The Ship Model Forum

Somewhere I've got pictures of one of the ships having her flight deck re-planked and that might help with an estimate, but I've never seen documentation that spoke to the length of the plank.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

As a rule of thumb, these planks are usually 20ft (6.1m) long. In European ships the common length is 6m, so almost the same. This means you need a little over two planks to cover the width of the deck.
Just like the usual planking of ship's decks lengthwise, the butts of the planks wil be laid alternating. These butt ends are hardly visible as there will be no caulking used in those seams.
Using much longer plangs covering the width of the deck in one go would make the planks unnecessarily expensive.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023

The Essex class flight deck was about 190 foot wide. Am I just not awake yet?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

We need to be careful what we are measuring. The "147.5" figure was the max width of the ship across all extensions, including the deck edge elevator, and possibly the outboard 40MM tubs. The actual flightdeck was not that wide. Tracy's figure sounds more like the max width of the SCB-125 conversion, and would extend from the extreme edge of the port elevator to the extreme edge of the starboard one. Obviously, no individual planks would (or could) extend the full width of either figure.

Yeah, I don't have those dimensions memorized, but I *knew* it was more than 40 feet across. I did a search for Essex, Bogue, and Independence class flight deck widths specifically but didn't think in the moment to ensure it wasn't post war

_________________
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,

According to the Anatomy of the Ship book about the Intrepid (1943-1945 period), the flight deck was 96 ft wide fore and aft and 109 ft wide amidship.
The extreme beam of 147 ft 6 in was from the outer edge of the deck elevator to the starboard tip of the signal yard.
The flight deck was of 0.2in steel plate with 3in thick wood planking.

Nothing on the length of the planks.

Best regards,
domi13

OK, OK!

I underestimated the width of the Essex deck, I did. But the figure of 20ft for a single plank is still valid. So you need five or six planks athwartships. Plans of much more length are 1) unnecessarily expensive and 2) very clumsy to handle.

Still, you can hardly observe the butt ends. This has been discussed in several places on this forum, those butt ends are set without caulking. Only the long grooves between the planks are caulked. Also, because all the rubber (and oil and dirt) by the air operations made those decks soon very grimey, and made them loose their official blue paint as well.

I'm working now on a Korea time Essex class, you can hardly see any blue paint left on the deck. Only the yellow markings are apparently refreshed, but nothing else.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023

The width of a WWII Essex flight deck was a bit over 100 ft, not 190. One of the minor advantages of a wooden flight deck, besides absorbing the impact of the aircraft of WWII and keeping things cooler, was the ability to very quickly patch at least minor damage. The butt joints at the end of the boards are very difficult to detect unless you are walking on the deck and paying attention.

I have the original "As Built" plans for SHANGRI-LA. These plans were made when the ship was finished and show the "as intended" vs. "actual" dimensions. No actual dimension differed more than 11 inches from what was intended. That being said, the extreme width of her flight deck (at Frame 68) was 112.5 feet. This dimension is for the wood only and excludes adjacent gutters and appurtenances.

Somewhere, I have the original Ship's Handbook. This book shows the length, width, and type of the flight deck planking. I'll keep looking and post as soon as I find it.

Bob Ketenheim

_________________
USS SHANGRI-LA Association
http://www.USS-SHANGRI-LA.com
http://www.VBF-85.com

Can't find any of my old posts so had to re-register. I did just find a Trumpeter 1:350 of the Hornet mainly assembled for $10(didn't grab it as it might be a waste of time and space). Not sure if I want to mess with it. Is the hull that bad? My ultimate goal is to build the Intrepid - just not sure which WWII variant.
Dave

You can't get to CV-11 Intrepid from CV-8 Hornet without essentially throwing it all out and starting over. CV-12 Hornet was Essex class, but Trumpeter's Hornet was CV-8 of the earlier Yorktown class. They have released CV-9 Essex, CV-10 Yorktown, and CV-13 Franklin in 1/350 that could be used as a basis for CV-11, but the kit you start with drives what year, and configuration of Intrepid you can get to without too much work (CV-9 is more or less as launched whereas CV-10 and -13 kits are late war).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Thank you, Tracy. Obviously I had done no research on CV-8 vs CV-12 vs the kit - just saw the kit FS locally(cheap).
I had read up on this thread about 7 yrs ago but can't find my posts nor those where you had suggested the better start for CV-11 being Franklin or another Essex class(over the actual Intrepid kit) as it would save a lot of fab - for what time frame that would apply I don't recall.
I do have the AOS book on Intrepid and was juggling between CV-11 early '44 around the torpedo damage and Leyte in late '44. Considerable refits to be added, I'm sure. An uncle was aboard the entire war so...
Thanks for all you have done in keeping this history accurate and ship shape!
Dave

I am also still searching and rereading some of the replies back on page 20 or so where Bunzov Steele was modelling CV-11 in late '44. Good stuff.
Dave

Greetings,

Wasn't sure if you were looking to do a 1/350 scale or 1/700 scale Intrepid. So, I went with what I know on the 1/350 scale front.

I did a lot of the research a while back on WWII Essex Class but did not pursue Intrepid so didn't really document it. So, from my old memory, in 350th scale, early Intrepid is Trumpeter 1/350 Essex. Like Essex, Intrepid was commissioned with one catapult and a single 40mm on the stern. Model Monkey does a 1/350 Island that captures the early period nuances as well. Kind of depends on how deep you want to go...ie. higher accuracy = $$$

After Intrepid went back to Hunters Point, she got the second catapult and the second stern 40mm. There are some differences in the island as well. Radars, antenna, etc.... The 1/350 Trumpeter Yorktown or Franklin Kit is good for the later version. Not sure when Intrepid got all of the extra 40mm that most Essex Class WWII Carriers got through 1944/45. I don't remember if there is really a difference in the details of the Yorktown or Franklin Kits, but I thought that they were a little different in the island/mast details. There are reviews of both kits out there so you might be able to glean some pointers there.

Every Essex Class Carrier in WWII was a bit different as the war went along so research is paramount if you are looking for accuracy. Also, even with all of the research out there, you will likely miss something so at some point, once you have the big details captured, enjoy the build. It is likely that nobody else will see the issue, if there was one, well, except Tracey so just don't let him see it ...

Good luck,

Mark

I'm very polite and never bring up detail errors unless asked.

To be honest, I sort-of view any errors people make as my fault, since I haven't got the book out yet...

To that point, still working on it off and on, although I'm taking a break now for the last couple of weeks. Earlier this year I had my first trip to NARA since the pandemic and one of the chief things I worked on was deck parking. I've wanted to find any thing I could that might give us a better understanding of HOW decks were arranged for strikes. I struck out again, essentially, but I did hit some new areas and had some good luck with documentation for aircraft carriers in general that should be useful. Not sure at this point if it's worth waiting for just one more trip....

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Well, I'm still plugging along on it and a Sangamon class book (that's more history than technical details at this point but it will still have a lot of the technical and tabular data) with a dabble in to a ship camouflage book when I need a break from bird farms. I don't have to have the data to write and finish what I already have.... it's just an itch I really want to scratch.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Do you go to the National Archives in Washington? I understand they've got the Booklet of General Plans for Lexington (CV-16) during WWII but they're not on-line.

Generally once or twice a year, but I've already made my trips for the year.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Regarding modelling of these carriers during WWII.

Does anyone know what colour the inside hanger and decks would have been on the Essex class?

Would deck blue have been painted inside the hanger deck and if she ship was blue, would the inside hanger walls be blue or would they be white?

Jeez Sutho, we have to have answered that question a couple of times in the 130+ pages of this thread, I can't imagine why you wouldn't have gone through every page to look for it!

Impossible monsters aside, the interior space would be predominantly #20 Deck Fray and white for the bulkheads and overheads. Bulkheads around the elevators would be in camouflage so as to not show up brilliantly as this photo of CV-2 Lexington from 1941 demonstrates. I haven't found any documentation stating color authoritatively, but in general it appears that 5-N Navy Blue was used (see this picture of CV-5 Yorktown in May of 1943 on her Navsource page and note that you can see through the catapult roller doors to the lowered elevator and surrounding bulkheads).

A document I found for CVL Light Carriers ordered the top six feet (about 2mm in 1/350) of the elevator wells to be painted black to help block light when doing engine run-ups in the dark - photos show this to have been done on the Essex class as well:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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