The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2597 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Dick J wrote:
The original Essex design had a more vertical bow. By the time she commissioned, a single quad 40MM mount had been added there. Another was extended from the stern on a small sponson. After 10 of these "short hull" ships had been started, there was a desire to increase the number of 40MM mounts, so the bow was extended (making the "long hull") and widened to allow 2 quad 40MM there. A new. larger sponson was designed for the stern to allow 2 quad 40MM there. To increase the arcs of fire for these new mounts, the forward flightdeck was shortened by 11 feet and the after end by 7 feet. Additionally, there was a "notch" cut out of the forward end of the port side flightdeck overhang (just aft of the forward 5" gun sponson) to allow for a third MK-37 director. The director would have interfered with flight ops, and so no ships were completed with it, instead adding 2 more quad 40MM on the sponson. Hancock and Ticonderoga both commissioned that way, but the air departments on the ships hated the flightdeck changes. Hancock deployed that way, but Tico had the notch filled back in and the forward 11 feet of flightdeck restored before leaving the east coast for the war zone. Tico had the after 7 feet of flightdeck added back when she was repaired in 1945. Hancock had some repairs done at Pearl, when the notch was filled in, but the flightdeck was not lengthened. Randolph and Shangri La launched with the shorter flightdeck, but both commissioned with the full-length deck. I can't say if they had the notch when launched, but neither had it upon completion. All subsequent Essex's had the full flight deck.

Dragon mistakenly put a shorter flightdeck on their Randolph kit, but it was only shorter at the forward end. They also made the forward deck of their Antietam kit shorter. I also think the Boxer deck was short. So the shortened decks in their kits are not correct for any ships of the class, and were often included on the wrong ships of the class. Tracy and I both tried working with Dragon to fix this, but (obviously) we got nowhere.

Do any of the trumpeter short hull kits have the full length deck? If not, doing some math, that means I would need to add a little more than 3/8 inches (or 9.6mm) to the bow end of the flight deck and a little less than 15/64ths (or 6.1mm) to the aft end. I have access to a CNC machine and a Bridgeport milling machine, so if the Yorktown Franklin or Essex kits don't have it then I think what I might do is mill a 1/8 inch slot to cut the ends of the flight deck pieces off, then using styrene sheet, add the necessary length plus 1/8 to fill it in. I can build these "lengthening inserts" as we might call them by either building them up using evergreen styrene sheets or CNC'ing it from a solid piece of styrene. I can get a custom wood deck with the extended length from Scaledecks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1917
All of the short hull kits should have the full length flightdeck. However, there is something else you would need to watch out for. As commissioned, the earliest Essex's had only 8 quad 40MM mounts. As a result, the two in the port-side sponsons (with the 5" single guns) were slightly higher than the adjacent 5" guns. This required the flightdeck to be notched so the mounts could rotate freely. This also allowed those 40MM to fire "cross-deck". As the number of 40MM mounts increased, the need for cross-deck firing diminished, so the mounts were lowered to the same level as the 5" guns, and the notches eliminated. (Making the air department happier.) Boxer completed with the lower mounts and the un-notched flightdeck. So any kit you chose for the donner deck would need to be one of the late-war ones without the notches. Not working in 1/350 myself, I can't say exactly which kits have the required features.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: EG48
OK, I had to consult some documents and photos to make sure I was speaking accurately and precisely for Hancock.

Each of the three initial long hulls had a different flight deck configuration at any given time and it's impossible to have one kit that is accurate for all of them. Trumpeter's CV-19 kit is depicted in dazzle on the box art, but the flight deck is incorrect for that period Hancock went in for a quick repair and overhaul in late April 1945 through early June and the flight deck is actually spot-on for the period after that. Of course, then the problem is that the kit doesn't give you the extra quad 40mms and other details you would need to do a later-fit Essex.

I don't *personally* think it's that difficult to do the modifications necessary to alter the flight deck and catwalks, to be accurate for her first war cruise in Dazzle, but it is extra work and nukes your chances or working with a pre-measured photo-etch railing set. You basically want to find photos like this one on her [URL=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/19.htm]Navsource page or this one on her sister ship Ticonderoga's page to come up with an idea of the cuts in to the port flight deck edge you would need to make. The Floating Drydock has plans of CV-14 in their TFW series but I don't know if it includes the notches or not.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Tracy White wrote:
OK, I had to consult some documents and photos to make sure I was speaking accurately and precisely for Hancock.

Each of the three initial long hulls had a different flight deck configuration at any given time and it's impossible to have one kit that is accurate for all of them. Trumpeter's CV-19 kit is depicted in dazzle on the box art, but the flight deck is incorrect for that period Hancock went in for a quick repair and overhaul in late April 1945 through early June and the flight deck is actually spot-on for the period after that. Of course, then the problem is that the kit doesn't give you the extra quad 40mms and other details you would need to do a later-fit Essex.

I don't *personally* think it's that difficult to do the modifications necessary to alter the flight deck and catwalks, to be accurate for her first war cruise in Dazzle, but it is extra work and nukes your chances or working with a pre-measured photo-etch railing set. You basically want to find photos like this one on her [URL=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/19.htm]Navsource page or this one on her sister ship Ticonderoga's page to come up with an idea of the cuts in to the port flight deck edge you would need to make. The Floating Drydock has plans of CV-14 in their TFW series but I don't know if it includes the notches or not.

She would've had the revised Measure 22 camouflage in 1945 yes? I was originally planning on doing her in her 1944 dazzle scheme, but I glued on aft port outboard 40mm sponsons which are in the directions. Realizing the mistake that I made I decided to glue on the rest of the outboard sponsons and make her in her 1945 configuration. This model doesn't need to be particularly exact, by the way. I'm not particularly emotionally attached to Hancock like I am to Boxer, and this build is a trial run for making Boxer herself. Just generally accurate will do.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: EG48
benjamin.marn wrote:
She would've had the revised Measure 22 camouflage in 1945 yes?


Actually, according to the last page of this document, she was ordered into the 1945 neutral Measure 12, which was defined as:

Quote:
Apply a horizontal band of #7 Navy Gray (5-N) for the entire length of the hull from the boottopping to the height of the main deck at its lowest point (on carriers to the height of the hangar deck). Above this level apply #17 Ocean Gray (5-O) to vertical surfaces including superstructure, stacks, and masts. In the absence of boottopping, extend lower band from light load line. Apply Deck Gray (20) to decks and all other horizontal surfaces exposed to the weather.

Of course, we've already had the discussion about the flight deck surface.....

If you're doing post-June, one other change you might want to use as an excuse to practice for Boxer is to replace the aft two radio towers with four whip antennas. They're smaller and harder to see and I don't know of any good ones for Hancock online, but it was a fairly standardized design so any that you find (such as this one on Ticonderoga) should be a good start.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
If Boxer had them, then I will do the whip antenna on Hancock. Do you have any drawings/info on the spacing between them? I assume the outermost two are attached where the cage antenna (is that what they're called?) were formerly attached, but I'd like to know where the two in between them should be placed. If you're able to find any info, I'd also be interested in finding out how tall they are. What you all think I should make them from, something stiff and hard to break like steel or brass wire, or something flexible like stretched sprue?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Another question, because I was originally planning on depicting this ship in her 1944 configuration without her outboard 40mm guns, I didn't drill and cut out the guide slots for the 3 outboard starboard side 40mm gun tubs underneath the island. Thus, I need measurements to make sure I put them in the correct spot. Can anyone help me with these 3 measurements illustrated below by either measuring your model or referencing drawings (and converting them to 1/350, obviously)? For measurement A I am using the edge of the hangar door as a reference point, but the others I just need the distance in between. You can use either imperial or metric, whichever is more accurate.
Attachment:
Missing Measurements outboard 40mm.png
Missing Measurements outboard 40mm.png [ 1.01 MiB | Viewed 385 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:17 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3868
Location: USA
benjamin.marn wrote:
If Boxer had them, then I will do the whip antenna on Hancock. Do you have any drawings/info on the spacing between them? I assume the outermost two are attached where the cage antenna (is that what they're called?) were formerly attached, but I'd like to know where the two in between them should be placed. If you're able to find any info, I'd also be interested in finding out how tall they are. What you all think I should make them from, something stiff and hard to break like steel or brass wire, or something flexible like stretched sprue?

Hope this helps show a whip antenna in detail.

The photo shows how the antenna was suspended on swivels from two parallel girders extending outwards from the hull just below the catwalk. Note the very conspicuous counterweight.

This photo is of USS Bunker Hill CV-17 taken shortly after she was struck by two kamikazes in quick succession, setting the vessel on fire. Notice the burned out TBF Avenger on deck.


Attachments:
CV-17 whip antenna mount 11 May 1945.jpg
CV-17 whip antenna mount 11 May 1945.jpg [ 106.45 KiB | Viewed 373 times ]

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3706
benjamin.marn, pm me your email address so I can send you a 17.3 meg file of the 1946 Bunker Hill. the drawing is 17,977x4480 pixels of the starboard side that shows the 3 quad 40mm mounts & the antennas as shown in ModelMonkey's post


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3706
benjamin.marn, file sent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
DavidP wrote:
benjamin.marn, file sent.

Thanks for that! I converted the jpg into a PDF, if you'd like a copy of it, I can send you one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3706
no problem. don't need a pdf version as I usually convert any drawings in pdf to jpeg but I can do the reverse but usually not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Okay so this might be a long shot but does anyone have any dimensional drawings of the whip antenna mounting bracket and counterweight? I am considering making them of either PE and polystyrene sheet stock or finding someone to make them from resin.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 3706
gallery deck drawing sent to you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
thanks for the galley deck drawings. They're somewhat helpful, because they do give me the width and length, but what I was hoping for dimensional drawings of the mounts themselves. Its possible that those drawings are long gone, but if there are dimensional drawings for the bitts in the AOTS book on Intrepid, maybe drawings of the mounts still exist somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: EG48
How close to Maryland are you?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Tracy White wrote:
How close to Maryland are you?

I'm in Milwaukee, WI, so about 12 hours away by car. I presume by the way you posed the question that that's where the drawings are. For the Hancock model, no, I am not willing to go all that way. For the Boxer model, however, I would be. I really do want it to be as accurate to the ship my grandfather knew as possible. For what it's worth, I have toyed with the idea of scratchbuilding Boxer in 1/192 scale, perhaps with soldered tinned brass plates to simulate the shell plating instead of plastic, as I was sort of inspired by this article.https://www.modelboats.co.uk/news/artic ... -steel/480 Out of curiosity, if I were to go in person, would the National Archives allow for 1/1 copies/scans of the blueprints to be made, or can I only view them?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: EG48
There *may* be drawings there, but I haven't dipped into the Essex class nor have I gone looking for a general collection of parts. I can say that I've looked through various microfilm and paper plans there and I can speak in general about that.

The only time they will not let researchers copy plans is if they are too fragile to handle or if they are still copywritten and the researcher doesn't show up with some written permission from the copyright holder (two instances/subjects I cans speak to are airships built for the Navy by Goodyear as well as engine parts from Pratt & Whitney - the plans are still copywriten).

The Navy copies the vast majority of their paper plans to microfilm some time ago and not all of the plans made it, and not all of the work was "quality." Linen plans may have produced some distortion and long plans were chopped up to fit the camera and the different segments may not match up due to lens distortion, etc. Sometimes the reproduction is dark, faint, or you just can't quite eek out enough to read the text.

Not all ships are covered, and plans, if they exist, are more likely to be the final fit (because it costs money to store paper and who's ever going to be interested in the fit of this ship before the present time?). I spent time goint through the Pennsylvania class battleship and Yorktown class aircraft carrier microfilm and neither had an index roll, so you were stuck going through each roll of film looking for things of interest. They were *loosely* chronologically sequenced. Yorktown class had about 25 rolls and Pennsylvania class had about 35. You can make it through about a roll an hour but there's a chance that all of the side scrolling will make you a bit dizzy.

Reproductions of microfilm can be to 11x17 paper for $.40 a sheet (prices - https://www.archives.gov/research/order/fees) or scan to USB (grumbles - but I guess they have to pay to keep the equipment running). Scan to digital of oversized plans used to be $3.50 per sheet, versus $3.50 per linear foot for paper to pare, but I'm not seeing that listed and don't want to miss-quote.

That's mostly "negative" news. I will say I saw and copied some amazing stuff while there. It can be tedious, but I don't know of any other potential source let along better one. Pre-pandemic I was going once or twice a year, mostly for textual and photographic records.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2022 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:51 am
Posts: 38
Good to know. I guess I will have my work cut out for myself if I do go down to Maryland. On a different topic, I am still trying to find out what color USS Boxer was in 1945. When was 5-N Navy Gray made available to the shipyards and when did its use begin? I know Boxer was launched a few days before the order came out to use 5-N Navy Gray instead of 5-N Navy Blue, would paint have already been applied by then?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10338
Location: EG48
Complex question we'll likely never have fully answered. There's another poster here by the name of Michael Potter who has a different opinion than I and I will state up front that there are different opinions and your mileage may vary. He generally believes the neutral grays were in use and applied earlier in 1944 but I'm going to provide the background for why I believe "potentially limited application very early in 1945."

A little history lesson for background and foundation.

At the start of the War, the Navy had two "Paint Manufacturing Yards" (one on each coast, Norfolk Navy Yard for the Atlantic and Mare Island Navy Yard for the Pacific, although the Asiatic fleet is a separate issue) and one Yard for the development of new paint formulas (Philadelphia Navy Yard). Efforts by civilian companies to get the new formulas (mostly for merchant marine ships) were rebuffed. That started to change in 1943 and 44, when BuShips (Bureau of Ships) found out that BuOrd (Bureau of Ordnance) had sent out the formula for 5-O Ocean gray in reference to ordnance painting (It was supposed to be delivered in 5-O) and they allowed civilian companies to posses the formulas and manufacture paint for various contracts; however the initial yard assignments remained in place.

So, in June of 1944 we see a directive to develop new neutral paint formulas. A proposed formula for #37 gray (the neutral "Light Gray") was approved in late November 1944 with the note "The information in reference (a) will be sent to the paint manufacturing yards for guidance in making the neutral gray paints from mixtures of white and black paints." We have a memo the same day (November 23rd) sent to the paint manufacturing yards Mare Island and Norfolk with *approximate* formulas.

BuShips sends a warning of sorts to various commands and activities of the Pacific fleet in November (keep in mind that this was before email so there was some delay). There's no real mention of the new paints in a December memo, however a January 3, 1945 letter to a civilian paint company indicates Mare Island and Norfolk have already changed to the new formulas by that date.

On January 18, 1945 Pacific Fleet Maintenance letter # 4-45 is issued, which describes the new paints to the Pacific Fleet and has this tidbit:

Quote:
5. The following instructions shall be followed by the addressees to conform to the changes noted above in camouflage painting practice and paint procurement:

(a) Continue the issue and use of white base and blue-black tinting material to produce the specified paints, until stocks are exhausted.

(b) Continue the issue and use of blue deck paint, Formula 20-B, Specification 52P48, until stocks are exhausted.

(c) If dependent upon the output of the paint manufacturing yards for the maintenance of camouflage paint stocks to meet the needs of ships in commission and new construction, begin to order the several paints in ready-mixed form as the situation demands in anticipation of the later non-availability of the blue-black tinting material.

(d) If dependent upon contracts and orders with paint manufacturers (i.e. civilian paint companies) for supply of camouflage paints to meet the needs of new construction, conversion, or deck machinery and topsides equipment, continue with present specifications until new leaflet specifications are made available.

"6. Paint manufacturing yards, will continue to fill requisitions, shipment requests or orders for white base paint, Formula 5-U where it is specifically indicated that it is required for the purpose of consuming stocks of blue-black tinting material.


So, the new paints are being manufactured by the Navy Yards in January, but not by civilian paint companies. The Yards are also ordered to issue old stocks of paint. I haven't found anything yet that discusses the amount of paint on hand anywhere and we *do not* know at this time when any particular activity ran out of the old paints and transitioned to the new ones.

Boxer is launched in December 1944 and commissioned in April of 1945. Boxer had been ordered into Measure 21 in January 1945 (second page) and PacFleet Fleet Maintenance Office still defines Measure 21 as all over Navy Blue on February 3rd. Is Pac Fleet FMO just behind/uninformed or were they waiting on the official order to switch a little over two weeks later?

Boxer does her Shakedown in June and is on her way to the Pacific in late July. Questions I don't have answers for:


Is July enough time from January that the east coast would have exhausted their supply of 5-N Navy Blue?
Would they have repainted following shakedown or waited until on the west coast as part of clean up after installation of the non-panama canal compatible gun sponsons?
Is August enough time from January that Hunters Point would have used up their stock of 5-N Navy Blue?

I would tend to lean towards Navy Gray, but I have no documentation at this point that states one way or the other.
Was Hunters Point getting their paint from Mare Island or a local company?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2597 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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