The Ship Model Forum

Another quick question - I have been trying to figure out the paravane arrangements on CV 10 and cannot confirm. Where were the paravanes stored? I know the Trumpy kit, along with other Essex class seem to have them on the stern.

This makes no sense to me and I cannot find any evidence to validate it either. Wouldn't they be near the bow where the actual paravane lines are? I've seen some rigging for similar ships, such as this snippet for Intrepid. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jj9J75 ... er&f=false

Thanks!
Kyle

_________________
Shipmodels Gallery \/

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

The AOTS Intrepid book is correct: the track labeled 3 is an "overhead" rail for moving the paravane from its stowage on the front bulkhead (labeled 4). Unfortunately the Essex class BOGP at HNSA is for angle-decks and doesn't apply, so there isn't anything I can point you to online that shows placement in an overhead view.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Again, thanks so much Tracy - your knowledge is incredibly helpful. Is it possible then there were also (extra?) paravanes on the stern, maybe even a photo the research team found and ran with as far as kit modelling? I will mount my paravanes on the forward bulkhead as that is consistent with drawings and makes more sense then.

Kyle

_________________
Shipmodels Gallery \/

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it's not practical. Paravanes were strung from a special mount on the bow - the stern lacked this and having chains that close to the propellers would not have been smart. So, why then would you store them as far away as you could get them from where they were to be used?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Thanks Tracy - I figured the same thing, but was just curious what led the model manufacturers to put them back there in the first place.

Kyle

_________________
Shipmodels Gallery \/

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Unfortunately, Trumpeter is not known for their research. When I started my CV-13 build, I just started looking at photos and cataloging things I wanted to fix. I was up to something like 70 items before I even hit the flight deck That was the original motivation to the Essex class book I've been working on.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Hello all

My name is Uwe...I am new here. Have been building models on and of for 40 years, mostly airplanes, I one in a while do ships as well. I am a big fan of US carriers, especially the Essex and Midway class!
I have just bought a Dragon 1/700 CV12 Hornet kit...actually wanted a Princeton but that seems unavailable in Germany right now, and was wondering if a WWII Intrepid could be build from it. I like the Intrepid because I have been on the ship in the late 80ties.

thanks a lot
Uwe

This was a comment on the Dragon Essex carriers way back in this thread. So to long and too wide only or just plain too big for 1/700...so like 1/660 or so...in other words, are the proportions right?

thanks
Uwe

Where did all the posts go?

All the posts on this thread, after Nov 18 are gone. Is anyone else having thisproblem?

_________________
Completed:
1/350 USS Missouri (BB-63) * 1/350 USS England (DE-635) * "Underway Personnel Transfer" Diorama

In Progress:
1/350 USS Bennington (CV-20)
1/144 USS Greenling (SSN-614) - ACAD/3D Printing
1/144 USS Batfish (SS-310) - ACAD/3D Printing

Hello again...

Hornet 1/700 is progressing...even though I am not sure yet it's going to be a Hornet? I kind of like the very dark apperance of the MS21 paint sheme, so maybe it will become an early Yorktown, Intrepid, Lexington...? Not sure yet what all can be built from this kit. Once thing I realized...if not Hornet or Essex it has to be an early sversion since I only have the starboard catapult on the fight deck. What I am looking for now are good pictures of te island starboard side that show the arrangement of the ":censored_2: burner" pipes on this ships.

thanks
Uwe

...went into the garage because I has a faint memory...did some searching and found it! USS Essex, Hasegawa 1/700, new in the box. I brought het to the work bench and quickly put the general components together in order to compare her with the Dragon Hornet. I can now see where the extra length comes from. It is the island and the area just in front of it. I have taken measurements of the intrepid from the "Anatomy of a Ship" book and the island should be 57,38mm long at it base. The Hasegawa one is perfect with 1/10th on a cm where as the Dragon one is too long, it 59,8mm long! Hence the fixings for the fwd 5" guns moves forward and in order to keep the optical apperance a bit was exra was added there as well. In the end the deck is 5mm longer at front than the Hasegawa one.





The fight deck width is within acceptable tollerances being 41.7mm wide at the front, 42.1mm at the back and 48.6mm at the widest part where it should be only 47.7mm.
So my conclusion is that Dragon's ship is simply too long from the front part of the island on...which unfortunately would be super hard to correct.

cheers
Uwe

Hello again

Quite quite here...!

Anyway, I am progressing with my Essex carriers. I now have a Trumpeter, Dragon and an old Hasegawa built up raw in order to study the kits and the differences within the class. From a kit point of view I think the Trumpeter is a bit finer detailed than the Dragon one...but the parts break down really is a PITA! The Trumpeter long hull is spot on length wise if the "Anatomy of a ship" book is correct, it mentions 888ft for a long hull ship.
My Trumpeter one (long hull) is labeled as Hancock and this is what she shall be in the end. I want to finish her as Hancock looked shortly before the war was over, so in around June 45 after the last repairs. What I have read in this thread so far Hancock was a bit special. So here are my questions around Hancock and the associated Trumpeter kit. Hancock June 1945...
1. Still short flight deck front and rear (I guess Trumpeter is showing this)?
2. Cutouts in FD covered over by now, front and rear?
3. Camo...MS12 or 22? If 22 was the lower hull blue or gray?
4. 40mm mounts port side front and rear, still raised higher then the 5" single platforms?
5. Directors for the bow 40mm, as kit suggests or different position?
6. AV-GAS pipes on the outside of hull, are there any clear pictures of the starboard side ones as well...or even better, plans?
7. 20mm positions, as kit suggests or different position...or even more that supplied in the box?
8. Island...correct so far? It was built as suggested in the kit
Any additional comments and suggestions would be highly appreciated. Here are a couple of pics of what my Hancock looks so far.











cheers
Uwe

1/2/4 - Yes, short flight deck. Large cut-out was covered over the port sponson that was turned into a quad 40mm battery, and it appears that the the flight deck over the quad 40mm guns was filled in, but the forward gun at least was NOT dropped. Records aren't clear on this feature and some photos of her being mothballed only show the forward gun and skip the aft one. As this was a rushed repair (they didn't extend the decks) I'm fairly comfortable saying that both were probably the same.
3) She was ordered into Ms 12 (neutral 1945 version) before the yard work, but the records don't mention a repaint. I'm sure she was and am fairly confident it was into Ms 12, but have no absolute proof....
5) yes
6) Don't we wish (for plans). My next trip to NARA II I"m going to hit some of the microfilmed plans for the class, but I don't know what I'll find and how much time there will really be, since there's so many ships in different configurations.
7) I don't see many 20mms on your kit yet, but be aware that Hancock still had a pair of galleries hanging under the aft edge of the flight deck like you can see in this photo of CV-9 Essex. Because the flight deck was shorter, these galleries didn't have the vibration issues that those installed on the regular-decked ships did, so Hancock kept hers.
8 ) Looks good so far.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Hello Tracy

Thanks a lot for those clarifications and additional tips. I have now corrected the 40mm positions port side back to the initial raised position. You mentioned pictures of Hancock in moth balls...would you mind sharing those with us, please? I would love to see them.
Am also working on a Dragon shurt hull righ now which will become (hopefully) Intrepid in her early years...and I found an old Hasegawa Essex in the garage which I want to turn into a moth balled carrier, not sure which one. It's difficult since the Hasegawa kit has so many shortcomings and mistakes. I have started beefing it up a bit with left over bits of the other two kits.
Knowing all three now it is such a pitty that the Dragon one which is clearly engineered so much better is just plain too big and also softer in the details. The Trumpeter Flight deck is a touch too narrow but the overall length is spot on.

cheers
Uwe

Yes, they and many, many more will be part of a book I am working on.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

When and where can I place my order?

thanks
Uwe

Gentlemen,

any opinion(s) on this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Essex-Class-Carri ... ojca+essex

This link does show a photo of the cover:

http://www.amazon.de/Flugzeugträger-ESSEX-KLASSE-1943-1945-Technik-Einsatzgeschichte/dp/B005MIQWUM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388338500&sr=8-1&keywords=trojca+essex

The work of Mr. Trojca can be a very mixed bag, this one does sound interesting but the price tag is sort of steep. Is it recommended? Any opinions?

Thanks!

_________________
Best regards from Germany,

Stefan

I need at least one more trip to the National Archives in DC to finish the research... perhaps two. There's a few details yet that are conjecture for a couple of ships and I'd hate to have some that have oodles of facts and one or two with just a few pages. Hancock was one of the later until my last trip, in fact. Next trip in March.



I took a pass on it when it came out because of the price and some errors I could see in the renderings of ships in a preview that was posted to a site (can't remember or find where that was now). I know I'll have to pick it up at some point just to make sure that I come out with a good, competitive product.

A little background on what I'm aiming for - no guarantees that it will happen precisely this way because whichever publisher I work with (there are a couple interested, but obviously I need a finished product before we go anywhere) will also have some say into what gets done. Essentially, I started with the Trumpeter Franklin kit and noticed some problems.... began a list, and in comparing details on other ships patterns began emerging and I found myself taking notes to track which affected Franklin or not. I initially took this and decided a book for modelers with "if you want to build AA ship in BB year in CC scale, start with DD model and make EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE changes" was in order.

Since then I've changed my views a bit - I still am a modeler at heart, but there's a lot of people who aren't who are still interested in the ships, and with new products coming out..... I think it's best to focus on the ships and present a good, overall picture of the ships during the war so that modelers can use it to to start answering questions. We know how to deal with pictures and history, and personally, I prefer those books to the Shipcraft style books (it's a decent work by the way, not bashing it).

So, I've expanded things a bit. I'm including air groups with markings and numbers of aircraft (and histories - I didn't start adding that to my notes until after I'd posted Essex's as a formatting test. See CV-2 Lexington's airgroup page for a more complete idea of the format I'm aiming for). I'm trying to find good photos of the Tillies and Karry Kranes that were used and official documentation for deck markings, deck spottings, things like that.

Essentially, things that the general population will like, but stuff that model builders will eat up. It's been going on for 6-7 years and I've felt guilty about not releasing some photos, but I need to keep something back so that people want the book still! My compromise is that if a modeler asks a question I can answer, I'll do it and at least get them building their ship to the level of correctness they desire (if they just want to slap the thing together and not worry about it I'm fine with that too - for the record).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Hi Tracy

Thanks a lot for the clarifications...I am really looking forward to your publication which I am sure will be the reference book on Essex class ships once available.
A question on the general measurements of he ships. I have the "Anatomy of a Ship" book on the Intrepid and it gives data for the long and short hull ships on page 9 under "Particulars of USS Intrepid" Are those measurements accurate? I plan on hacking those in an xls sheet and measure out the currently available kits to get an idea where things are right or wrong.
Also this book has what they say are 1/300 scale plans. Have you had a chance to check those for accuracy? I will create the sheet in a way so that other scales can be included as well.

thanks
Uwe

Since I won't have much on the models themselves in the book, I guess there's no reason not to post this:



I did it some time ago, so I don't precisely remember what "calculated" means for the dual stern quads. It wouldn't hurt to double check the figures and calculations either, I haven't gone back to do so since I originally started that worksheet.

I don't have the AOTS Intrepid book with me (at work now) so I can't check the numbers until later, but I haven't checked the plans. To be honest, all plans and models are suspect - even the Navy plans had accuracy issues or were simplified, etc.. Since I wasn't going to use those plans for anything I never paid their fine accuracy much mind - I'm more interested in placement of details unless there's a gross deformity in shape (such as the Trumpeter Hornets).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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