Attempting Build of U-190

[jspargo1]

If anyone can provide me with answers to a few questions I would appreciate it. I am trying to build a model of the U-190 at 1 : 30 scale. Several years ago I ordered from Germany a copy of the plan roll published in “Vom Original Zum Modell: Uboottyp IXC”. These are supposed to be the U-190 and I am using the plans for my build . It appears to me that there are multiple inaccuracies in the plan set.

What I am searching for, at this moment, is information about the deck modification. Currently I am trying to get the fast diving deck modification correct. Originally I had followed the plans and I thought I had that part completed. Then I took another look at Kohl’s book. The text of the book states that the deck modification extended frame 89 to frame 124 1/2. However, on the plan roll it has it extending from frame 93 to 124. Are the plans incorrect or is the text incorrect? U-190 had the Type A modification according to Kohl’s book, not the Type B.

Additional concerns include:

1. The length of the stern aft of the skeg on the plan roll appears to be incorrect along with some other problems with the stern.
2. Frame -2 appears to be incorrect on the cross sections or is positioned to far aft on the lateral view if the cross section shape is to be believed (sorry, I don’t know the correct term for plans).
3. The anchor well is incorrectly positioned.
4. The bow planes are incorrectly positioned.
5. The Balkongerät is missing on one page and is incorrectly positioned and incorrect in size on a different page of the plans. According to the book “Another Place, Another Time” the U-190 did have a Balkongerät.
6. The flood vents apparently are incorrectly positioned and incorrect in number on another page of the plans.


Based on my understanding of the position of the tower, combined with the length of the snorkel, and comparing to contemporary pictures of the position of the end of the snorkel well on the U-190, I have come to believe that the aft portion of the fast diving deck does start at frame 89 and that the plans are wrong. But before I cut off a portion of the forward hull which I have completed, it would be nice to know the correct answer for certain. I am interested in getting it right and I don't understand why the plans would have been drawn incorrectly.

I have saved every picture of the U-190 that I have been able find. I have never been able to find a picture of the U-190 in dry dock. I have seen pictures incorrectly labeled as the U-190. If anyone happens to have any unpublished pictures I would like to get copies.

I realize that there were variations in U-boats but I assume that some things were pretty much set in stone such as the position of the flood vents in the lower hull. I have been comparing the plans to the U-534, which was also a Type IXC/40, in an attempt to determine the position of the vents. I have not been able to locate a picture taken perpendicular to the long axis of the sub, which has a sufficiently high resolution, to help me work this out completely. I have several oblique pictures of but I haven't been able to work it out on these due to the fore shortening produced by the camera angle. If anyone has some good pictures taken perpendicular to the hull, before they chopped it up, it would be a great help in working this out.

[gantu]

[jspargo1]

Thanks Gantu. I appreciate the pictures for reference. Is there a picture which more clearly shows the middle lower hull with the flood vents?

This is how I reached my conclusions about the bow details. I think I originally did this in an effort to determine where the Balkongerät should be since it was missing from one page and obviously incorrect on another page of the plans. I used a picture of the U-534 since it is also a Type IXC/40. I superimposed the side view from the plans onto the U-534 in photoshop. I had the constrain proportions box checked, so I wouldn’t accidentally distort the dimensions when I resized the picture. This gave me great positioning guidance and, amazingly, lined up almost perfectly with my estimation based on other pictures. It was also a relief to see that the contour of the bow was in near perfect agreement with the plans

Of course I also noticed the the anchor well and bow planes on the plans was slightly out of position when compared to the real thing.

After noticing the above items, I check another page of the plans and it appears that the location of the flood vents on the plans are significantly out of position when compared to the two visible flood vents on a real Type IXC/40.


I realize that a picture is a 2D representation of a 3D structure, but so is a blue print. This is why I became concerned with the accuracy of the plans.

[gantu]

I do have this at the moment

[jspargo1]

Thanks for the additional diagrams. These are a definitely better than what I have.

In regard to the deck modification, as I previously mentioned the plans show the deck modification starting at frame 93. Since I was following the plans, based on tower position and the length of the snorkel well, I end up with things positioned as shown:


After noticing the discrepancy between the text and the plans concerning the deck modification I started reviewing the pictures I have saved and found this:


Repositioning the deck modification to start at frame 89 gives me this:


So the deck modification must start at frame 89, as stated in the text of the book and the plans are wrong. I guess I am going to have to get out my saw and rebuild this section.

[roedj]

I have been following this thread as the typ IX/C40 with the Schnelltauch deck is a favorite. I think that the drawings and the text from the Köhl book sometimes contradict each other.
Here is a pic of U190 (source unknown) showing the deck modification beginning at the fore end of the schnorkel well:


Here is U873


The plans in the Köhl book show the deck modification beginning around frame 89 with the schnorkel well ending at frame 84-85

I hope this helps although it may be just more confusing.

Dan

[gantu]

[Ralph --- SSBN 598]

Gantu, what an impressive photo collection.
Thanks for sharing.
R___

[gantu]

It's a pleasure to help

[sam reichart]

wow Gantu. some awesome photos there!

[salmon]

Gantu, you are a wizard! Excellent research photos! Thank you for sharing.

[gantu]

Thank you Sir

[jspargo1]

Thanks for the additional pictures Gantu. I will be studying them for additional details.

After superimposing the bow of U-534 on the plans. I decided to try it with the stern to see if anything looked like it might be out of line. The angle of the picture appears close to perpendicular to the long axis of the stern although it was taken shooting upward. It was the closest picture I could find to what I needed. I superimposed a picture of the stern on the plans and resized the picture using constrain proportions to avoid distorting the picture as I did with the bow. I believe this should work to check the approximate dimensions. Examining pictures of the U-534 I could tell there is some buckling of the stern due to depth charge damage on the starboard side but I didn’t think it would have a significant effect on the length.


The length of the stern on the plans doesn’t match the length in the picture. As far as I can determine the discrepancy between the length of the stern on the plans and sub is real although possibly not exact due to the buckling of the hull. If anyone can see a reason that my conclusion is incorrect, please let me know. I’m new at this and need all the help and advice I can get.

[salmon]

I tried doing this with Gato submarines a few years ago, some very wise gentlemen informed me that unless you are exactly lined up (all angles) with your drawing, there will be differences. Maybe that is what you are going through. I had pictures that I was sure were the same as the drawing, but in fact were slightly off. making the Gato too short or too long, if I matched up length to the drawing the tower would be in the wrong position, yet from the photo it looked like it was a complete side shot.
You are going in way deeper than me. I would suggest build the boat the best you can and not get paralysis by analysis.

[Ralph --- SSBN 598]

Tom, the issue with using photos is the distance from the subject when the photo is taken.
You have several check points to correct some of the angled distortions.
Overal length,
Connint tower front and rear positions
Gun placements
Equipment place ment
If you put as many of these know measurements on a spread sheet and then measure the photo, you can find the many angles to each item.
Then you can use these numbers to measure items near the known items.

All photos have distortion angles.
Example, Gato = 312'. How far away would the camera have to be to get parallel lines of measurement.

Well, I know when exposing screens for printing, Using the sun for a light source is the best I could do to get a 1 to 1 image transfer.
But when printed, the original drawing was slightly shorter in length and height.
So the sun is not far enough away to get parallel lines to measure.

I can only make educated guess using angle triangles to compare know to unkonw lengths.

In the photo with lines overlayed, If I know the distance from the front of torpedo tube doors to the very stern, I could figure out the angle distortion and modify te grid to fit the real numbers.
The more distance from center of photo the more copresion is needed to get to real numbers.

And sometimes it's so much work it may not be worth it. . . unless you build a full size boat. <G>