EnglishLion Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Hi all, I am currently building a Revell 1:144 Type VII/c U-boat (U 252). I've reached the weathering stage and there's something that bothers me a little: I've noticed that the anchor is stowed almost directly above the fixed fin for the starboard bow plane. It seems impossible to me for this fin not to have sustained some damage during the lowering and raising of the anchor but in my research I can find no evidence of this. Could someone more knowledgeable clarify this for me please? Thanks, Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levin Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 It is definitely wrong on the 1/72 version Maybe scaled down molds? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Hi Tony i have consulted my library, the anchor is in the right position, unfortunately the planes are too far forward, well spotted. Drawings of the VIIC confirm this. heres a link to a video on the U-995 at Laboe, the first image shows what im saying. all the best Chris 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Well blow my socks off, a little further digging, all Revell type VII kits have this error, from the original VIIB to the VIIC/41, yet to my utter amazement the Hobbyboss 1/350 kit has got it right!!! To my limited knowledge i dont know if this has been pointed out before, maybe someone will enlighten us. Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billydick Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Well spotted Chris ! When you say all the Revell kits, does this apply to the 1/72 type VII as well ? I love the Das Boot soundtrack on the vid .... BillyD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Yes it does Billy, had a hull half to hand, definitely too far forward, thanks to Tony for bringing it to our attention. All the best chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Ive sent the following to Revell hoping for an answer. Hi, im a submarine modeller, something has been brought to my attention on the Britmodeller forum that affects all of your type VII u-boat models. From scale drawings it appears that the bow dive planes are too far forward and actually sit under the anchor. To scale the front spar should be 6.8m from the bow on your models it is 6.05m Can you please advise why this is so, as it is reflected in 1/350, 1/144, 1/72 and the original 1/125 models. regards Chris King Chris 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishLion Posted September 8, 2016 Author Share Posted September 8, 2016 Hi Chris, Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must admit, I'd seen the gallery & video of U-995 before and didn't spot the difference but I'm not all that knowledgeable about subs anyway - all my knowledge has come from resarching the building of 2 of these Type VIIs. Be interesting to see what Revell say. Can't see them changing anything unless they are planning new U-boat toolings anyway. Keep us posted please. How do you go about getting your hands on scale drawings? Thanks again, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hi i have had a reply from Revell; Hi, Chris, many thanks for your mail and the included quite interesting question. After thousands of sold subs, this is the first time we receive a complaint regarding the dimensions. We can assure you, that it took us about 2 years only for the researches for the type VII subs. From our side, we are very sure, that we are right with the design we did at least. Anyhow, we will ask our responsible Project Manager, if your complaint could be. If you are right, what we don´t believe, we will think about a "running change" at the mold. This series of subs became some awards for the "model of the year", so we are a bit wondering of what you are explaining to us. By the way, there are lots of "so-called scale drawings" available on the market, we tried to follow the original drawings, as we always try to do. Sorry, that we can´t give you another reply in this moment. Kindly with all the best regards Revell GmbH Germany Ill send a reply with photo evidence. Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I have replied, see photos as to why the query, raised by Tony. HI Honer, many thanks for your quick reply, personally I love your submarine models and am looking forward to your type XXI release in 1/72. Heres some photos regarding the query, firstly is a bow shot of U-995 at Laboe, a VII C/41. Secondly is a bow shot of your 1/72 VIIC hull half, note the pencil marks based on the photo observation, hence the query about the bow planes being too far forward and fouling the anchor. Regards Chris King All the best Chris 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billydick Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hi Chris, Thats certainly an interesting reply from Revell. Your photo certainly tells the story as it is. Revell can't argue with that. Surprised that the kit has so many rivets compared to what is obviously welded hull plates on the real thing. BillyD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick4350 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Yes it is difficult when someone points out some thing incorrect on a model to which they say that their information is more correct than the general public's opinion. Will be keen to see how they stuffed it up and got away with it for years before someone questioned the accuracy of their scale models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishLion Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hi Chris, Interesting response indeed. It does seem that Honer is saying 'we think you're wrong.' At the risk of turning into a rivet-counter and adding fuel to the fire: I had a bit of a look around on the net for historical photos and something else, possibly related, has occurred to me. It also seems that there are too many flood holes in the upper line (that bends up towards the deck) of the foreward group. On all the photos I've seen there are 25 holes yet on my kit there are 26. They seem to start in the correct position - where the saddle starts to come downwards - but it's hard to tell where the foremost one is positioned in relationship to other details. Am now wondering if there was some design relationship between these two things at Revell. Regards, Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishLion Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hi Chris, Thats certainly an interesting reply from Revell. Your photo certainly tells the story as it is. Revell can't argue with that. Surprised that the kit has so many rivets compared to what is obviously welded hull plates on the real thing. BillyD Billy, I'm not too sure U-995 can be relied upon for detailed comparison. There has obviously been patching work done to it to make it a good general exhibit - plated flood holes & torpedo hatches are obvious ones and to my untrained eye, the whole bow on that side looks plated as well. I suspect that explains the lack of rivets. Could be wrong tho. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Tony have had a quick look through a couple of my books, as expected there is variations among the number of floodholes forward of the conning tower, top row, from 22 to 28 on different type VIIC's, so not really any help. To be honest i think we have the clincher already, the hobbyboss 1/350 VIIC has them in the right place. Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billydick Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Billy, I'm not too sure U-995 can be relied upon for detailed comparison. There has obviously been patching work done to it to make it a good general exhibit - plated flood holes & torpedo hatches are obvious ones and to my untrained eye, the whole bow on that side looks plated as well. I suspect that explains the lack of rivets. Could be wrong tho. Ah yes Tony, of course you're right. I had a look at U534 photos I took in Birkenhead and she too has welded plate work on the hull as repair jobs along side the original riveted plates. Thanks for pointing that out .... BillyD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishLion Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Chris, Ah ok, didn't realise there was so much variation. Thanks for having a look. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnglishLion Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 BillyD, No worries. I'm certainly no expert on any class of vessel, was just going by what I saw. I'd have liked to have seen U-534 before they cut her up. I think it's a shame they did so. In my opinion it would have been a better experience if they'd done the same as 995: a walkway through the interior. Having said that, I've not seen the new exhibit so...could be wrong again 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billydick Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 BillyD, No worries. I'm certainly no expert on any class of vessel, was just going by what I saw. I'd have liked to have seen U-534 before they cut her up. I think it's a shame they did so. In my opinion it would have been a better experience if they'd done the same as 995: a walkway through the interior. Having said that, I've not seen the new exhibit so...could be wrong again Tony, In a way it is a shame she'd been cut up - but it gives a unique insight into how she looked when she was salvaged. Its been cleverly done and each section is documented showing what each section is. But still it's not the complete sub anymore .... BillyD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) Last response from Revell 12/9/16, having looked at other manufacturers type VII models, the forward dive planes are further back than revells including the new 1/48 trumpeter kit. Hi, Chris, many thanks for the pictures, we will forward it to our responsible Project Manager, he will take care of it. Again, thanks a lot for your kind cooperation. All the best Revell GmbH Germany  will chase for an answer.  Hi further to below, ive not heard anymore from yourselves.  Having looked at other manufacturers type VII models, the forward dive planes are further back than yours?, including the new 1/48 trumpeter kit.  The plans in the book Anatomy of the ship, type VII u-boat show this as well as other publications.  Regards Chris King  Chris Edited November 18, 2016 by whitestar12chris reply added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitestar12chris Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Well another reply from Revell, i think thats about as far as it will go, the more pictures i look at the more it seems Tony is right and the forward dive plane spar is too far forward. All i can say is we tried for a response and got little back. Which is more than i got back from hobbyboss when i pointed out that there type VIIA model had two rudders when the U-boat only had a single rudder.  Dear Chris, again thanks for your mail and the interesting informations regarding the outside shape of our 1/72 scale Type VII models. As we still told you in our mail dated Sept. 12th we have forwarded this complanit further to our technical staff to check it. Usually our technique doesn´t correspond with our model builders directly, it´s part of our service. But you can be sure, that we will have a careful look at this matter. Actually, we haven´t received any comment from our designers. We are only wondering, that you are the first and only one, who complainted this. If you are rigth, we have to discus a modification of the mold. Sorry, but at this moment we can`t give you another reply. When we researched this sub we did it very careful, so that we have doubts to your complaint. It´s not always sure. that competitors are doing it in a correct way. Kindly with best regards Revell GmbH Germany  All the best Chris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billydick Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Well you got a reply from Revell, perhaps not what we'd hoped for  .. thanks for pursuing it Chris !  BillyD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick4350 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 hour ago, whitestar12chris said: When we researched this sub we did it very careful, so that we have doubts to your complaint. It´s not always sure. that competitors are doing it in a correct way. Kindly with best regards Revell GmbH Germany  All the best Chris  It seems that their careful research, has given us a dud model and Revell won't own up to their mistake or listen to criticism from the modelling community. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now