3D images of The Surcouf

Hi... Just thought these images might be of interest... I have been looking for anything I can find on the Surcouf...

Richard(Admin) wrote:Very nice images, Lee...I haven't forgotten your pics of Bernie's Surcouf, it's just that I've had a bad couple of days with my hands, takes me ages to do anything. Bear with me, mate...

Yes of course Richard... whenever you get time (and your hands feel better).
I am a surface boat builder... I have to do at least a year of research before I start anything!!!
Lee

Here's a couple to be going on with, Lee..

Wow... that is fantastic Richard...thanks for posting those.

I wanted to ask... is there anything about this boat that makes it a bad subject for a radio control model? I just wondered if, as experts, you guys had any thoughts on how well it would perform in the water... The full size one, I read, was designed to cruise on the surface mostly and submerge only occasionally.

Lee

rich didn't you put a link on here about a company that does a kit of these

OTW make a Surcouf kit (http://www.otwdesigns.com/) and superb it is too.

Bernie's Surcouf was made by John Darnell, he only made two or three of them, so they a real rare beast.

This is/was Bernie's Surcouf, now owned by Ramesh.

Here are some from the 2012 SubRegatta in the USA.



This is the OTW hull built by Ken Griffin.
Nice looking sub!

Hi Lee,

The Surcouf models look superb. I've never seen one but it would be a real attention grabber/ prize winner.

I suppose we could not really recommend this as a first sub model for most people. But as you are an experienced modeller you would carry it off, I think. Make it as a good surface model first but keep diving in mind. (Low superstructure weight and displacement as Richard says, leave a good ballast tank sized "hole" under the bridge section. I always favour a cylindrical WTC for sealing purposes but you may choose to go with the flat plate method. A lot will depend on how you intend to fit things in. You will find space at a premium compared with surface models and if you have too much space you won't be able to carry the model!

David

Hi David... that is really good advice, thank you. I find myself thinking of the scale model first, so it would make sense to me to build it as a surface model then think about diving system next. That is quite a refreshing approach... a lot of model submariners seem to think the opposite. I was advised on another forum to more or less go for the PVC pipe route just to get something in the water and learn about submarines... I find this really difficult to do because I like scale modelling! I know I must keep the practical aspects in mind as well though.

I like the piston system a lot... I was looking at the Engel ones... is there a link to Ron's one somewhere? I would be interested in seeing it.
Lee

Hi Lee,

Well I suppose that the advice to go first for a PVC tube is good "conventional" advice but exceptions don't prove rules. Your skills are surface vessels and actually WW1 and WW2 subs spent more time on the surface anyway. They could almost be seen as submersibles.

Also lots of model subs spend more time on Exhibition tables than in the water - if that is your intention then why not have diving gear as a later mod. I realise that I may be preaching heresy here - we are the Association of Model SUBMARINERS after all!

I think I would still advise a single, central "hole" with diving apparatus "to be determined." "Engel piston tank shaped perhaps" and in the meantime Richard can test out Ron's tanks.

David

I do very much intend to make it a working sub... its just easier to think in stages.

Sub Culture was giving me some advice on another forum and suggested making it a wet hull boat... which is strangely difficult to contemplate as I am so used to building surface boats!
I do see the virtue of this though as I won't have to weight the boat down so much... does anyone have any further thoughts on this?
Lee

I should have made this clearer and I would absolutely agree with Andy L (Subculture)on this point, that all the time we have bben talking about wet hulls containing a much smaller Water tight Compartment (WTC).

A dry hull boat would be impossible to carry unless it was quite small (See The Hollands that Nigel and I built about 0.5m long.)

You wouls be unlikely to make the Surcouf small enough and it would not look impressive enough.

Sorry about the confusion.

David