The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
With the pending releases of a 1/350 Junyo from Hasegawa, and new 1/700 Hiyo from Fujimi, it’s time that this class receive its own thread. The Wikipedia article happens to be very complete and accurate as far as it goes. I’m posting the Wiki article below, with the link here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiy%C5%8D ... ft_carrier ). I would add that both sister ships were originally planned to enter passenger ship service in time for the 1940 Olympic Games in Tokyo, and to showcase Japanese maritime prowess. Also not mentioned below were further changes to Junyo's fit and appearance when repaired after incurring damage at the Battle of the Phillippine Sea in mid 1944.

Links to their Tabulated Record of Movements (TROMS) on the Nihon Kaigun (Combined Fleet) website are:

http://combinedfleet.com/junyo.htm
http://combinedfleet.com/hiyo.htm

I’m sure there are some related threads out there in the MW archives. Over time, I would expect to integrate them into this class thread.

WIKI -
“The two Hiyō-class aircraft carriers (飛鷹型航空母艦 Hiyō-gata kōkūbokan?) were built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during World War II. Both ships of the class, Hiyō and Junyō, were originally laid down as luxury passenger liners before being acquired by the IJN for conversion to aircraft carriers in 1941. Junyō was the first of the sister ship to be completed in May 1942 and the ship participated in the invasion of the Aleutian Islands the following month. Both ships participated in several battles during the Guadalcanal Campaign in late 1942. Their aircraft were disembarked several times and used from land bases in a number of battles in the South West Pacific.

Hiyō was torpedoed in June 1943 and Junyō in November; both ships spent about three months under repair. They spent most of the time after their repairs training and ferrying aircraft before returning to combat. Hiyō was sunk by a gasoline vapor explosion caused by an American torpedo hit during the Battle of the Philippine Sea in mid-1944 while Junyō was damaged by several bombs. Lacking aircraft, she was used as a transport in late 1944 and was torpedoed in December. The ship was under repair until March 1945 when the repairs were deemed uneconomical. Junyō was then effectively hulked for the rest of the war. The ship was deemed not worth the cost to repair by the Americans after the surrender of Japan in September and she was broken up in 1946–47.

Design and description

The ships were ordered as the fast luxury passenger liners Izumo Maru and Kashiwara Maru by Nippon Yusen Kaisha (Japan Mail Steamship Company-NYK) in late 1938. In exchange for a 60% subsidy of their building costs by the Navy Ministry, they were designed to be converted to aircraft carriers. To facilitate this process, they were fitted with a double hull, additional fuel oil capacity, provisions for the fitting of additional transverse and longitudinal bulkheads, installation of a longitudinal bulkhead to separate the turbine rooms, a strengthened main deck, more height between decks, rearrangement of the superstructure and passenger accommodations to facilitate the installation of aircraft elevators and hangars, more space for additional wiring, installation of a bulbous bow and the addition of aviation gasoline storage tanks fore and aft of the machinery spaces. NYK was only interested in a maximum speed of 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph) to save fuel, but the Navy wanted a maximum speed of no less than 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h; 29.3 mph) so they compromised by limiting the performance of the turbines to 80% of maximum power during peacetime.[1]

The ships had a length of about 219.32 meters (719 ft 7 in) overall. They had a beam of 26.7 meters (87 ft 7 in) and a draft of 8.15 meters (26 ft 9 in). They displaced 24,150 metric tons (23,770 long tons) at standard load.[2] Their crew ranged from 1,187 to 1,224 officers and enlisted men.[3]

Both ships were fitted with two Mitsubishi-Curtis geared steam turbine sets with a total of 56,250 shaft horsepower (41,950 kW), each driving a 5.5-meter (18 ft) propeller. Steam was provided by six water-tube boilers; Junyō had Mitsubishi three-drum boilers that operated at a pressure of 40 kg/cm2 (3,923 kPa; 569 psi) and temperature of 420 °C (788 °F) while Hiyō had Kawasaki-La Mont boilers. Their machinery, designed for merchant service, was over four times heavier than that of the purpose-built aircraft carrier Hiryū. The ships had a designed speed of 25.5 knots, but both exceeded that by small margins during sea trials. They carried 4,100 metric tons (4,000 long tons) of fuel oil which gave them a range of 11,700 nautical miles (21,700 km; 13,500 mi) or more at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).[4]


Flight deck arrangements

The flight deck was 210.3 meters (690 ft 0 in) long and had a maximum width of 27.3 meters (89 ft 7 in).[5] A large island was fitted on the starboard side that, for the first time in a Japanese carrier, was integrated with the ship's funnel. This was angled 26° outwards to help keep its exhaust from interfering with flight operations.[6] The ships were designed with two superimposed hangars, each approximately 153 meters (502 ft 0 in) long, 15 meters (49 ft 3 in) wide and 5 meters (16 ft 5 in) high. Each hangar could be subdivided by four fire curtains and they were fitted with fire fighting foam dispensers on each side. The hangars were served by two square elevators with rounded corners, 14.03 meters (46 ft 0 in) on each side. The elevators had a maximum capacity of 5,000 kilograms (11,000 lb) and took 15 seconds to go from the lower hangar to the flight deck. The ships were fitted with electrically operated Kure type model 4 arresting gear with nine cables. They also mounted two Type 3 crash barricades. No aircraft catapult was fitted. The ships mounted a crane on the port side of the flight deck, just aft of the rear elevator. When collapsed, it was flush with the flight deck.[7]

Their air group was originally intended to consist of 12 Mitsubishi A5M "Claude" fighters, plus 4 in storage, 18 Aichi D3A "Val" dive bombers, with an additional 2 in reserve, and 18 Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bombers. This was revised to substitute a dozen Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters, plus 3 in storage, for the A5Ms by the time the ship commissioned in 1942. As a result of the lessons learned from the Battle of Midway in June, the ships' fighter complement was strengthened to 21 Zeros, and the other aircraft reduced to 12 D3As and 9 B5Ns. By the end of the year, 6 more Zeros replaced an equal number of D3As. Although it was possible to fit all these aircraft into the hangars, 8 or 9 were usually stored on the flight deck to reduce crowding below decks.[8]


Armor, armament and sensors

As a conversion from an ocean liner, it was not possible to add much armor, although the ships had a double hull. Two plates of Ducol steel, each 25 mm (0.98 in) thick, protected the sides of the ships' machinery spaces. Their aviation gasoline tanks and magazines were protected by one layer of Ducol steel. In addition, their machinery spaces were further subdivided by transverse and longitudinal bulkheads to limit any flooding.[9]

The primary armament consisted of a dozen 40-caliber 12.7 cm Type 89 anti-aircraft (AA) guns in twin mounts on sponsons along the sides of the hull.[10] They fired 23.45-kilogram (51.7 lb) projectiles at a rate between 8 and 14 rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 700–725 m/s (2,300–2,380 ft/s); at 45°, this provided a maximum range of 14,800 meters (16,200 yd), and a maximum ceiling of 9,400 meters (30,800 ft).[11] The ships were also initially equipped with eight triple 25 mm Type 96 light AA guns, also in sponsons along the sides of the hull.[9] They fired .25-kilogram (0.55 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s); this provided a maximum range of 7,500 meters (8,202 yd), and an effective ceiling of 5,500 meters (18,000 ft) at +85°. The maximum effective rate of fire was only between 110 and 120 rounds per minute due to the frequent need to change the fifteen-round magazines.[12] In mid-1943, four more triple mounts were added and another four triple mounts in late 1943–early 1944. Two of these last four mounts were mounted on the stern and the others were placed in front of and behind the island. A dozen single mounts were also added, some of which were portable and could be mounted on tie-down points on the flight deck. After the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944, Junyō's anti-aircraft armament was reinforced with three more triple mounts, two twin mounts and 18 single mounts for the 25 mm Type 96 gun. These guns were supplemented by six 28-round AA rocket launchers.[13] Each 12-centimeter (4.7 in) rocket weighed 22.5 kilograms (50 lb) and had a maximum velocity of 200 m/s (660 ft/s). Their maximum range was 4,800 meters (5,200 yd).[14] In October 1944, Junyō had a total of 91 25 mm barrels; 57 in 19 triple mounts, four in two twin mounts, and 30 single mounts.[13]

Two Type 94 high-angle fire-control directors, one on each side of the ship, were fitted to control the Type 89 guns. Each director mounted a 4.5-meter (14 ft 9 in) rangefinder. When Junyō first commissioned only the rangefinders were fitted and the directors were added later. Four Type 95 directors controlled the 25 mm guns and another pair were added in early 1943. Early warning was provided by two Type 2, Mark 2, Model 1 air search radars. The first of these was mounted on the top of the island in mid- to late 1942 on each ship, and the other was added during 1943. This latter system was fitted on the port side of the hull, outboard of the rear elevator.[15] A smaller Type 3, Mark 1, Model 3 air search radar was added in 1944 on Junyō.[16]

Ship Original name Builder Laid down Launched Commissioned Fate

Hiyō (飛鷹) Izumo Maru (出雲丸) Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Kobe
30 November 1939 24 June 1941 31 July 1942 Sunk, 21 June 1944, during the Battle of the Philippine Sea

Jun'yō (隼鷹) Kashiwara Maru (橿原丸) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nagasaki
20 March 1939 26 June 1941 3 May 1942 Scrapped, 1946–47


Service history

The ships were purchased on 10 February 1941 by the Navy Ministry for the price of ¥48,346,000 and their armament and aircraft cost an additional ¥27,800,000. The cost to convert the two ships was budgeted at ¥38,073,000, for a grand total of ¥114,219,000. Kashiwara Maru and Izumo Maru were temporarily referred to as No. 1001 Ship (Dai 1001 bankan) and No. 1002 Ship respectively to keep their conversions secret. Junyō was initially classified as an auxiliary aircraft carrier (Tokusetsu kokubokan), but following the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers in the Battle of Midway, she was redesignated as a regular carrier (Kokubokan) in July; Hiyō, completed after the loss of the carriers, received that designation from the beginning.[17]

Despite being launched several days after Hiyō, Junyō was the first of the pair to be commissioned in May 1942. She was assigned to the Fourth Carrier Division of the 1st Air Fleet, together with Ryūjō. The ship was tasked to support the invasion of the Aleutian Islands, a diversionary thrust in support of the attack on Midway. Junyō carried 18 A6M2 Zeros and 18 D3As for this operation. The ship launched her first airstrike at dawn on 3 June against Dutch Harbor on Unalaska Island. She accomplished little during this operation, losing 5 aircraft to all causes, and her own aircraft only shot down 5 American aircraft.[18]

Upon arrival at Truk on 9 October, the two sisters were assigned to the Second Carrier Division to begin operations against American forces in the Guadalcanal area as part of the 3rd Fleet.[19] On 15 October, the two carriers reached the vicinity of Malaita Island in the Solomon Islands and their aircraft discovered a resupply convoy for Guadalcanal that was escorted by the destroyer Meredith. Their aircraft attacked and sank the destroyer. The next day, they found the small seaplane tender, McFarland, in Lunga Roads offloading avgas into barges. Dive bombers from the sisters blew the ship's stern off, but failed to sink McFarland. The two carriers were intended to play a prominent role in the Japanese effort to retake Guadalcanal Island and were assigned to the Advance Force for this operation. Their aircraft were supposed to provide air cover after the Japanese night attack that retook Henderson Field and then they were to be flown ashore,[20] but Hiyō's machinery problems caused her to return to Truk. Some of her aircraft were transferred to her sister before she departed.[21]

In late October 1942, during the Guadalcanal Campaign, Junyō took part in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. At this time, her air group consisted of 18 Zeros, 18 D3As and 9 B5Ns. Her aircraft made hits on the carrier Hornet, the battleship South Dakota and the light cruiser San Juan, but inflicted little substantial damage. A torpedo hit from one of her B5Ns, however, did force the Americans to abandon their effort to repair Hornet.[22] During this time, Hiyō's remaining aircraft flew to Rabaul on 23 October where they provided air cover for Japanese forces on Guadalcanal. A detachment from the air group was transferred to Buin, Papua New Guinea on 1 November and participated in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal later in the month. Those aircraft that remained at Rabaul flew back to Truk by 11 November, but the Buin detachment was ferried back to Japan on 14 December.[23]

In mid-November 1942, Junyō was tasked to provide air cover for the convoy bringing reinforcements for the Japanese forces on Guadalcanal during the three-day-long Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. The ship's fighters were unable to do so; seven transports were sunk and the remaining four transports were damaged.[24] In December 1942 – January 1943, the carrier covered several convoys that brought reinforcements to Wewak, New Guinea and her air group was based there for several days to protect the forces there before returning to Truk on 20 January. The ship then covered the evacuation of forces from Guadalcanal through early February.[25]

Hiyō had returned to Japan in December and Junyō followed in February. Both ships returned to Truk in late March[19][21] and their air groups were detached from in early April to participate in Operation I-Go, a land-based aerial offensive against Allied bases in the Solomon Islands and New Guinea.[26] The ships returned to Japan in late May and sailed for Truk on 7 June,[19] but Hiyō was torpedoed that evening and forced to return to port for repairs.[21] Her fighters were flown to Truk by 15 July and assigned to the light carrier Ryūhō.[27] The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September.[21] Junyō's air group was deployed to Buin, Papua New Guinea on 2 July in response the American invasion of Rendova Island on 30 June. Leaving her aircraft behind, the carrier returned to Japan in late July.[28]

Junyō ferried aircraft to Singapore in mid-August and troops and equipment to the Caroline Islands the following month. On 5 November 1943, she was hit by a torpedo, but the damage was light, other than the disabled rudder. The ship was under repair and refit until 29 February 1944 at Kure.[19] The air groups of both carriers were reconstituted at Singapore on 1 November.[26] The aircraft transferred to Truk on 1 December and then to Kavieng at the end of December before reaching Rabaul on 25 January 1944; the survivors were back at Truk on 20 February and the air group was disbanded.[26]

Hiyō departed Japan for Singapore on 24 November. She arrived on 3 December and was almost immediately assigned duties as an aircraft ferry until January when the ship returned to Japan.[21] In the meantime, the Japanese Navy had restructured its carrier air groups so that one air group was assigned to one carrier division and Air Group 652 was assigned to the 2nd Carrier Division with Hiyō, Junyō and Ryūhō on 1 March. The air group was last in priority to be rebuilt and only had 30 Model 21 Zeros, 13 Model 52 Zeros and 4 D3As on hand on 1 April of its authorized 81 fighters, 36 dive bombers and 27 torpedo bombers. The ships conducted training for their aircraft in the Inland Sea until 11 May when she sailed for Tawi-Tawi in the Philippines.[29] The new base was closer to the oil wells in Borneo on which the Navy relied and also to the Palau and western Caroline Islands where the Japanese expected the next American attack. However, the location lacked an airfield on which to train the green pilots and American submarines were very active in the vicinity which restricted the ships to the anchorage.[30]


Battle of the Philippine Sea

The Japanese fleet was en route to Guimares Island in the central Philippines on 13 June, where they intended to practice carrier operations in an area better protected from submarines, when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned of the American attack on the Mariana Islands the previous day. Upon reaching Guimares, the fleet refuelled and sortied into the Philippine Sea where they spotted Task Force 58 on 18 June. The Americans failed to locate Ozawa's ships that day and the Japanese turned south to maintain a constant distance between them and the American carriers as Ozawa had decided on launching his air strikes early the following morning. At this time, Air Group 652 consisted 81 Zeros, 27 D3As, 9 Yokosuka D4Y "Judy" dive bombers and 18 Nakajima B6N "Jill" torpedo bombers, roughly evenly divided among the three ships. The three carriers launched multiple air strikes against the American ships, but generally failed to locate them and did not inflict any damage while losing most of their aircraft.[31]

At dusk, the Japanese turned away to the northwest to regroup and to refuel and the Americans turned west to close the distance. They discovered the retiring Japanese fleet during the afternoon of the following day and Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered an air strike launched.[32] Hiyō was struck by two bombs, one of which detonated above the bridge and killed or wounded virtually everyone there. More seriously, the ship was struck by one torpedo dropped by a Grumman TBF Avenger from Belleau Wood. This knocked out the starboard engine room and started fires, but Hiyō was able to continue, albeit a slower speed. Two hours later, a large explosion occurred when leaking gasoline vapor ignited and it knocked out all power on the ship. The fires raged out of control and Hiyō sank stern first[21] shortly afterwards at 16°20′N 132°32′E.[13] Roughly 1,000 men were rescued by her escorting destroyers, but 247 officers and enlisted men died aboard the carrier.[21]

Junyō was hit by two bombs near her island. The ship was not badly damaged, but the damage did stop flight operations.[19] Air Group 652 claimed 2 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters and 9 Grumman TBF Avenger torpedo bombers shot down, but lost 11 aircraft, plus another 3 that had to ditch. By the end of the battle, the air group only consisted of 11 A6M5s, 5 A6M2s and 1 B6N and it was disbanded on 10 July. Most of its remaining personnel were assigned to Air Group 653.[33]

After repairs at Kure, the ship remained in the Inland Sea without aircraft until 27 October when she was tasked to transport material to Borneo. On 3 November, she was attacked by the submarine Pintado, but her escorting destroyer, Akikaze, deliberately sacrificed herself by intercepting the torpedoes and sank with no survivors.[19] While returning from Manila, Junyō was attacked by the submarines Sea Devil, Plaice and Redfish early in the morning of 9 December 1944. She was hit by three torpedoes, but she was able to proceed on one engine. She reached Sasebo the following day and began repairs on 18 December.[19]

The repairs were abandoned in March 1945 for lack of materials and the ship was moved from the dock to Ebisu Bay, Sasebo on 1 April. Efforts to camouflage the ship began on 23 April and she was reclassified as a guard ship on 20 June. Junyō's armament was ordered removed on 5 August and the ship was surrendered to the Allies on 2 September. An American technical team evaluated the ship's condition on 8 October and deemed her a constructive total loss. Junyō was stricken from the Navy List on 30 November and scrapped between 1 June 1946 and 1 August 1947 by the Sasebo Ship Company.[13]”

Available kits:
1/700

1972 (Waterline Consortium 1st generation) – Tamiya issued

Junyo, late 1944 - Item #31212, kit # WL 212, released 197?, re-released 1994


2016 Second Generation – Fujimi issued

Hiyo, 1944 – Item # 431413, kit # SWM (EX) -94, released September, 2016
Hiyo, 1942 - Item # 422312, kit # FH-39, Full Hull, released May, 2017
Hiyo, 1944 – Item # 431574, kit # SWM (EX) -SP59, with one 1/72 Aichi Type 96 Val dive bomber included, released June, 2017
Hiyo, 1944 – Item # 431642, kit # SWM (EX) -SP66, DX with photo etch included, released June, 2017
Hiyo, 1942 - Item # 422312, kit # SWM (EX) -13, colored parts, released October, 2017

Junyo, 1942 – Item # 431420, kit # SWM (EX) -95, released December, 2016
Junyo, Oct 1942 - Item # 431697, kit # SWM (EX) -SP70, Santa Cruz with 48 navalized aircraft, released July, 2017

1/350

Hasegawa issued

Junyo, June 1944 – Item # 400306, kit # Z30, released November, 2016
Hiyo, October, 1942 - Item #40096, Limited Edition with Junyo and Hiyo decals, released July, 2017


Examples in the gallery (and I’m sure I’ve missed some worthy ones):

A magnificent, scratch- built 1/200 Junyo (mid to late 1944) /200 scale by Yasuo Tomoi http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

A late war 1/700 Junyo from the Tamiya kit by William Zammit http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

A 1/700 Junyo (T) conversion to Hiyo 1942 by Anthony Kochevar http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

An exquisite 1/700 Junyo 1945 (T) by Takumi Akiharu http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Yet another Junyo, 1942 version (T) by Takumi Akiharu: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html


Last edited by Dan K on Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9572
Location: EG48
Nice! Now to agonize over whether or not to add another Japanese flat top to my collection. I'd want to do her in a 1942 fit as she was during the attack on Dutch Harbor.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2059
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Dan K wrote:
:woo_hoo: :woo_hoo: :woo_hoo:


Dan,

Do you think there will be a lot of changes to make this Hasegawa 1/350 kit into Junyo's sister ship Hiyo?

Or should we wait instead for Fujimi to make a 1/350 version of their recently released 1/700 Hiyo kit?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
I wouldn't think so. Other than flight deck markings, they were pretty much visually identical until Hiyo was sunk. Depending on how the parts are broken down, and the particular fit you want, the modifications are likely to be very simple. Obviously, if you are going to go for a 1942 or 1943 fit, you'll need to pick up some of the earlier aircraft sets from Hasegawa or Fujimi. I do wonder if Fujimi has been planning its own version.

If Hasegawa executes this kit as they did Akagi, then I won't have to complain about the flight deck planking, either. Yea!

Hobbysearch Japan is listing availability as mid-November, 2016. There's several sheets of PE.

Here's the artwork, courtesy of Hobbysearch Japan -


Attachments:
10410611b.jpg
10410611b.jpg [ 88.13 KiB | Viewed 3672 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2059
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Just curious... Why did Junyo enter service first if Hiyo is the class leader?

Was it because Hiyo's conversion took longer?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Haijun watcher on Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9572
Location: EG48
It's not abnormal for class leader to commission after other ships due to construction issues that get worked out on her. Happened with some US ships as well.

Dan - with the news that it will be 1944 fit, any rough idea how much work it would be to backdate to the attack on Dutch Harbor?

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
Quote:
according to the link, the Junyo is in the later war version. Marianas Turkey shoot


Correct. Backdating her to 1942 is relatively simple. Particularly since the kit is not in her end of war configuration, which complicates the backdating.

It occurs to me that, given Hasegawa's likely desire to maximize their return on investment, we will see some other fits and perhaps Hiyo as well. The variations turned out on their Mikasa (5), Kagero class DD (5), Soya (4), Hikawa Maru (3), Agano class CL (4), & Nagato class (3) kits bodes well for this. It's a matter of patience.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
Quote:
Was it because Hiyo's conversion took longer?


Probably, though the actual details are not available.

Quote:
any rough idea how much work it would be to backdate to the attack on Dutch Harbor?


Well, Tracy, very roughly speaking, moving back from mid 1944 to June, 1942:

No Type 21 radar(s)
No type 94 HA directors, only Type 91 directors
No 25mm triples at the bow or stern, or 25mm MG directors
No 25mm triples (4) on the new sponsons close to the bow

There's a very few other details that escape me at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9572
Location: EG48
Thanks, I'll start trying to gather references.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
Well, here are some plans for Junyo as completed that should be helpful to all, though the resolution may suffer here. Tracy, PM for you.


Attachments:
Junyo 1942 as built, side view, Nihon no Gunkan vol 16  v sm.jpg
Junyo 1942 as built, side view, Nihon no Gunkan vol 16 v sm.jpg [ 180.17 KiB | Viewed 2899 times ]
Junyo 1942 as built, plan view, Nihon no Gunkan vol 1 v sm.jpg
Junyo 1942 as built, plan view, Nihon no Gunkan vol 1 v sm.jpg [ 102.66 KiB | Viewed 2899 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
This one might help a little as well. Also as built.


Attachments:
Junyo plan, Hara Shobo set sm.jpg
Junyo plan, Hara Shobo set sm.jpg [ 170.16 KiB | Viewed 2887 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 2059
Location: Vancouver, Canada
If posted here, those postwar photos of Junyo in Sasebo would be a better help for those who want to model her in a late war/1945 configuration.

Too bad she wasn't used in a postwar repatriation role like the other surviving IJN carriers.

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Posts: 56
HobbyLink Japan has the new kit and all of the accessory set available for preorder and a release date of November 2016. Guess I know what I'm spending my Christmas money on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
Quote:
How much better is Hasegawa's planking compared to Fujimi?


The short version is: MUCH better. Both companies get kudos for replicating the flight deck planking with recessed lines for seams instead of raised lines.

Fujimi's problems are: 1) plank width is seriously overscale, maybe 10 to 14" in width when it should be 6 to 8" wide ; 2) their seams are overscale as well, almost a scale 7"; & 3) their planking pattern is incorrect, alternating every other plank when it should be every 5th plank. The result is a deck with overt details that appears far too uniform. BTW, this applies to not only their CVs, but also their BBs. And, also to most of the aftermarket wood deck replacements.)

Hasegawa's rendition is far superior in every respect: narrower widths and seams, and a more random placement of the planking pattern. (I'll take comparative measurements again tonight, also some photos.)

This is detail that few folks aside from myself really care much about, which I understand completely. After all, if one is going to spray the flight deck with a deck tan and leave it at that, or use a wooden deck, or paint the deck in the late war camouflage scheme, then further attention to the deck probably doesn’t matter that much more to that modeler. Which is absolutely fine.

On the other hand, personally, I find the flight deck one of the most prominent things you see on an aircraft carrier model, and I believe it deserves a bit more attention. So, I prefer to use a wash on the deck, to bring out detail, to break up the monotony of the expanse, and to make it seem a little more realistic. And, when you go in for a bit more realism, then the scale of the details becomes a bit more important.

What I find really annoying is that the information to render it correctly is out there; witness Hasegawa's efforts. Fujimi has chosen to ignore that information with each new release, and I can't fathom why. It takes just as much effort to create a new kit each time regardless of which information one uses.

Incidentally, I believe that Fujimi, or whomever did the initial research, based the planking pattern on the deck of the museum ship Mikasa. Which may be fine for Mikasa. Definitely not for the others.


Attachments:
Mikasa deck.jpg
Mikasa deck.jpg [ 146.13 KiB | Viewed 3166 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9572
Location: EG48
Given Mikasa's restoration, it's very possible her planking isn't to the original pattern either.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
My thought, exactly.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
Quote:
2) their seams are overscale as well, almost a scale 7";


Ok, this is an overstatement on my part. In retrospect, I was thinking of Fujimi's 1/700 IJN CVs, in which the seam is more prominent in comparison to the planking. As for the rest, I'll let you judge for yourself.

Fujimi's planking measures out to 0.040", or a scale 14" wide. Hasegawa's is roughly 0.275, or a scale 9.6". Not perfect, but certainly better.

The planking pattern which I so dislike on Fujimi's kits started with Hiryu. Prior to that, Shokaku/Zuikaku had continuous planks, which I think works better, and to their advantage, in 1/350, even if the planking itself is far too wide. Those kits also benefit from molded tie-down holes. As does Akagi, whose holes are more sharply molded, and smaller.


Attachments:
Hiryu 1-350 (F) FD planking.jpg
Hiryu 1-350 (F) FD planking.jpg [ 156.59 KiB | Viewed 2886 times ]
Shokaku (F) 1-350 FD planking width.jpg
Shokaku (F) 1-350 FD planking width.jpg [ 178.56 KiB | Viewed 2886 times ]
Akagi 1-350 (H) FD planking closeup.jpg
Akagi 1-350 (H) FD planking closeup.jpg [ 152.33 KiB | Viewed 2886 times ]
Hiryu 1-350 (F) vs Akagi (H) 1-359 FD planking.jpg
Hiryu 1-350 (F) vs Akagi (H) 1-359 FD planking.jpg [ 198.38 KiB | Viewed 2886 times ]
Shokaku (F) vs Akagi (H) 1-350 FD planking sm.jpg
Shokaku (F) vs Akagi (H) 1-350 FD planking sm.jpg [ 144 KiB | Viewed 2886 times ]


Last edited by Dan K on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Hasegawa 1/350 Junyo
PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6412
Location: New York City
A couple of views of Junyo's actual deck, to see how the planking really looked. In reality, perhaps the plank ends are overstated even in 1/350, which is why I always thought the continuous plank look seemed best. The overhead deck views are only 35' to 50' away from the decking closest to the camera. Again, judge for yourself, along with the actual plank width.


Attachments:
Junyo deck, change of command, July, 1942.jpg
Junyo deck, change of command, July, 1942.jpg [ 195.19 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Junyo deck post Phillipine Sea 6-1944.jpg
Junyo deck post Phillipine Sea 6-1944.jpg [ 188.66 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Junyo deck post war.jpg
Junyo deck post war.jpg [ 199.34 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Junyo deck post war crop.jpg
Junyo deck post war crop.jpg [ 196.76 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Junyo at Sasebo, postwar 1945.jpg
Junyo at Sasebo, postwar 1945.jpg [ 199.08 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Junyo at Sasebo post war 1945, safety barrier stanchion21.jpg
Junyo at Sasebo post war 1945, safety barrier stanchion21.jpg [ 178.81 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10443
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
The J-Modelworks blog has an excellent inbox review of the new Fujimi Hiyo: http://mokehana.blog34.fc2.com/blog-entry-781.html

Looks like Fujimi's molded some fine new instruments.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9572
Location: EG48
So they kinda give you the option of dropping the elevators. Are there any known shots showing the hangar bay in case we wanted more than a box with two black painted walls?

_________________
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  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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

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