The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 ... 132  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:09 am
Posts: 7
Tracy White wrote:
Despite being labelled "1945" the CV-12 kit is essentially her "as launched" configuration as Hornet didn't leave the front line from her entry in the Pacific Fleet in March of 1944 to the point that Typhoon damage forced her to the states in June of 1945. It's the best kit to do an early Essex.


I hesitate to question the SME, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Dragon 1/700 CV-12 Hornet kit has two fligh deck catapults. Photographs show that in reality she had only one flight deck catapult during her entire WWII career. I believe she had a hangar deck catrapult also. It is interesting that you can not easily build a Hornet from the Hornet kit nor an Essex from the Essix kit, but it is quite simple to build a Hornet using the Essex kit. Just add a largert radar platform and use the correct radar outfit, add the tripod braces with the slotted lightening holes. You also need to add the two 40mm mounts on the starboard rear side at the hangar deck, inboard, near the rear crane. That seems easier than trying to remove a catapult from the flight deck.

Speaking of those two 40mm mounts, that is what has been holding up my CV-12 build since I last posted here in October, 2014. I have been waiting for the Tracy White Essex book. I have searched far and wide, but have never found a photograph of this area from any of the Essex sisters, with the inboard mounting of these mounts, that show enough detail to scratch build them. If anyone can provide a detailed photo of these I would be forever indebted to you.

If Tracy sees this, I figure you earned my money for a book before I was half way through this thread. You still have a guaranteed sale here, assuming I am still around ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Hey, question away! Even SME's need to be challenged and "kept honest." In this case you are correct, I forgot/missed that the CV-12 kit has the two-catapult deck, which is incorrect. According to this review it's even the shorter deck for the early long hulls CV-14 and CV-19, although I note that the first picture for the flight deck was lifted from the CV-9 kit review and erroneously shows only a single catapult.

Removing a catapult is tedious but not difficult with the right tools. Get a good metal straight edge and a plastic scribe, mask off and fill maybe 1-2mm around the catapult engraved lines, and then use the existing plank lines, straight edge, and scribing tool to cut across the catapult track to restore the continuous plank lines. Obviously I'd recommend a little practice first, but it's similar to how one fills and fixes planking on multiple deck pieces. On a carrier, there's a LOT less to get in the way of easy ruler placement. I've had to use some odd things for battleships to make it fit.....

_________________
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: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:01 am
Posts: 1
Good afternoon. Solder the ship is made of tin. I lowered the rear Elevator, I want to close the fire partition - reduce the work on the interior (there are enough of them already). Whether there are photos or images of the design of such partitions. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
In WWII the partitions were curtains and more for light protection than fire. There are some photos I have seen but they do not focus on the curtains. Look for hangar bay photos and very dark (probably black) curtains.

_________________
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: Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 539
Would anyone happen to know where I could find online or buy the shell plating diagram for the Franklin ? Thanks, Jon.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2020 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Shell plating for all of the short hulls was the same and probably 90% the same between the short and longhulls, for what it's worth.

Unfortunately the National Archives is closed due to Covid so that's not even an option at this time.

_________________
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 Sep 27, 2020 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 539
Thank you Traci and sorry for being late getting replying to you. Have one other question that you may possibly know. What was the hull number assigned to Franklin by Newport News such 'Hull number 402' that I see called out on the shell platting diagram for this class?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Franklin was NUmber 396. Hull Number 402 was LSD-10 Highway. Not sure what diagram you're looking at.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 01, 2020 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:22 am
Posts: 35
Location: Sydney Australia
Howdy firstly you guys are amazing the level of detail and information here blows me away, Im new to modelling and am 90% near complete my first model - Academy CV6, and pretty close to the same with Trumpeter CV5 and Trump CV8 - see the theme haha. I also purchased the Dragon 1/700 Hancock and wanted to plan the painting stage and Im seeking advice if anyone knows the time period of this model as it seems the cammo changed 3? - times 44-45? The Instructions include measure 32 3a for a 1944 - Measure 22 1945 and also a Measure 21 for 1945 - ref this matches Ships cammo website. Im happy to paint any as long as Im accurate to the time scale of the kit - Im would like to be accurate as possible - thanks in advance for any advice.

Cheers

Waz


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 539
Would anyone happen to know if the landing lights on the flight deck on WW2 carriers were glass that was flush with deck or were they some type of mechanical apparatus that opened up when needed. Thanks, Jon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
There were many different lights with a variety of function and designs. I've come across drawings of early 1950s deck lights but nothing earlier and no other drawings for the Essex class.

_________________
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 06, 2020 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:40 pm
Posts: 539
Thanks Traci.
I was more interested in what I believe are lights ( rectangles on the kits )on the round downs. Have been doing some flightdeck painting and not sure as to what color they were i.e. glass or metal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Hey John - try this. Looks like a slotted grill of some sort.

Attachment:
CV-13 March 1945.jpg
CV-13 March 1945.jpg [ 64.5 KiB | Viewed 2337 times ]

_________________
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 Feb 15, 2021 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 637
Location: England
I have the Dragon 1/700 Randolph kit, which given the multi colour camou scheme, is the ship in 44. I was wondering if there was much difference between the ship as depicted in the kit and after she finished her shakedown, repainted into navy Blue and set off on deployment.

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
The model is good for Randolph as commissioned and during her shakedown - during her refit following that there were a number of changes - flight deck was lengthened and more quad 40mms ans 20mms were added as the main differences.

_________________
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 Feb 16, 2021 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:15 am
Posts: 637
Location: England
Tracy White wrote:
The model is good for Randolph as commissioned and during her shakedown - during her refit following that there were a number of changes - flight deck was lengthened and more quad 40mms ans 20mms were added as the main differences.



How much was the flight deck lengthened by? Just wondering how noticeable it would be in 1/700.

thanks
Mike


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Tracy White wrote:
The model is good for Randolph as commissioned and during her shakedown - during her refit following that there were a number of changes - flight deck was lengthened and more quad 40mms and 20mms were added as the main differences.

Are you sure that Randolph commissioned with the short deck? She commissioned Oct 9, '44, but when this photo, dated Nov 12, '44, was taken, the flightdeck was already full length. https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021513.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1950
DavidP wrote:
yes supposedly was a long hull not short hull. "CLASS - ESSEX (Long Hull) AKA TICONDEROGA" https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/15.htm

If you were responding to my post, your answer does not even relate to my comment. The first "long hulls" had a short flightdeck to increase the arcs of fire of the new bow and stern quad 40MM. They also had a cutout of the flightdeck on the port side above the former catapult extension (intended for a third MK-37 director which was never actually installed on any Essex). Only Hancock and Ticonderoga completed with the full deck alterations. However, the air department hated the changes, so only Hancock went to war with the short deck and cutout. Ticonderoga filled in the port side cutout and extended the forward flightdeck back to "standard" length prior to deploying, and restored the length of the after flightdeck in her first major repair. Shangri La launched with the short deck, but commissioned with a full length deck. It is logical to assume that Randolph also had the short deck when launched, but we have seen no photos of when she commissioned to know when the deck was restored to full length. We only know that it was full length by the time of the Nov 12, '44 photo. All of the short flightdeck Essex's were long hull ships, but only the first couple of long hull ships can actually be proven to have had the short deck on commissioning.

Unfortunately, Dragon did not understand all of this, so their original releases of the Randolph, Boxer, and Antietam kits had flightdecks that were shorter, but only at the forward end. I do not know if later releases corrected this deficiency.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I'll have to check my notes for exact lengths but I think it was 7' one direction and 9' aft - essentially one extra segment of wood planking and tie downs. The first three long hulls had shorter flight decks to give the quad 40mms a better overhead firing arc, but the air groups objected to the loss of runway and the decks were to be lengthened. Each of the three had a different configuration - Hancock never had hers lengthened, Ticonderoga had the forward part done first and the stern later, and Randolph had both at the same time.

There were other changes though and I don't know how much you care. The forward Mk 51 directors for the bow quad 40mms were moved from between the guns to the corners of the flight decks for example, and the 20mm galleries that hung off the aft edge of the flight deck were moved around the corner due to excessive vibration when the flight deck was at the original length. Minor to some, noticeable to others.

_________________
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 Feb 17, 2021 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Dick J wrote:
Are you sure that Randolph commissioned with the short deck? She commissioned Oct 9, '44, but when this photo, dated Nov 12, '44, was taken, the flightdeck was already full length. https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021513.jpg


Long work days - not sure. Operating off memory due to time :( You are likely right.

_________________
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  [ 2629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 ... 132  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 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