The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Post icon:
None
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
What is the name in the logo in the top left? (hint it's something dot com):
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Another thought on the carrier decks, they saw a lot of abuse. It would be much like a "Car Shop Floor" with a lot of tire wear/marks, oil spills/leaks, and gasoline overflow. The few color images I have seen of carrier decks shows in places almost a "brown tint" to the deck. Depending on how long since a fresh coating had been applied, your model could have a different appearance. Plus they were wood and not steel. Paint/stain just didn't look the same because of the texture of the wood. Even if they had used the identical shade of coating, it would have looked slightly different.
Post Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:09 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Thanks for that, I think I'll use Deck Blue as the base colour for the darker stain, that way it's not quite the same as Navy Blue, so if I make anything with Navy Blue in the camouflage, it'll be slightly different.

thanks
Mike
Post Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:44 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
The Flight Deck Stain "was matched" to Deck blue, which "was matched" to Navy Blue, but each was a different formula and they didn't look precisely the same, just close to each other. It's the modeler's choice - I prefer having the slight differences to break up and give some variance to what would otherwise be a solid blue blob.
Post Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:47 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
I thought it might be in the darker stain. So should I use Deck Blue to paint the flight deck with or Navy Blue?

thanks
Mike
Post Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:06 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Flight Deck Stain #21 revised (Matched to Navy Blue, not Ocean gray as the original FDS #21) is most likely. I don't have any direct documents as proof, but she commissioned in October 1944. Alan Raven states, "About mid 1944 there was the introduction of #21 Flight Deck stain (revised). This revised stain was (when newly applied) identical to 20B deck Blue (revised).
Post Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:36 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Which Blue would be correct for Randolph's Flight Deck while she carried her MS32 camouflage?

thanks
Mike
Post Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:07 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Tracy White wrote:
I haven't pulled any microfilm for the Essexes but some CVL plans I have state 3" Douglas Fir.


Wow, that's small. I served on the USS Wasp CVS18, and don't recall them being that narrow. Thanks for the reply Tracy.

Best regards
Patrick
Post Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:46 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
I haven't pulled any microfilm for the Essexes but some CVL plans I have state 3" Douglas Fir.
Post Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:44 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Hello

Does anyone here know the plank width for the flight deck planking? I did a search here and didn't find much. One comment said about 8 inches. Is that close enough? I want to build a 1/32 scale base for an F4U aircraft. TIA

Best regards
Patrick
Post Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:08 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
EDIT: Solved! I managed to get hold of a copy of AOTS USS Intrepid. Info as follows:

Length: 820ft (pp), 870ft (oa)*; increased to 876ft 8in (oa) by 40mm sponson added at stern in 1945.

* Units with 20mm AA platforms under the after end of flight deck were 4ft longer (oa); the later long bow units were 888ft (oa).
Post Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:46 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Apologies in advance if this question has come up before in this thread (I haven't had time to go through all 114 pages).

What is the actual overall length of the USS Essex (CV-9) in 1943?

The preliminary design of Sept '41 has it at 870' but the most commonly stated figure is 872'. Does 872' include the aft 40mm gun tub (not included in the PD) which extends about 5' beyond the overhang of the flight deck? If so does this mean that the flight deck was shortened from the preliminary design?

Stephan Terzibaschitsch gives a LOA for CV-9 in 1943 of 876'8" so this would be about right if the aft gun tubs are not included in the official LOA.

Thanks in advance for any help.
Post Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:32 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Tracy White wrote:
W.H.min wrote:
The data of Essex full load draft seems unreliable


This is quite true. AotS Intrepid quotes 30' "as built," whereas "Essex Class Carriers" by Alan Raven states 30' 10." Neither gives a source. My favorite reference is Warship International Vol 36, No 4 (1999) which is incredibly well sourced. The below is quoted from that (pages 341 & 2) and is from CV-16 (1943) and CV-37 (1946) "BuShips General Information Books."

"The waterline used as a basis for measurements was the designer's waterline, specifically the normal waterline corresponding to the designed normal load and draught. This waterline was 26-ft. 6-in. above the molded baseline."

Underline is mine here - the AotS Intrepid book lists the designed waterline as 27' 6" but I'm not sure where this came from. Typo or was Intrepid actually "designed" deeper than Lexington? There is no actual mention of a "full load as built" draught. There is a lot of discussion of overloading and mention that CV-17 Bunker Hill reported departing Ulithi in March of 1945 at 30' 5" draft, but that would have not been a draft used to plot where the boot topping went.

Also sort of a moot point as far as my ability to definitively answer the question as I haven't found any documentation on waterline and boot topping yet.

Thank you, Tracy. Really helpful to me!
Post Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:03 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
W.H.min wrote:
The data of Essex full load draft seems unreliable


This is quite true. AotS Intrepid quotes 30' "as built," whereas "Essex Class Carriers" by Alan Raven states 30' 10." Neither gives a source. My favorite reference is Warship International Vol 36, No 4 (1999) which is incredibly well sourced. The below is quoted from that (pages 341 & 2) and is from CV-16 (1943) and CV-37 (1946) "BuShips General Information Books."

"The waterline used as a basis for measurements was the designer's waterline, specifically the normal waterline corresponding to the designed normal load and draught. This waterline was 26-ft. 6-in. above the molded baseline."

Underline is mine here - the AotS Intrepid book lists the designed waterline as 27' 6" but I'm not sure where this came from. Typo or was Intrepid actually "designed" deeper than Lexington? There is no actual mention of a "full load as built" draught. There is a lot of discussion of overloading and mention that CV-17 Bunker Hill reported departing Ulithi in March of 1945 at 30' 5" draft, but that would have not been a draft used to plot where the boot topping went.

Also sort of a moot point as far as my ability to definitively answer the question as I haven't found any documentation on waterline and boot topping yet.
Post Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 1:00 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
It is a little big strange about the waterline of 1/350 Trumpeter's Essex class, is it lower? The data of Essex full load draft seems unreliable, can anyone tell me the true number, please? I looked some pictures on Navsource, I believe the waterline should move upward about 2mm.
Post Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 3:03 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
No Currently working on
I haven't purchased ether. Was considering The set from Toms does anyone have any experience with it?


Currently working on
1/350 Trumpeter Dreadnought 1918
Post Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:33 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Photo Etch 1/700 Dragon  Reply with quote
starman1950 wrote:
Hi I am going to build one of the Dragon 1/700 Essex class kits passably the Lexington or Essex. What is the best option for photo etch? Can the Fly Hawk set for Trumpeter be used or would the Toms set be a better option?

I will appreciate any thoughts on this matter.
Walter

Currently working on
1/350 Trumpeter Dreadnought 1918




The Trumpeter Essex Class kits are a bit under-scaled compared to the Dragon Kits or perhaps the Dragon is a bit over-scaled. Either way, they are not quite the same size. So I would guess that using PE for the Dragon Kit would be a safer bet if you have not purchased a set yet.
Post Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:19 pm
  Post subject:  Photo Etch 1/700 Dragon  Reply with quote
Hi I am going to build one of the Dragon 1/700 Essex class kits passably the Lexington or Essex. What is the best option for photo etch? Can the Fly Hawk set for Trumpeter be used or would the Toms set be a better option?

I will appreciate any thoughts on this matter.
Walter

Currently working on
1/350 Trumpeter Dreadnought 1918
Post Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:49 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
Dick J, I'm on training wheels man! I haven't made a model in roughly 15 years, and I can't claim to have been very good at it then. I know I have much more patience now. Reading some of this thread and seeing how it has worn some of the folks out on here, that really seem to have a ton of skill, has me a bit intimidated.

If you want to use the CV-14 deck, find out what time frame it is intended for. If the deck is for late '45, it might fit CV-12 - an exact fit for a late '45 CV-12, and for a mid-war CV-12 you should only need to notch it for the two port side 40MM. (Although the CV-14 deck will have the second catapult.) If the CV-14 deck is for either as-commissioned or her '44 deployment config, it will be short and can't be used on CV-12. Personally, I don't use the after market wood decks myself. That is a personal preference and what you want on your model is up to you.

Don't let the ability of others on this board intimidate you. I am a modeler, but I am better at the history and research side than I am at the modeling side. I don't let that stop me. Build the model for yourself. If you are happy with it, that is all that matters ultimately. Even the "super experts" don't get all the details exactly right so don't get too down on yourself. :thumbs_up_1:
Post Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:31 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Thanks for the info so far guys!

MartinJQuinn wrote:
Best starting point for a CV-12 in dazzle would be the Essex kit.


Tracy White wrote:
Was it Pontos?


I have the 1/350 C-10. I was looking at the Pontos C-10 full upgrade kit and then just the deck kit for C-9 since it also has decals for C-12. Both of those kits have the darker stain. Then I saw the Artwox 1/350 CV-14 deck kit which is unstained. Don't know if that would fit since it is a long hull.

Should I buy the Trumpeter C-9 and the Pontos C-9 kit, or can I buy the Prontos C-9 kit or the Artwox kit and make a C-12 work?

Dick J, I'm on training wheels man! I haven't made a model in roughly 15 years, and I can't claim to have been very good at it then. I know I have much more patience now. Reading some of this thread and seeing how it has worn some of the folks out on here, that really seem to have a ton of skill, has me a bit intimidated.
Post Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:32 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all WWII Essex Class Carrier Fans!  Reply with quote
Guest wrote:
On Ebay, I noticed that the only unstained Essex wood deck is for the CV-14 Ticonderoga. Would that deck fit seeing that CV-14 was a long hull?

To build on what Tracy said, The first two (possibly the first three) long hulls were built with a shorter flightdeck, both fore and aft, to allow the bow and stern quad 40MM to have greater arcs of fire. Those ships also had a large cutout of the flightdeck aft of the forward port side 5" gun gallery that was intended for a third MK-37 director (which was never fitted). The aviators disliked both features, so only Hancock went to war with the short deck and port side cutout. Ticonderoga had the forward end of the deck restored to full length and the big cutout filled out before she deployed. The after end of her flightdeck was lengthened while she received repairs from kamikaze damage. If Randolph ever had the short deck and cutout, they were restored to the full length/width deck within a month of commissioning. All other long hulls commissioned with the full flightdeck.

The early Essex class had the two quad 40MM mounts in the port side galleries for the single 5" guns slightly elevated, also to allow them to have greater arcs of fire. This required small cutouts in the flight deck. Later in the war, when the Essex's had more quad mounts and the need to fire across the deck went away, the quads in those two galleries were lowered to the same level as the 5" mounts, and the deck cutouts were eliminated.

How this applies to your afore-mentioned deck is that you have to know which Tico config the deck fits, and which Hornet config you are trying to fit it to. (Hornet had the two small port side cutouts until her '45 refit/repair.)
Post Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


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