The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed May 27, 2020 4:27 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 43  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: HORNET hull
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
John W. wrote:
Mike -
There's no question the main deck / hangar deck is parallel over a considerable length, and that the Trumpy main deck / hangar appears to be very close to right. But the hull flares up to meet that deck, so if you look on the plans at the next waterline down from the main deck (on the Webb plans, #9 or #11? - don't have them handy here at work) and put a straight edge along it, it is not parallel for very much of its length. This shows in the body plan. That flare is what Trumpeter did not add, and likewise they just carried the side down vertically from the parallel hangar deck to produce the hull with a long 'tanker' parallel midbody. I couldn't see whether this was done correctly to the Revell model or not, but I suspect it was. My biggest 'Aw Crap' (well, not those exact words) was when I noticed that a very deep flare up to the hangar deack carried well aft of the hangar deck cat sponsons. Again, I blame people who shall remain nameless, but whose initials are MV and JH.
Mike, Dave, and others -
Unfortunately, I have tried several other ways to get the hull right before settling on the carved resin option. If I didn't have so much invested emotionally in it, I would use basswood lifts and carve the hull. I tried removing the braces on the Trump hull and squeezing the waterline inward and holding it with new braces and massive amounts of superglue and clamps. It seemed to work at first, but stress cracks developed in the plastic, and the hangar deck took a noticeable twist. At that, there was just no way to get the bow narrow enough to be acceptable. I thought of filling the Trump hull with resin, and did so in the bow area, but I just couldn't get the whole assembly square, so I returned to the donor BWN hull and started grinding and sawing away. I refused several suggestions that I just use the lift method to carve a wood hull. I should have done that. When I go to build ENTERPRISE in 1942, I will do just that. Anyway, I expect to use much of the Trumpeter kit above the hangar deck. While I'm at it, I should point out that there is a knuckle in the flare that supports the forward 5" gun galleries. It does not show up in any other plans I've seen. If you look carefully on good photographs,you will see it. It is clear on the builder's model. It occurs at the forecastle deck level, on the aft third of the flare supporting the gun gallery. It reflects a change in the angle of the flare up from the waterline to slightly more vertical at that point.
All is not lost, as I am determined to see this through. The frustration I have is the amount of time spent to get the hull right before even doing the detail work. I feel like a blacksmith sometimes.


John,

If you really want an Aw Sh** moment, measure the Trumpy hull at the waterline below the opening of the forward hangar deck catapult location. it is fully TWICE the width of the real hull dimension at that point. Can you imagine a company selling an airplane kit with a fuselage twice the thickness of the correctly scaled version!? Just so you know, I once measured out the Revell kit hull with rulers and calipers. It is unbelievably dead-on for shape and accuracy. Keep in mind that it's true "box" scale is, in fact, somewhere between 1/486 and 1/487th, but closer to 1/487th. It is always erroneously reported as being 1/480th scale. If you want to use one as a guide, converting 1/487 to 1/350 dimensions, I fully recommend it. These ships had beautiful graceful high speed hulls. The Trumpy kit just makes me cringe. Hornet made nearly 34 knots on shakedown. Think that trumpy pig of a shape could go that fast?

Now, if the correct hull FLARE is what you were originally were referring to as the parallel part, and I misunderstood, the entire Trumpy hull below the hangar is wrong, not just the bow. There is considerable flare all along the length of the real ships. Measure the waterline of trumpy. It should be 83 feet at max WL beam. The kit is somewhere closer to 95 feet. Yes, they just dropped the hull sides straight down from the hangar deck. I believe they had good overhead and profile plan views, but attempted to design this kit without any hull cross sectional dimensions! Unbelievable, but true. They used an equally defective kit, the resin BWN as their guide to hull cross section. (I had my go at the BWN kit manufacturer back in the mid 1990's when I got ripped off for $700 and so stated, and proved it, to the maker, who should have stuck to tanks.) I tried to get Trumpy to fix it in development, when invited by one of the brass makers to give them some input on secondary armament and radar. i fixed what I could, but they had already cut the mold for the hull, and wouldn't fix it, save a minor tune up on the stern shape

_________________
Mike
Image


Last edited by Michael Vorrasi on Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
RNfanDan wrote:
I appreciate the tips.

The trumpeter 1:700 kit I am receiving this week, will be a full-hull version, but what concerns me the most is whether or not the hull is divided bilaterally along its longitudinal axis, or at the waterline, or both--the worst case I can think of, is that it will be in five pieces (L/R above waterline, L/R below waterline, and that red plastic horizontal waterline plate so often found in WL-only kits).

As this kit is not the 1:350 version, I am just as uncertain as you guys, whether it is a reduced "carbon copy" of the defective hull form found in its larger sibling. My primary concern is whether or not there were significant real-ship differences other than overall length--i.e., the plan sets and data I have on hand are nearly identical for Enterprise and Yorktown, but I have no idea if Hornet's dimensional disparities were primarily in the superstructure/hangAr/flight deck, or altered from the keel-up when compared to her sisters.

I can handle anything in need of change from the hull-up---including scratch-building an entire hangAr and FD--but alterations below the flared hull line at the base of the hangAr sides, although I can do these, I really don't want to spend that much effort on.

The whole point for me, is whether the kit is faithful to Hornet's correct form--if not, rather than simply correcting errors, I can accomplish two objectives at once by morphing the kit into CV5 or CV6; I won't waste the effort to correct the model as Hornet, itself, but will gladly do so if I can, at the same time, produce the others.

I may even pilfer the lower hull from the Trumpy 1:700 Hornet kit, and adapt it to another brand's WL-only version of CV5 or CV6, provided that the other brand is otherwise good-to-go. On a side note, I am aware that the older Revell 1:540 kit has a very good and accurate hull form--the bilge keels, hull taper, shaft locations and U-bottom are very faithfully reproduced--and perhaps, in the absence of 1:700 information, I can scale-down the sectional dimensions of that hull to 1:700, as a reference "jig".

In most of the postings and articles I have reviewed, the inaccuracies are with non-1:700 kits. At this point, I'll just have to wait for the delivery man to provide the unknowns. I will be more than happy to post any information on this newer CV8 from Trumpeter, it might just turn out that the 1:700 is a good-to-go kit OOB. I'd rather model CV5 or CV6, based on the historical records of those fine carriers, especially if the CV8 kit is in need of corrections.


RNfanDAN,

Hornet and her sisters all had the same hull shape and overall dimensions, and the same length, 809 for the hull and 825 overall (as built). These figures are often confused, and many sources incorrectly state that CV5 and 6 were 809 feet and Hornet was 827 feet, and that CV6 was lengthened to 827 feet (not so). All were the same. (BTW, the 825 vs 827 feet is due to the 20mm tubs added to CV6 and CV8 at the stern flight deck ramp. CV5 never got these.) The only difference in Hornet's hull was that she had fewer portholes as built. All portholes below the main deck were welded over with plate on all three once the festivities started. The flight deck shapes were the same as well, except on Hornet, her bow had the forward section widened and squared off, and there are minor detail changes to CV8's flight deck along the starboard forward section between the 5 inch battery and the island. (Don't worry, Trumpy got this wrong anyway, and made it like CV5 and 6). There are numerous additional detail changes to island and rig from CV5 and 6. I once did a good Yorktown in 1/719 scale from Tamiya's kit starting with and Enterprise kit and using some parts from a Hornet kit, mainly secondary armament. Unfortunately, if your goal is CV5 or 6, the trumpy 1/700 kit has even more things to fix that a CV8 version, since all the hull errors will need correction before you even get to details. Mixing and matching with Tamiya won't work because of the scale difference, which BTW, was due to Tamiya confusing the hull length of 809 feet as being the actual OA length of the entire ship. They thought the ships were smaller than they really were, thus underscaled them for 1/700. Wish the news was better.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: HORNET
PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:41 am 
Mike -
We are on the same sheet of music with regard to the actual hull and the various kitmakers' inability to capture the hull. Your picture of the smaller Revell model next to the Trump and BWN renditions says it all. I first thought there must be some mistake. But, after re-looking at archival pictures of CV5 it was clear the error was big. It became HUGE as you point out when I compared the actual plans to the Trumpeter / BWN efforts and found the hull to be twice as wide under the cat sponsons just as you point out. #@&**$@#!!! As I've said, I have turned fully one third of the BWN hull resin into dust in the quest to get it right. And to think that when I got it in the mail from MB, I thought my worst problem was that a couple of the 5" gun gallery splinter shields had broken off.
Yes I'm refering to the flaring, upward and outward to the sides, where the hull transitions to meet the mostly parallel hangar deck. There are just not many places on the hull where flat steel plates are still perfectly flat after welded in to place. Of note, looking at the plans, the CV5 class has no sheer at all that I can see. The decks are perfectly horizontal from bow to stern, unlike, for example, the foredeck of the IOWA class that has a considerable amount of sheer from about the number two turret to the bow.
I am actively working on my HORNET three or four nights a week, but it is a slow and tedious process. I will take a few shots of it when I get it smoothed and primered so that other folks can see it compared to the Trumpeter hull.
Unfortunately, using the Webb plans, I have also detected some other significant problems with the BWN and Trumpeter hulls. Both have the 5" gun galleries (forward and aft) too far forward by a good 1/4 to 3/8" in 1/350th. This explains someone's comment further back in this thread as to why James' (Nautilus) deck has the elevators located in a different place than Trumpeter does (psst - the deck is still too short, and you need to make sure the aft elevator is properly rotated as my early HORNET deck had the aft elevator rotated 90 degrees from what it should have been). The kit's shortened foc'sl deck also adds to the tankerish portly looks because it makes the parallel midbody start that much further forward. And as you pointed out in the comparo article, the stern is not shaped like an upward-opening 'U' anywhere. It is more angular and compound-curved than either kit shows. For all these reasons, I recommend folks not follow my stubborn attempts to make the existing hulls 'work' if they want to be even mostly accurate and yet not take an inordinant amount of time just doing the basic hull. Seriously consider carving the hull and gun galleries from wood using the 'lift' method. Of note, I'm still using most of the Trumpeter parts above the hangar deck, to 'save' time. What a joke - I crack me up sometimes.
Mike, thanks for sharing your knowledge. Personally, I want to know the facts, however painful they may be. I can then decide the compromises with which I am willing to live. I certainly don't look down my nose at others who take a different path to get to what they are happpy to accept. I have decided this one has to be right, and I am learning lots of things - skills, techniques, patience - that I guess I need to learn. I'm not doing this to every model I build, however.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: progress update 2-17-07
PostPosted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Seattle, Wa.
Hull, island, flight deck and a/c painted. Hangar deck pe railining


Last edited by Gordon Bjorklund on Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:56 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 3439
Location: USA
:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen

Catalog of over 2500 products for scale modelers, most in 3D-printed gray resin - https://www.model-monkey.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 3:39 pm
Posts: 934
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
More great work Gordon, I take it you never get sick of Yorktown class carriers...

John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:16 am
Posts: 26
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
G'day all!

Ive just brought the Trumpeter 1/700 Hornet kit. Im not planning any major surgery to correct the kits faults as this would be far beyond my skill level! :smallsmile:

What I would like to know is what colour is the island in her Doolittle raid camo scheme... To my eye it seems that the primary grey-ish colour is lighter than that of the rest of her hull, and the blue is lighter also. This might be a dumb question but I just cant seem to figure it out....

Thanks for any help!

Cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Seattle, Wa.
Steve,
Hornet's island should be painted Haze Gray 5-H & Ocean Gray 5-0. The hull should be painted Navy Blue 5-N and the same Ocean Gray 5-0. The color change between the island and the hull could be caused by shadows.

A while ago someone posted that the hull and superstructure or island weathered at a different rates. I think they said that the upper part weathered faster than the lower. I think it was heat related.

Yesterday I finished painting my Tamiya Hornet. Notice that the Ocean Gray on the island looks different than on the hull. They were painted at the same time from the same bottle. I lightened the Haze Gray with white. I then lightened the Ocean Gray with the lightened Haze Gray. The Navy Blue was lightened with the lightened Ocean Gray. I use Testors Model Master Marine Acryl paints.

HTH

Gordon


Last edited by Gordon Bjorklund on Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Seattle, Wa.
John

You are right about the Yorktown Class carriers.



A prewar Enterprise. 350 port holes drilled out.

A 1944 Enterprise with Measure 33/4ab. 148 port holes filled.

LOL

Gordon


Last edited by Gordon Bjorklund on Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
As Gordon said, Navy Blue 5-N and Ocean Gray 5-O on the hull and Ocean Gray 5-O and Haze Gray 5-H on the island. These color shots might help, although the versions reproduced in Steve Wiper's book are much better and more accurate. These, especially the one at
Pearl, are rather washed out. (See link to book review w/photo below)

Image
Image
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/books-plans/warship-pictorial/wp-09/wp-09.html

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:16 am
Posts: 26
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Excellent!

Thanks to both of you for your help. It's one of those things where you could guess it and dive straight in, then no be happy with the end result.

Those shots are great Michael, I especially like the one of her lying at anchor with the torpedo nets( I think) surrounding her!

Cheers again!
Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Yorktown class hull
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:54 pm
Posts: 108
Given the importance and high interest in all three ships of this class, it would probably be profitable for one of the resin casters to do a hull up to the hangar deck level, either full hull, waterline, or both to use with the trumpeter kits in both 1/700 and 1/350. A quick wood master should be cheap and easy for the hull only.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Yorktown class hull
PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Posts: 863
Location: EN83
j leyland wrote:
Given the importance and high interest in all three ships of this class, it would probably be profitable...to do a hull up to the hangar deck level, either full hull, waterline, or both.... A quick wood master should be cheap and easy for the hull only.


As long as it's not "too" cheap, i.e., these ships had fairly complex underwater hull forms and features. They included "split" bilge keels, very few flat surfaces, somewhat tightly grouped prop shafts--even the rudder was not "standard".

At least two of these ships were actually designed to operate and handle well, going either forward OR in reverse--unlike many subsequent designs, this requirement actually demanded some thought and consideration to an operating characteristic not usually given much attention.

I think the 1:700 industry has been taken somewhat aback of late, by the surging demand in full-hull and modeler's choice kits. It's as if former sous chefs are now being pressed into service as bakers, so to speak, and the early results have definitely caught some of them very rusty! Over time, I think it will improve but for now, I'm carefully scribing my own templates from waterline hulls, with any kit that doesn't measure up--or down, in this case! :lol_1:

Okay, I'm outta here....... :surfer:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Yorktown class hull
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
RNfanDan wrote:

At least two of these ships were actually designed to operate and handle well, going either forward OR in reverse--unlike many subsequent designs, this requirement actually demanded some thought and consideration to an operating characteristic not usually given much attention.

:


Actually, all three had bow LSO platforms and arresting gear, as did all the early Essex class ships. Theory was that a damaged deck on one end would not shut the ship down completely. Hornet CV 12 actually operated in reverse to launch aircraft from her stern after her bow typhoon damage. Funny aside, all the shots of the Essex class ship in the wartime movie "Wing and a Prayer" have the ship backing down at high speed. No doubt to confuse the enemy about which direction our ships travelled in!

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: CV5 class
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:43 am 
I have seen also a picture of YORKTOWN backing down at speed, and I think (!!) she was recovering at the time. I'll have to dig that picture out at home, but Mike may recall it.
Even after all my work getting the hull right for my HORNET (not done yet, but end is in sight), I would be happy if some 'resin manufacturer' would master a hull and sell it. Don't think that's going to happen, though. Some of us are willing to trade sweat equity to get it right. Many seem to be happy with the kit hulls as is, so I'm not sure there's much of a market. I don't dis someone for making that choice. Heaven knows I often wonder how many other projects I'd have done by now if I'd not made this choice. Who's to say which is the better course, although my mind is obviously made up on this point for me.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: CV5 class
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:33 am 
John W wrote:
I have seen also a picture of YORKTOWN backing down at speed, and I think (!!) she was recovering at the time. I'll have to dig that picture out at home, but Mike may recall it.


The photo is probably one of the series taken while she was on trials. The contract requirement for backing down to allow recovery over the bow had to be verified on trials before the ship was accepted by the USN.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: HORNET Plans
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:43 am 
Mike -
Received the MD Silver plans yesterday. Didn't see much really specific to HORNET there. But I was intrigued by the hull cross sectional view that showed a 5" AA gun mounted on the foc'sl deck on the bow and another on the stern at the main deck level. Hmmm.
Now back to my original post way above about the HORNET differences. Using the A.D. Baker III drawings in 'YORKTOWN Class Carriers' (Roger Pineau) for the three ships, I have concluded the following (correct me if I stray):
1. The island structure (except for some differences in some of the platforms around the bridge) is identical in length, height, width (the basic structure, not add-ons such as the searchlight platforms on the stack sides). Also, it is located in exactly the same place relative to the hull / flight deck on all three ships. Also excepted from this generalization is the distinct shape of HORNET's bridge area and her different 5" directors.
2. The two pallisades are identical on all three ships with respect to size and location on the flight deck.
3. All four of HORNET's quad 1.1" mounts are in a different location when compared to the two sisters. Both mounts forward of the island are moved forward (Pineau's book says 13') and the #2 mount sits on a clipping room structure which is larger than that of the sisters and which also mounts a director not present on the sisters' clipping rooms. There is also a director at the flight deck level, forward of the number one 1.1" mount which is not present on the sisters. Aft of the island, at flight deck level, there is only one 1.1" mount, with the aftmost mount (#4) moved one deck lower and aft to the gallery deck.
4. HORNET's flight deck at the bow differs in shape resulting in a wider round down than the sisters.
5. All major structures on HORNET (hull, elevators, 5" gun galleries, hangar deck, flight deck (except as noted above), etc.) visible to the modeler are identical in size, shape, placement to the sisters.
6. Some catwalks differ between HORNET and the sisters, for example under the forward edge of the flight deck, and near the aft end of the flight deck (to include additional AA mounts and aft round down shape).
7. Gallery deck 20 MM AA guns are mounted further outboard (gallery deck is wider where guns are mounted), and number an placement is in general agreement among all three ships, though HORNET has some unique placements.
What else? I realize no two ships are ever identical even when new, but I'm trying to make sure I have a good list of the spotting differences as I move from the hull to the superstructure components. I have the FDD HORNET profile view, but it looks like an incomplete tracing job with some lines clearly incomplete or missing.
Comments appreciated.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:32 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Seattle, Wa.
I have not decided how I will locate the planes on the deck of my Hornet.
While looking at pictures of the B-25's on Hornet's flight deck I came across these three pictures.

I like the second one with the two SBD's on the flight deck. That would add more color to the ship. Now, with that said, I would probably need to add some F4F's to the forward flight deck.

Image


Image


Image

decisions - decisions

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HORNET Plans
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
John W wrote:
Mike -
Received the MD Silver plans yesterday. Didn't see much really specific to HORNET there. But I was intrigued by the hull cross sectional view that showed a 5" AA gun mounted on the foc'sl deck on the bow and another on the stern at the main deck level. Hmmm.
Now back to my original post way above about the HORNET differences. Using the A.D. Baker III drawings in 'YORKTOWN Class Carriers' (Roger Pineau) for the three ships, I have concluded the following (correct me if I stray):
1. The island structure (except for some differences in some of the platforms around the bridge) is identical in length, height, width (the basic structure, not add-ons such as the searchlight platforms on the stack sides). Also, it is located in exactly the same place relative to the hull / flight deck on all three ships. Also excepted from this generalization is the distinct shape of HORNET's bridge area and her different 5" directors.
2. The two pallisades are identical on all three ships with respect to size and location on the flight deck.
3. All four of HORNET's quad 1.1" mounts are in a different location when compared to the two sisters. Both mounts forward of the island are moved forward (Pineau's book says 13') and the #2 mount sits on a clipping room structure which is larger than that of the sisters and which also mounts a director not present on the sisters' clipping rooms. There is also a director at the flight deck level, forward of the number one 1.1" mount which is not present on the sisters. Aft of the island, at flight deck level, there is only one 1.1" mount, with the aftmost mount (#4) moved one deck lower and aft to the gallery deck.
4. HORNET's flight deck at the bow differs in shape resulting in a wider round down than the sisters.
5. All major structures on HORNET (hull, elevators, 5" gun galleries, hangar deck, flight deck (except as noted above), etc.) visible to the modeler are identical in size, shape, placement to the sisters.
6. Some catwalks differ between HORNET and the sisters, for example under the forward edge of the flight deck, and near the aft end of the flight deck (to include additional AA mounts and aft round down shape).
7. Gallery deck 20 MM AA guns are mounted further outboard (gallery deck is wider where guns are mounted), and number an placement is in general agreement among all three ships, though HORNET has some unique placements.
What else? I realize no two ships are ever identical even when new, but I'm trying to make sure I have a good list of the spotting differences as I move from the hull to the superstructure components. I have the FDD HORNET profile view, but it looks like an incomplete tracing job with some lines clearly incomplete or missing.
Comments appreciated.


Hi John,

Remember that most of Hornet's drawings are simply re-issues of CV5/6 plans, including her main hull and all the cross sections. Those 5 inch guns were deleted early on in CV5/6 development, but never removed from the plans. Important note, all of the plans in the Maryland Silver plan book are for Hornet as commissioned. By Feb 42, she had many changes from her original configuration. Who is Pinueau? Do you mean Chesneau? I do not have high regard for that book. Good for photos only. Many errors in the plans, especially CV6 late war. Most of his comments on Trumpeter's defects he got from reading my article from 2/2003 on this site. Otherwise he wouldn't have had a clue. He is not a Yorktown class expert, as revealed when he quoted 809 feet as the overall length instead of the correct 824.75 feet (827 with 20mm tubs on the aft ramp). The 809 foot figure applies only to the hull. And how about that relocated and downsized forward elevator on the late war CV6! Pure fiction. Check any overhead photo of Big E in 1945. There is a lot more in error, but why waste time?

1. Yes, island general structure was the same, with modifications for Hornet's pilot house and Mk 37 directors. Her tripod platforms were also the same as CV5/6 AS BUILT. CV5 & 6 had theirs built up further, while CV8 had her lower one trimmed down. Remember the curved face of the pilot house also dropped down to flag bridge level on Hornet, not so on CV5/6. Also, the pilot houses on all three extend well to port of the actual island side and overhang the structure, regardless of which of the three specific styles is involved, CV5/6 original, CV8 or late CV6. Hornet's pilot house is shaped like the loop on a woman's bobbi pin, with the looping part going out to port, when viewed from overhead. When CV6 got her "Hornet style" pilot house in 1943, it did not have this looping shape, but went straight back into her rebuilt pri-fly. CV8's forward stack had a closed in face, it was open on CV5/6. Several island platforms were modified by 2/42. Pri-fly was also completely redesigned and relocated compared to CV8's original configuration, neither of which was the same as her sisters. Hornet's pri-fly was slightly farther aft than her sisters, and this remained so when CV6 got hers rebuilt in 1943 as well. Also, the boxy structure under the island at flight deck edge was cut back in Hornet when the boat crane alongside the island was removed in January 1942. The area removed housed the crane machinery room. It was never cut back on her sisters. In fact Enterpise didn't loose this crane for some time into 1942, despite offloading all the boats stored there prewar.

2. Concur. I can't see any differences in the palisades of the three ships.

3. The forward 1.1's were moved forward compared to CV5 & 6, and CV8's fwd. clipping room was larger. There were modifications to the underlying flight deck edge structure in this area as well. Hornet was unique in that she alone had director controlled 1.1 quads. CV6 eventually got directors, but only when 40mm's replaced her 1.1's. The directors were located as follows, 1, just aft of the stbd fwd 20mm gallery- it looks like an additional 20mm tub, albeit sitting a bit higher. The #2 was in the cylindrical column just in front of the bridge, atop the clipping room. The number 3 was situated just behind the aft Mk 37 in a tub on the upper aft island platform and number 4 was just in front of the number four 1.1 quad tub in the catwalk aft of the island. The original location of the number three director was in a high column situated just in front and slightly inboard of the big crane. It was relocated to the adjacent island platform and the column deleted in Jan 42. Location of Hornet's #3 quad on the flight deck is the same as the #4 quad location on CV5 and 6, so one location is the same. Hornet's aft clipping room did away with the 1.1 at that location her sisters had, due to restricted arcs of fire. CV6 took up Hornet's 1.1 layout when her 40mm's were installed during post-Eastern Solomons repairs.

4, Hornet's widened forward flight deck is a major visual identifier, and completely missed by an amazing number of so-called reputable sources. (Usually the same ones who quote incorrect OA length figures!)

5. Yes, but details may differ, depending on which yard did it and when, such as rounded versus flat paneled splinter shields around the 5 inchers, etc. CV5 and 6 got rounded 5 inch shields. CV8, got flat panelled.

6. Hornet's catwalks conformed to the flight deck changes forward, but were otherwise fairly similar. Modifications to the aft catwalk were also done to Enterprise as she also gained one, and in her case, later two 20mm's on each aft corner of the flight deck ramp. Hornet had 2 small platforms on the catwalk that ran under her stern ramp to access the fold down flag staff mounted on her stern ramp. It swung down to the port side. You can see it in the stern drydock photos someone posted in this thread. CV5 and 6 had retractable flag staffs that moved down vertically, adjacent to the rear elevator pit.

7. Not a unique CV8 feature. All three ships had wider catwalks for the original 50 caliber batteries. The 20mm tubs were created by adding halfmoon extensions along the edges of the wider 50 Cal. locations. (See above referenced drydock photos, that was the yard period where they were being installed.) Note that Yorktown Enterprise and Hornet were all a fairly close match on the two port side five gun 20mm batteries, but not starboard. Enterprise and Hornet were a close match for 20mm's during the April though Midway timeframe, (the four aft of the aft 5 inch batteries excepted), but Hornet's 20 mm's forward starboard battery was arranged a bit different. She had, going aft from the stbd fwd 5 inch battery, an outrigger, then 5 20mm's then a 1.1 director tub. CV6 had 5 20mm's then an outrigger. Yorktown received only two 20mm tubs starboard, bracketing the hangar deck boat crane. Her stbd catwalk 50 cals were still in place at her loss. She did have 8 20mm along the starboard side of the island, as did Enterprise, while Hornet had only 4 until after Midway, when she upped to 8. At that time both she and Enterprise got a fifth 1.1 quad in an enlarged 20mm tub on the foc'sle. It was a manually aimed one, no director control. Hornet had a single 20 mm on each aft flight deck ramp corner, and also one behind the LSO platfrom in the port aft catwalk, and one directly opposite on the starboard side.

FDD's plans are the same plans as the Maryland Silver book, but the FDD guys tried to upgrade it to her 1942 configuration. They missed a few things though. Among the missed items: both aft ramp 20mm tubs, the portside aft 20mm tub behind the LSO platform and a mislocated one on the starboard side aft. It s/b further back.

Additional visual features, CV6 and CV8 both had the hangar deck catapult removed in July 1942, and the sponson that was formed by the collision guards for them were also removed. Hornet did not have her SC radar replaced by CXAM in July 1942. She had CXAM ADDED. The SC was relocated to the main mast aft of the stack. Her catwalks around the funnel top were removed in July 1942 as well.

HTH!

_________________
Mike
Image


Last edited by Michael Vorrasi on Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Gordon Bjorklund wrote:
I have not decided how I will locate the planes on the deck of my Hornet.
While looking at pictures of the B-25's on Hornet's flight deck I came across these three pictures.

I like the second one with the two SBD's on the flight deck. That would add more color to the ship. Now, with that said, I would probably need to add some F4F's to the forward flight deck.


decisions - decisions

Gordon


Gordon,

Depends on when you want to portray her, and with what alongside. The B-25's were respotted for launch on April 17th. All the destroyers and the two oilers were left behind at a rendezvous point on April 17 as well, and only the carriers and cruisers made the 28 knot high speed run-in to the launch point. The DD's had to stay behind due to lack of high speed fuel endurance. Couldn't drag the oilers deep into hostile waters to keep them fed. Risky move from an anti-submarine point of view!

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 43  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 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