firm mechanical fit (Oh right - and I suppose that's my fault now!

-Ed.), but I was reasonably satisfied that I had the little buggers firmly affixed...but, alas! I assessed the situation and came up with two plans of action. The first involved shaking the entire assembly in the (vain) hope that enough of the plane would reappear in the opening to permit retrieval. No such luck.

Plan B involved digging into the old stash and pulling out my OTHER Type 206A. Just finished gluing the second hull together...I will apply the lessons learned so far to improve the current iteration.. After deep reflection, I determined that this time I would show BOTH planes extended and to hell with the Revell instructions! I reminded myself that I build to please myself and don't really give a "R-cubed" what any judgemental types may think. (That's the spirit, Gus! LMAO -Ed.)

I see no reason at this time why this boat will not still be ready for JaxCon in February...Pictures as soon as they are presentable.

...As for the original 206 (model), I will utilize it as a weathering and paint testbed...it won't go to waste. One day I may even split the hull or pry off the bowcap and resurect the craft.

...Concurrent construction continues apace on the Type IIB... "

LMFAO, Gus!

Posted by Matty on January 7, 2011, 11:38:42, in reply to "Gus' contrition: "I'll do it MY way!" (LMAO)"

--Originally Posted 12/18/10--

Gus, I was distraught to hear of your mishap - and feeling more than a little guilty, personally, for having encouraged you to rig both those planes in - but then equivalently uplifted to hear of your solution: roll out a whole, 'nother kit!

Personally, I would (and did, off-board) recommend flooding the ill-starred hull with white glue: sufficient to (when shaken vigorously, in an upright position) ensnare the wayward part(s) and then - after letting sit overnight (or longer), until the glue solidified - trapping the part(s) inside, along the keel. A secured and heftier model would result. However, it's clear you were already well along in constructing the entire, second-go in less time than it took even for me to come up with the suggestion.

Speaking of which, we now have time to reflect - indeed there does appear to be an opportunity to look back and potentially learn something(s) valuable, here - and let me suggest, if I may, that first among these lessons might run to the core of that essential wisdom, quoted so immortally in the movie Animal House: "Flounder, you f-ed up - you trusted us!"

Cheers,

-Matty

Re: Type 206A submarine

Posted by Gus Hager on January 7, 2011, 11:32:43, in reply to "Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

All the above responses are appreciated and make excellent sense. But I am curious as to why the instructions would go to such lengths to have the builder make a determination as to WHICH bow plane would be shown extended. Are ALL submarines with retractable bow planes capable of extending only one select plane if desired? If so, is that common practice and to what advantage is that capability?

Re: Type 206A submarine

Posted by Don Murphy on January 7, 2011, 11:33:38, in reply to "Re: Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

You can't extend only one bow plane. Both have to come out. Not sure why the instructions make a big deal of the selection. Having only one would fail the other one (on an American boat). Not sure what German practices would be, but being that we copied them, I'd say they were fitted the same. If only one was out, it would affect the sub much like a plane that lost one wing.

Cheers,

Don

Re: Type 206A submarine

Posted by Gus Hager on January 7, 2011, 11:34:38, in reply to "Re: Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/10/10--

My point exactly, Don! But, oops, there it is! One bow plane curved up, one plane curved down, pick which ONE you want to show deployed. There must be some method to the madness as the Germans built a number of these boats and even exported the type...some to Israel. Guess I will just add this to my long list of life's little mysteries.

2nd guess: The Instructions Are Wrong!

Posted by Matty on January 7, 2011, 11:35:56, in reply to "Re: Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/10/10--

Gus, I agree Donny has to be right: no sub ever had (nor ever will, IMHO) control surfaces sticking out on one side only!

Now, if we accept that as the only thing we do know for sure, then - like Sherlock Holmes - we can deduce the remaining possibilities, however unlikely, must contain the truth - i.e.: (cue horror music) the instructions could be wrong!

Seriously, not only could the instructions be wrong, but even the parts depicting the fins themselves could very likely be wrong - we've certainly seen both, before.

The case that immediately comes to mind is an Asian manufacturer (I can't remember which kit, now) clearly lacking any drawing(s) or experience of the parts in quesiton, got them wrong due - quite obviously and very predictably - to a verbal error in the description by someone literally "phoning it in"!

Seriously - actually, it was most probably a written error in translation.

Now, regarding your 206A kit - after decades of offshoring jobs - probably an entire "We Are The World"

of German-, English-, Korean- and/or Chinese-speaking technicians were involved - none of whom knew anything about subs whatsoever - much less the 206A, in particular - so how likely is it, then, that mistakes in the instructions - even in the shape(s) of the fins themselves - could have been made, and gone uncorrected? IMHO the answer is: "Very."

In fact, the whole "One curved up, one curved down, pick which one" instructions you describe sounds like a collossal misunderstanding of (again, some linguistic description of) articulated fin-tips - similar to the hinged wingtips on the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber (but of course both always deployed together).

That such gross errors can go undetected (or at least, uncorrected) is definitively proven by the Heller 1/400 TypeVII U-boat, whose limber holes, otherwise accurate and detailed, are molded everted - protruding as little bumps - instead of inverted, as (obviously) intended. Someone(s) crafting the injection mold no doubt f-ed up, and neither found nor fixed the mistake - and neither did management, possibly also deciding it was too late/expensive to go back and fix.

So my assessment is definitely that the Revell 206A instructions and shape of (at least one of) its forward planes must be wrong - and I'm sticking to it. (Unless, of course, anybody wants to go with my "opposing torque/slipstream" explanation, which was a piece of sheer genius, whether true or not!

)

Either way, though, both foreplanes have to rig out - or in - together. The easy solution: stow them both in, so you don't have to explain anything!

Cheers,

-Matty

Sounds like a Torque Control issue

Posted by Matty on January 7, 2011, 11:30:41, in reply to "Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

Gus, I vaguely recall noticing that myself, and it occurs to me the asymmetrical shape could be to offset torque - especially during rapid acceleration, which would also accompany a crash-dive (or emergency surface).

Note your 206A is a very small and cylindrical boat, and dive planes apparently "favoring a left turn" would in fact favor a counter-clockwise roll - thus, they could offset a clockwise torque, from a counter-clockwise-turning screw (if that's what she has).

I can imagine that during emergency maneuvers, the last thing you'd want is for the boat to start rolling over.

I do know that, on (at least) some small single (tractor) propeller-driven planes, the rudder is offset slightly (to port, IIRC) - to offset the roll induced by the twisting slipstream, caused by the prop.

Perhaps on your 206A, the bow planes also set up the same kind of opposing slipstream - in addition to their torque - to perfectly counter the torque of the propeller, aft.

In other words, I don't know, either - but you gotta admit: that's damn good for bullsh**!

Cheers,

-Matty

One other thing...

Posted by Don Murphy on January 7, 2011, 11:29:01, in reply to "Type 206A submarine"

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

the stern planes "outrank" the bow planes. They are larger/heavier. When the captain says "dive, make your depth 200 feet," the diving will order a down angle on the stern planes. "Stern planes, five degree down bubble, make your depth 200 feet." The stern planesman will call out ten or five foot depth increments ("dive...passing 100 feet") until told to stop by the dive.

Once the submarine gets to say 175 feet, the diving officer will order stern planes zero'd and then he will tweak the depth with the bow planes. From then on, the bow/fairwater planes will nudge the boat to the exact depth required. If the bow planes are unable to hold the depth, the dive will order water blown/flooded through the 24 inch main seawater valves. This gives him real time "hovering".

A boomer has to hover to launch missiles and fast boats need to hover for certain classified missions as well. All boats practice hovering as it is a skill that determines how good of a dive you are. The most successful dive will be the "battlestations dive". During battlestations the battlestations dive will become the diving officer irrespective of who is on watch.

Cheers,

Don

Re: Type 206A submarine

Posted by Don Murphy on December 9, 2010, 19:54:43, in reply to "Re: Type 206A submarine"
Message modified by board administrator January 7, 2011, 11:22:46

--Originally Posted 12/9/10--

Hey Gus,

The stern planes control the angle of the submarine at all times. The rudder of course, controls the direction. The bow planes or fairwater planes (when mounted on a sail) control the depth. It doesn't make sense, until you understand "hovering." Like a helicopter, there are certain things a sub must do that involve hovering. The stern planes control the attitude or angle of the boat and are affected by movement of fluid through out tanks, folks moving from one section (forward to aft) to another, etc.

The physical amount of depth the sub must be at, will be determined by the bow/fairwater planes. So once the sub reaches say, 80 feet - periscope depth - the stern planes will keep the sub at that depth with the bow planes used to keep tweaks on the depth. It's a science and an art and a good/competent diving officer is the captain's right hand man in the overall chain of command, outranking even the XO.

"Dive" is a coveted title. The normal control party will consist of (diesel boat) Officer Of The Deck (OOD)(officer), Quartermaster Of The Watch (QMOW)(enlisted), Chief Of The Watch (COW)(enlisted), Dive (officer or enlisted), Fire Control Technician Of The Watch (FTOW)(enlisted) helmsman, stern planesman and bow planesman. On a nuke boat, the helmsman does the bow/fairwater planes.

Staying at periscope depth is a fine art that literally determines the life of the sub. Come up too high (broach) and you give your location away to even the most primitive sensors, let alone MK-1 eyeball. Keep yourself too low (dunk) and you can't see your target accurately. So a captain will normally keep a cadre of exceptional dives in his mind and once you prove yourself, your chances of doing anything BUT diving officer will be slim. Keeping everything level ("in trim") is a dive's job and everyone (officer and enlisted alike) do what he says.

A good dive can keep the boat just right for a perfect silent attack or spying on a hostile shore or recovering special forces. A good dive knows how much water to pump/flood to compensate for shift change (when folks forward go aft to relieve the watch) and to compensate for water being used during showers/dish washing. It's an art, like I said and a good dive will leave a boat with a ton of medals and recommendations.

Cheers,

Don

« Index

[ Model Fleet ]

Lurker-Safe!