The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 619 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 31  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10002
Location: EG48
We have a passing interest :big_grin: :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
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 Nov 21, 2012 4:22 pm 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0206aa.jpg

Here is a little bit of help I'm still looking. LOL
This is Enterprise landing aircraft after an airstrike in early 42 or late 41. This shows you a little on how tightly they packed the front of the ship during landing. The barracades, correct me if I'm wrong are next to the island, so they had to pack them in in front of that with reasonable room for the barracade to stop a plane that missed the wire.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:26 pm 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020623.jpg

This picture is of Enterprise at Midway getting ready to launch TBD's. Hope it helps. The SBD's were arranged in three plane rows like the TBD's in this picture due to no wing folding.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:33 pm 
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020236.jpg

Here is one of the famous pictures of Lexington cv-2 at the Coral sea Battle but deck park doctrine is usually the same through out.
Also as well in launching the strikes at Midway to get the max number of planes flying I'm sure they launched using the catapults until there was enough deck length space to launch without them.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Tracy White wrote:
We have a passing interest :big_grin: :thumbs_up_1:


Ya think? :cool_2:

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
DennisJP wrote:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020236.jpg

Here is one of the famous pictures of Lexington cv-2 at the Coral sea Battle but deck park doctrine is usually the same through out.
Also as well in launching the strikes at Midway to get the max number of planes flying I'm sure they launched using the catapults until there was enough deck length space to launch without them.



Icksnay on deck catapults in 1942. They were rarely if ever used, and most deck cats were removed from the fleet carriers. With a moderate wind over the deck, which these fast ships could make on their own, an F4F could start well ahead of the island and be airborne with deck to spare. SBD's, just a bit more, TBD's probably needed the most deck because the airplane was basically underpowered. That is why they left last.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10002
Location: EG48
Echoing what Michael said, Catapults took a long time to catch on during the war. I have a letter from one of the CVL captains recommending they remove the catapults and use the weight to put a third quad 40mm in place. It was essentially the heavier weights they wanted to launch in 1943 and later that started to force the issue. You couldn't launch a heavy plane without breaking the strike into multiple sets and keeping part below to preserve free space. You could launch the heavy aircraft with a catapult, but that drove the desire for multiple catapults and the higher launch rate they provided.

Until then the single cat was largely seen as a waste.

_________________
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 Nov 21, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:05 pm
Posts: 530
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Cadman wrote:
Sadly 90% of buyers will never notice the problems and buy anyway.
Fortunately some of us buyers do come here to check. I was at the shop today looking at the kit in question but decided to hold off on the $45 price tag to confirm it was/wasn't a new (accurate??) mold Yorktown. I was getting ready to post the question but thought I'd look back a couple of pages to see if it had been addressed previously.

I'm sadly disappointed to see it is not a new mold but relieved I held off spending that money before finding out. Thanks to all involved.

Guess I'll just keep waiting for somebody to mold her accurately in 1/700.

Anybody? Beuller?

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:22 pm
Posts: 7
Great stuff! Thanks, all.

Now I have no excuses if I don't get it right.

Bill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:12 am
Posts: 1
Question:
Isn´t it possible to adapt (plus a lot of sanding) the underwaterhull from another 1:350´ modell. For example the forward underwater-part of the Saratoga/Lexington Hull!??


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1804
The Lexington class was much larger than the Yorktowns. "Adapting" the hull would be like "adapting" a Cadillac into a Volkwagon. Also, there is more wrong with the Trumpeter Hornet hull than the bow, it is just that the bow is the most visible error. The Hornet kit hull is "wall sided", like an Essex. However, it should taper in somewhat just below the hangar deck level. While an Essex hull has a moderately sized segment amidships where it reaches max beam for the entire segment, the Yorktown class hull had a very short max-beam length amidships and tapered foreward and aft of that point. Simply grafting in a more tapered bow wouldn't solve most of the issues.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 564
Location: California
Hub2
Anything is possible, but what sort of lengths would you have to go through. I am amazed at what some modelers will go through to avoid doing a little wood work. A new hull can be created to a correct shape faster than hashing something together and still winding up with a compromise. Not to mention the satisfaction of having created it yourself.

Paul

_________________
Image

http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10002
Location: EG48
Fear of the unknown is a great "motivator" for many modelers.

_________________
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: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:37 pm
Posts: 24
pbudzik wrote:
Hub2
Anything is possible, but what sort of lengths would you have to go through. I am amazed at what some modelers will go through to avoid doing a little wood work. A new hull can be created to a correct shape faster than hashing something together and still winding up with a compromise. Not to mention the satisfaction of having created it yourself.

Paul


If I could fabricate even half as good as your wooden hulls Paul, I might give it a try!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 481
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Mad -
You won't know unless you try. Some have more talent than others, perhaps, or maybe just more willingness to try something with the recognition it may result in 'failure'. But much of this sport owes to being able to follow directions as closely as possible. Many posters here are quite willing to share the 'how to' to at least start the process and make the leap a bit shorter for someone who's never tried a particular technique before. Paul's posting on his own blog spell it out pictorially quite well. You could certainly try a halfway step and make up a small hull of, say, a tugboat with only a few 'lifts' and see how you make out. If you take it one step at a time rather than be overwhelmed by seeing all the steps at once you might surprise yourself.

_________________
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:37 pm
Posts: 24
A question for those who are/have worked on the 80's era Revell Yorktown 1/487 scale kit:

The GMM kit seems to have the 20mm and 50cal machine guns covered, but what to do about the 1.1 Chicago Pianos? The ones in the kit are god awful, although not as bad as the 5'/38cals which are closed mounts (!). Is there an aftermarket supplier, or am I going to have to scratch these? Thanks guys!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
80's era...wow, I built one of these gems back in the late '60s!!

Man, I must be getting OLD..... :huh:

(Sorry this doesn't help answer your question, tho....)

_________________
:no_2: Danny DON'T "waterline"...!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:32 am
Posts: 450
Location: Peach State
TheMadCap wrote:
A question for those who are/have worked on the 80's era Revell Yorktown 1/487 scale kit:

The GMM kit seems to have the 20mm and 50cal machine guns covered, but what to do about the 1.1 Chicago Pianos? The ones in the kit are god awful, although not as bad as the 5'/38cals which are closed mounts (!). Is there an aftermarket supplier, or am I going to have to scratch these? Thanks guys!


I can't help with replacements, but I don't think the 5"/38's are closed mounts. I think Revell molded them with their canvas covers for simplicity (or cost cutting).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 1:26 pm 
Nautilus Models made a detail kit for the old Revell Yorktown. It came with an improved island, decent 5-38 guns, and 1.1 inch Chicago pianos. They re-issue it occasionally. There is a link to them on the Steelnavy front page.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:03 am
Posts: 9
By now I'm sure most of you are aware that Trumpeters next 1/200 scale model is CV-8, Hornet, due to be released sometime in early summer I believe. I have always been a Yorktown fan, and am not all that interested in Hornet. Question is, how close is Hornet to Yorktown? I know she was built several years after, but how many changes were made to the design and how many of them affected the exterior appearance. I know there are differences in the front of the island, but is it worth buying the Hornet version and converting it, or should I wait and hope they do another release of either Yorktown or Enterprise?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 619 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 31  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 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