Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and expectations

Hello, and welcome to the forums at the Nautilus Drydocks, formerly Sub-driver.com!

We welcome anyone with a passion for submarines and a desire to learn and share knowledge about this fascinating hobby. Use of these forums indicates your intention to abide by our code of conduct:


1. No spam. All automated messages, advertisements, and links to competitor websites will be deleted immediately.

2. Please post in relevant sub-forums only. Messages posted in the wrong topic area will be removed and placed in the correct sub-forum by moderators.

3. Respect other users. No flaming or abusing fellow forum members. Users who continue to post inflammatory, abusive comments will be deleted from the forum after or without a warning.

4. No threats or harassment of other users will be tolerated. Any instance of threatening or harassing behavior is grounds for deletion from the forums.

5. No profanity or pornography is allowed. Posts containing adult material will be deleted.

6. No re-posting of copyrighted materials or other illegal content is allowed. Any posts containing illegal content or copyrighted materials will be deleted.
See more
See less

HMS Meteorite Project Help Please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Tg7dw9k.jpg
Views:	156
Size:	50.4 KB
ID:	162952Click image for larger version  Name:	nhyp3ZI.jpg Views:	0 Size:	50.4 KB ID:	162951Todays work. Stopped too hot now r to work I start early. Now picture time. Click image for larger version  Name:	4qjbXAE.jpg Views:	0 Size:	51.0 KB ID:	162950
    Last edited by Albacore 569; 07-16-2022, 06:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Click image for larger version

Name:	6q5xMdL.jpg
Views:	127
Size:	63.7 KB
ID:	163479Click image for larger version  Name:	4y50sjs.jpg Views:	0 Size:	49.5 KB ID:	163477Click image for larger version  Name:	5ACIhTe.jpg Views:	0 Size:	52.4 KB ID:	163478
      Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-06-2022, 11:41 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Steve,

        I have to dig in the archives if the XVII also had a steel propellor, seen the period those boats were build it is a posibility, let's see what i can find.

        As for the deckplanks inside the tower, my drawings of the XVII show that they are laid down from side to side, but i've encountered that drawings ofter are not the reality, especially since your tower is rebuild by the Brits, on this subject you have some slack.
        Mine are laid down front to rear, simply because there are no pics from the inside of the tower, and it was usual to lay them this way, pretty much the same as with my type VII.

        Manfred.
        I went underground

        Comment


        • #19
          Regards Gantu

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by MFR1964 View Post
            Steve,

            I have to dig in the archives if the XVII also had a steel propellor, seen the period those boats were build it is a possibility, let's see what i can find.

            As for the deckplanks inside the tower, my drawings of the XVII show that they are laid down from side to side, but i've encountered that drawings ofter are not the reality, especially since your tower is rebuild by the Brits, on this subject you have some slack.
            Mine are laid down front to rear, simply because there are no pics from the inside of the tower, and it was usual to lay them this way, pretty much the same as with my type VII.

            Manfred.
            Thank you for the quick response Manfred. Rather post here, did not mean ti step on the Type 23 thread. But since you were discussing steel propellors there. If I had to bet, my guess they are steel at that point in the war and the Brit's inherited it in the salvage. Since they were primarily interested in the Walter system, If the salvaged propellor attached was still good, why make a new one and perhaps compromise the tests measuring their performance? . Didn't the Type XXI's use steel in that period too?

            I guess I will lay the deck planking fore & aft & explain the fairwater is a rebuild by Vickers which it was.




            I have a detailed Intel report on the Meteorite printed in 1948. The measurements of the Walter system performance in it is extensive. The general web pages on the Internet ( like Wikipedia) on Meteorite (ex U-1407) give a inaccurate assessment of history on this boat. When you actually have first hand documents of reports you can read, the information is more enlightening. I like Wikipedia for general research and serve as starts for further research though. The main complaints about Meteorite by her British are as described by Wikipedia are

            "Meteorite was not popular with her crews, who regarded the boat as a dangerous and volatile piece of machinery. She was difficult to control due to aircraft-type controls and a lack of forward hydroplanes. She was officially described as "75% safe".

            The Royal Navy Report on Meteorite's handling or 'difficulty of control' pertains in the detailed report to surface handling & little to no helm rudder control power astern in emergency stops. The stern also drops when power astern. The lack of freeboard in anything other than calm seas. The aircraft type controls was new to Royal Navy crews. Now you can't find a modern submarine without 'aircraft type' helm controls! The first use of aircraft controls on a submarine I now of was the German Walter V-80 using a off the shelf modified Junkers JU-52 set up. The Type XVII A & B's continued this type of controls. Later the USS Albacore AGSS 569 highlighted its use of Aircraft controls as another of her many revolutionary features, but she was not the first with aircraft type controls. Just it was on an American sub. The new unprecedented speeds attainable with these fast submarines made old style bow and stern planes wheels too slow and counter intuitive.

            The same report then describes the same boats handling underwater! The speeds and handling by the boats Captain was described as exhilarating and very responsive. The rigged out fixed plane made pitch control very effective. For the first time in Royal Navy service submariners experienced banking high speed turns.

            The report also describes trepidation about refueling the High test hydrogen peroxide. Healthy trepidation isn't necessarily bad here. Dangerous if mishandled as other Navy's working with this would learn painfully. The USN with their X-1 (with no loss of life) and the Soviets with their Kursk . But what Wikipedia misses is in the report describes is how the crew of Meteorite discovered the Walter system was surprisingly easy to operate.

            The main complaints about meteorite may have been really asides the fear of the exotic fuel was its crew accommodations. (Terrible) . The Type VIIB has but one bulkhead separating the engine spaces from all the rest forward. Control area, crew, head, anything like a galley, and torpedo spaces are all in one long compartment. Open head, no separation of officers and enlisted, no real cooking facilities other than a hot plate. Something more like USS or HMS Holland SS-1 than a modern WW2 era boat then. The British at least added additional safety with a new forward escape hatch & skirt replacing the Torpedo loading hatch. The commanding officers report wrote an attending support ship was usually needed both for special fueling and provide more for decent sleeping and galley facilities.

            Much of the negativity about Meteorite besides the H02O fuel itself may have been it represented many new advances. Many of the handling comments in the report can be found on Modern nuclear subs as well. It was just a bit too new in concept.

            Another remarkable note is Meteorite's speed of 21 knots underwater on the Walter plant must be remembered was also only achieved on half a power plant. One Walter Turbine of 2,500-horsepower She operated on one new requestioned or liberated from the Walter shops a fresh Turbine set. She would in German operation have used two 2,500-horsepower plants and expected speed approaching 26 knows.

            Ultimately, you might after all the cleaver legal, diplomatic maneuverings and down right chicanery by the British to keep the technology from the Soviets in the Potsdam Agreement, the acquisition of Walter and his design staff and their families, (Operation Paperclip) the tests of the Meteorite might be considered a 'successful failure' in hindsight. As then the notion of Nuclear power for submarines was a pipe dream to most except a few far sighted individuals like Rickover, then a Bureau of Ships Captain Engineer - an expert in battle ship turbo electric propulsion. Soon after Rickover's Nuclear propulsion dream would be realized. Meteorite was not really a full warship, or a full research craft, the Type VIIB boats were a evolutionary step toward the ultimate German Type XXVI subs never completed. But to me Meteorite is another fascinating elegant evolutionary step to the present Modern nuclear submarine of today and the future.

            Steve
            Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-10-2022, 11:41 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Click image for larger version

Name:	BSojUms.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	56.8 KB
ID:	163588Click image for larger version  Name:	EUnyGNq.jpg Views:	0 Size:	66.8 KB ID:	163583Click image for larger version  Name:	xUtx2ko.jpg Views:	0 Size:	61.2 KB ID:	163584Click image for larger version  Name:	9hmlPBT.jpg Views:	0 Size:	63.0 KB ID:	163585Click image for larger version  Name:	hFZb5Dm.jpg Views:	0 Size:	62.0 KB ID:	163586
              Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-09-2022, 10:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                This is interior survey photos from the Barrow Museum Barrow In Furness Of U-1407 at Barrow after the war before being cleaned up and altered.

                Top photo shows the forward facing helm controls suspended from above. Second from top photo is of the engine spaces. Third photo is after most part of the control space showing the bulk head to the aft engine spaces. Fourth photo shows the torpedo tubes forward. The bottom is the open space from forward looking aft. The hanging suspended fixture in s center right is the boats helm controls.
                Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-09-2022, 10:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Albacore 569 View Post

                  Thank you for the quick response Manfred. Rather post here, did not mean ti step on the Type 23 thread. But since you were discussing steel propellors there. If I had to bet, my guess they are steel at that point in the war and the Brit's inherited it in the salvage. Since they were primarily interested in the Walter system, If the salvaged propellor attached was still good, why make a new one and perhaps compromise the tests measuring their performance? . Didn't the Type XXI's use steel in that period too?

                  I guess I will lay the deck planking fore & aft & explain the fairwater is a rebuild by Vickers which it was.




                  I have a detailed Intel report on the Meteorite printed in 1948. The measurements of the Walter system performance in it is extensive. The general web pages on the Internet ( like Wikipedia) on Meteorite (ex U-1407) give a inaccurate assessment of history on this boat. When you actually have first hand documents of reports you can read, the information is more enlightening. I like Wikipedia for general research and serve as starts for further research though. The main complaints about Meteorite by her British are as described by Wikipedia are

                  "Meteorite was not popular with her crews, who regarded the boat as a dangerous and volatile piece of machinery. She was difficult to control due to aircraft-type controls and a lack of forward hydroplanes. She was officially described as "75% safe".

                  The Royal Navy Report on Meteorite's handling or 'difficulty of control' pertains in the detailed report to surface handling & little to no helm rudder control power astern in emergency stops. The stern also drops when power astern. The lack of freeboard in anything other than calm seas. The aircraft type controls was new to Royal Navy crews. Now you can't find a modern submarine without 'aircraft type' helm controls! The first use of aircraft controls on a submarine I now of was the German Walter V-80 using a off the shelf modified Junkers JU-52 set up. The Type XVII A & B's continued this type of controls. Later the USS Albacore AGSS 569 highlighted its use of Aircraft controls as another of her many revolutionary features, but she was not the first with aircraft type controls. Just it was on an American sub. The new unprecedented speeds attainable with these fast submarines made old style bow and stern planes wheels too slow and counter intuitive.

                  The same report then describes the same boats handling underwater! The speeds and handling by the boats Captain was described as exhilarating and very responsive. The rigged out fixed plane made pitch control very effective. For the first time in Royal Navy service submariners experienced banking high speed turns.

                  The report also describes trepidation about refueling the High test hydrogen peroxide. Healthy trepidation isn't necessarily bad here. Dangerous if mishandled as other Navy's working with this would learn painfully. The USN with their X-1 (with no loss of life) and the Soviets with their Kursk . But what Wikipedia misses is in the report describes is the how the crew of Meteorite discovered the Walter system was surprisingly easy to operate.

                  The main complaints about meteorite may have been really asides the fear of the exotic fuel was its crew accommodations. (Terrible) . The Type VIIB has but one bulkhead separating the engine spaces from all the rest forward. Control area, crew, head, anything like a galley, and torpedo spaces are all in one long compartment. Open head, no separation of officers and enlisted, no real cooking facilities other than a hot plate. Something more like USS or HMS Holland SS-1 than a modern WW2 era boat then. The British at least added additional safety with a new forward escape hatch & skirt replacing the Torpedo loading hatch. The commanding officers report wrote an attending support ship was usually needed both for special fueling and provide more for decent sleeping and galley facilities.

                  Much of the negativity about Meteorite besides the H02O fuel itself may have been it represented many new advances. Many of the handling comments in the report can be found on Modern nuclear subs as well. It was just a bit new in concept.

                  Another remarkable note is Meteorite's speed of 21 knots underwater on the Walter plant must be remembered was also only achieved on half a power plant. One Walter Turbine of 2,500-horsepower She operated on one new requestioned or liberated from the Walter shops a fresh Turbine set. She would in German operation have used two 2,500-horsepower plants and expected speed approaching 26 knows.

                  You might after al the cleaver legal, diplomat maneuverings and down right chicanery by the British to keep the technology from the Soviet in the Potsdam Agreement, the accusation of Walter and his design staff and their families, the tests of the Meteorite might be considered a 'successful failure' in hindsight , as then the notion of Nuclear power for submarines with a pipe dream pt most except a few far sighted individuals like Rickover, a Bureau of Ships Captain Engineer - an expert in battle ship turbo electric propulsion. Soon after Rickover's Nuclear propulsion dream would be realized. Not really a full warship, or a research craft, the Type VIIB boats were a step toward the ultimate German Type XXVI subs never completed. But to me Meteorite is another fascinating elegant evolutionary step to the present Modern nuclear submarine of today and the future.

                  post
                  Excellent post. Thank you for sharing!

                  David
                  Resident Luddite

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thank you David. I did a little editing after to clean up spelling and the system has locked it down as unapproved again. Damn. Hope folks can still read it. And Hey I made lieutenant today! O3 grade and seat closer to the skipper in the ward room (Aubrey! Would you pass the salt? lol).

                    Steve
                    Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-10-2022, 12:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Click image for larger version  Name:	MS0Zrdh.jpg Views:	0 Size:	54.4 KB ID:	163727Click image for larger version  Name:	Gvo3714.jpg Views:	0 Size:	85.3 KB ID:	163726Click image for larger version  Name:	Rnyowx9.jpg Views:	0 Size:	78.4 KB ID:	163725Click image for larger version  Name:	mOJgAxY.jpg Views:	0 Size:	49.8 KB ID:	163722
                      Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-13-2022, 02:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Added the new 3 D printed fairwater top. Epoxied puttied, sanded primed. Added boats horn, flag jack staff, and battery ventilation vent. I struck on a idea from 'stuff' just around the shop. Using a computer radiator as a fixture to hold 2 mm thick mahogany wood strips in place for the new athwartships fairwater bridge planking. I drilled holes and a slot perpendicular to the slots to drill in pins and spacers. Will see if this works. Looks like it will work good so far. Sometimes a lot is just making up stuff on the spot. I dug through my old correspondence from the early 2000's or ninety's & found a letter (remember letters?) regarding the decking from U-boot expert Walter Cloots. He confirms then the Prop on the Type XVIIB and meteorite was steel, and the decking was indeed oriented athwartships. So there we have it.

                        Building slowly proceeding each day.

                        Steve
                        Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-13-2022, 02:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Steve,

                          Thanks for the info about the decking and the props, i'll leave my decking as it is, will adress some attention to my prop the get the steel look.

                          Manfred.
                          I went underground

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            From train site by frankcombe "I paint it in brown then I used a graphite pen (pencil) to simulate the steel shine."
                            http://www.7-8ths.info/index.php?top...2433#msg122433

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	52271989409_0b9851d4be_b.jpg
Views:	78
Size:	65.8 KB
ID:	163864

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	fEs6WQI.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	53.3 KB
ID:	163951Click image for larger version  Name:	3ot9mVX.jpg Views:	0 Size:	57.2 KB ID:	163950Click image for larger version  Name:	S0WNLzK.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.4 KB ID:	163949
                              Last edited by Albacore 569; 08-17-2022, 08:46 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Mahogany decking laid down in sections after set and glued in my fixture first. Laid athwartships per plans. A 3D Printed 1/32 scale hinged U-Boat hatch placed on top from Shapeways.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X