The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
Very useful all that info DavidP,thanks a lot . :thumbs_up_1:

I am also doing that conversion ,but using the Trumpeter Graf Spee in 1/350 scale and the DiStefan pieces (bridge ,funnel and directors)so far the main issues for me are :

1) The bow
2) the main belt need to be raised up to the middle level windows
3) the stern anchor is backwards(in the Trump model)

But same as Bill ,I can not find any good info about the crane ,because AFAIK ,the Adm Scheer after her modernization carried only one crane in port side.

So far I corrected the bow and the stern anchor,need to work on the belt,but I believe is a nice conversion,my favorite Panzerschiff is the Scheer

BTW I did some surgery to the printed bridge to set the telemeter traversal instead of along side as it comes from Shapeways and was a pain in the butt


Attachments:
IMG_20190508_183147.jpg
IMG_20190508_183147.jpg [ 370.11 KiB | Viewed 3301 times ]
IMG_20190508_183314_104.JPG
IMG_20190508_183314_104.JPG [ 246.87 KiB | Viewed 3301 times ]
IMG_20190508_183414_811.JPG
IMG_20190508_183414_811.JPG [ 335 KiB | Viewed 3301 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2258
Miguel, what did you use to buildup the bow to correct shape?

maxim, are you certain on the bow as a lot easier to extend the bow to almost a point then to take some of the hull plating & decks off to bend the frames then have to replace all removed hull plating & decks due to dimension changes that occurred?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
DavidP wrote:
Miguel, what did you use to buildup the bow to correct shape?


I cutted the tip of the vow and attached a triangle of styrene of .080 thickness and used .005" strips of styrene in layers to cover and give volume then shape with wetsand paper,finished with primer and more sanding,but my main tool were my eyeballs.

,

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 11:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2610
Location: Copenhagen
DavidP wrote:
maxim, are you certain on the bow as a lot easier to extend the bow to almost a point then to take some of the hull plating & decks off to bend the frames then have to replace all removed hull plating & decks due to dimension changes that occurred?


No, I am not certain. This change is mentioned in many publications ("Spantenausfall" in German). The refit was more extensive than the one of Lützow.

It looks different if seen from forward - but I do not find fitting photo in the internet.

I have the same impression after comparing the drawings in German Camouflage Volume One 1939-1941 by John Asmussen and Eric Leon - but the drawings are not to scale and I did not scan them to scale them.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2258
Miguel, that is what I do somewhat in my Arizona OBB kitbash thread I posted on the previous page except I sandwich 1mm thick pieces of plastic, let cure then carve\sand to shape. when done that way I do not need any putty to fill any holes\seams.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Location: Wagga Wagga NSW
Miguel wrote:
DavidP wrote:
Miguel, what did you use to buildup the bow to correct shape?


I cutted the tip of the vow and attached a triangle of styrene of .080 thickness and used .005" strips of styrene in layers to cover and give volume then shape with wetsand paper,finished with primer and more sanding,but my main tool were my eyeballs.

,


Nice job Miguel :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Location: Wagga Wagga NSW
Ok, from "German Pocket Battleships" by Roger Chesneau.

Refit Summary: Admiral Scheer:
1935-1936 Catapult and aircraft handling crane added, aircraft embalked
1939 Wilhelmshaven Handling crane abrest funnel replaced
01 Feb - 31 Jul 1940 Wilhelmshaven Bows lengthened by 1.9 meters and remodeled to incorporate a raked stem, Handling crane renewed.

Looking at a color plate of her in 1940, she has only 1 crane port side, and a derrick for the ships boats, however, this is not supplied in the fujimi kit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
Bill Clarke wrote:

Nice job Miguel :thumbs_up_1:


Thanks Bill much appreciated

and found a good picture of the Scheer crane maybe using part of the Di Stefan Hipper crane and bashing the kit crane can work to set that issue


Attachments:
Screenshot (17).png
Screenshot (17).png [ 274.99 KiB | Viewed 3259 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Location: Wagga Wagga NSW
here's two of the color plates from Chesneau's book, note the boat boom/derrick


Attachments:
File comment: Scheer 1940
Scheer 1940.jpg
Scheer 1940.jpg [ 82.39 KiB | Viewed 3247 times ]
File comment: Scheer 1943
Scheer 1943.jpg
Scheer 1943.jpg [ 77.25 KiB | Viewed 3247 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Location: Wagga Wagga NSW
Miguel wrote:
Bill Clarke wrote:

Nice job Miguel :thumbs_up_1:


Thanks Bill much appreciated

and found a good picture of the Scheer crane maybe using part of the Di Stefan Hipper crane and bashing the kit crane can work to set that issue



Thanks Miguel, I might also have to kit bash the catapult to look like this.


Attachments:
File comment: Shapeways DKM Seaplane Catapult
DKM Seaplane Catapult.png
DKM Seaplane Catapult.png [ 361.17 KiB | Viewed 3253 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2610
Location: Copenhagen
For those building Admiral Scheer after the conversion: I would recommend to do more research on the conversion of the bow - as written above. At least, it would be good to clarify, if really only the extreme bow was modified - or if the modification was more extreme as described in most books. I had bought because of the description a kit designed to depict Admiral Scheer after the conversion (HP Models).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
maxim wrote:
For those building Admiral Scheer after the conversion: I would recommend to do more research on the conversion of the bow - as written above. At least, it would be good to clarify, if really only the extreme bow was modified - or if the modification was more extreme as described in most books. I had bought because of the description a kit designed to depict Admiral Scheer after the conversion (HP Models).


Thanks Lars for the suggestion ,but I don't see too much trouble on the Bow,I think I have enough material
The first photo is already after the conversion and the second is final fit ,you can see the difference in the position of the anchors.


Attachments:
Screenshot (18).png
Screenshot (18).png [ 220.07 KiB | Viewed 3238 times ]
AdmiralSheer 1942.jpg
AdmiralSheer 1942.jpg [ 45.89 KiB | Viewed 3238 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2610
Location: Copenhagen
Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("größerer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one


Attachments:
nM2Swwy.png
nM2Swwy.png [ 230.79 KiB | Viewed 3234 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
Bill Clarke wrote:
, note the boat boom/derrick


Good catch Bill :thumbs_up_1:

Since the starboard crane was removed ,they added an starboard derrick


Attachments:
Screenshot (19).png
Screenshot (19).png [ 326.89 KiB | Viewed 3232 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 4:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2610
Location: Copenhagen
Miguel wrote:
I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one

But they did not had the same length, better scale them to the width.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
maxim wrote:
Miguel wrote:
I have already notice that ,will try to depict as the image below ,which the Scheer is the middle one

But they did not had the same length, better scale them to the width.


You are right Lars..but the truth ,nobody will notice that ,so I will keep the things simple and make the best in my capacity,even I have a couple of books , I can't find an exact profile of the bow and about your case even I won't trust those guys from HP Models as reference, so man, is just a hobby ,let's enjoy.

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2610
Location: Copenhagen
I mention the HP Models kit not as a reference, but what I had bought as starting point for future model. My guess is that many people know that Admiral Scheer's conversion was more extensive than Lützow's - but the question is, if it is visible in case of a model. I also do not know any better drawings than the one already mentioned - and those provide only indications.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:40 pm
Posts: 1663
Location: Wagga Wagga NSW
maxim wrote:
Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("größerer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.



Well, that blows it for me, I'm not going to be able to do that kind of surgery to the kit, and, widen the bow insert too.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:45 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Abu Dhabi
Bill Clarke wrote:
maxim wrote:
Yes, but the question is not only them stem and the anchors, but the shape of the forward part of the hull above water including the shape of the deck. Most publications write that hull sides were converted to bend more outward ("größerer Spantenausfall" in German). That would also enlarge the deck area. Your first photo indicates exactly that.



Well, that blows it for me, I'm not going to be able to do that kind of surgery to the kit, and, widen the bow insert too.


I am looking at the photo I posted earlier and IMO ,the deck is not wider,is the same profile as the Lutzow,just the stem is very thin ,so the trick here is to sand the excess of material to make the stem much narrower.


Attachments:
Screenshot (18).png
Screenshot (18).png [ 222.96 KiB | Viewed 3204 times ]

_________________
No Whine Policy
1.- Modify it
2.- Ignore it
3.- Don't build it
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 289 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group