The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 777 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1733
In plan view, the Tamiya superstructure matches the reduced scale of the rest of the kit. But that's not the whole story. The entire structure is way too narrow, even accounting for the scale error. Then, in order to match the width of the directors to the width of the structure, the directors are even more underscale than the rest of the kit. Also the tripods are too narrow in order to fit on the narrower islands. For all the other faults with the kit, the Trumpy Hornet superstructure is actually closer to the right width. However, none of the 1/700 producers get the pilothouses correct. As built, on all three, the pilothouses are slightly wider than the rest of the structure. They were offset toward the centerline of the ship - the outboard side aligned with the outboard side of the island, but the inboard side stuck out slightly.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Haijun watcher wrote:
Alright, here's a question not just for CV6 fans, but for all Yorktown class modeller experts in general...so I'm cross-posting this same question to all three threads that deal with each ship in the class. (makes one wonder why there isn't just one Yorktown class fans thread)

If Tamiya's Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown kits are all wrong since the hull is aid to be smaller at 1/719 scale, then what about the superstructure?

Is the superstructure the right scale? Or was it just made sized proportional to the hull?

It couldn't be that Tamiya got everything wrong even down to the planes and superstructure.

I don't see why we can't just attach the Tamiya kits' superstructures to Tom's modelworks Hornet hull which is the correct 1/700 scale.

It could be like the way others attach the Trumpeter Hornet superstructure and flight deck to the Tom's modelworks hull.


The entire Tamiya kit is underscale. They re-sized all the drawings they used based on the mistaken OA length being 809 feet when it is really 825 feet. All other dimensions are off by the same percentage of error. I never measured the planes but it is easy enough to do. The island is even thinner than it should be for 1/719 scale. Nothing from the Tamiya kit will work with Tom's replacement hull. It is made for the Trumpy kit only.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 5:32 pm
Posts: 17
I recently purchased a 1:200 Hornet by Merit and was surprised and pleased to find the dimensions not to fit the Hornet but to be correct for Yorktown & Enterprise. I've checked my math and using said scale the kit length is 809.0 ft. Has anyone else noticed this? My references list Yorktown & Enterprise at 809.5 ft and Hornet at 824.75-825.0 ft. The island is Hornet, but I feel it can altered to Yorktown and I've already made changes to the flight deck. Now I need a complete pic of the mural!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1733
Yorktown's originally designed flightdeck ended just behind the after 5" mounts, similar in concept to the after end of Ranger. That was the config that was 809' long - the length of the hull because the flightdeck didn't overhang at either end. That was the officially published length when the ships were started. The aft extension was a "designed alternative" that was in fact implemented while the ships were still being built, and added just over 15' to the overall length. Apparently the "published length" was never publicly corrected. When Hornet was ordered, it was already known that the "extension" would be included, so her published length was adjusted accordingly. But as completed, all three were the same length - just over 824'.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 5:32 pm
Posts: 17
If what you say is correct then the Merit kit is undersized for all 3 ships.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:40 pm
Posts: 550
Location: California
That could very well be the case. Unfortunately, from what I saw, Merit relied heavily on the original 350 Trumpeter kit. While most focus on the poorly shaped hull, the kit had numerous errors, some, IMHO, just as bad as the hull. It looked as though a number of the Trumpeter 350 issues were carried over to the Merit 1/200 kit.

Paul

_________________
Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
rcl111 wrote:
If what you say is correct then the Merit kit is undersized for all 3 ships.


The 1/350 Merit Yorktown hull measures out to a scale 809'9' and the WL beam measures a 83' and the hangar deck breadth is 92 feet, which are the correct dimensions. I have not fully assembled it yet to determine if the OA length is 824'9" when the aft flight deck overhang is included in the measurement, but if they got the hull right, the rest should be right. The new 1/350 Merit kit has absolutely nothing in common with the Trumpeter CV-8 kit. It is totally new tooling and Merit had the correct USN plans in hand, including hull cross sections.

Now, the 1/200 kit is another story. It is a basically upscaled version of the 1/350 Trumpy Hornet, and shares most of its problems. They did attempt to sharpen up the bow, but the entire hull is wrong and basically a supertanker hull with a pointier bow. That said, my 1/350 Trumpy hull does measure out to a scale 809'9" and the breadth at the hangar deck is a correct 92 feet. The problem is the waterline beam is also 92 feet. The height of the hangar deck it too tall, making the flight deck sit too high, and there are many other small dimensional errors. Also, for a ship in this scale, I find the quality of the detail and molding to be disappointing. It seems a bit crude and toy-like to me.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
rcl111 wrote:
I recently purchased a 1:200 Hornet by Merit and was surprised and pleased to find the dimensions not to fit the Hornet but to be correct for Yorktown & Enterprise. I've checked my math and using said scale the kit length is 809.0 ft. Has anyone else noticed this? My references list Yorktown & Enterprise at 809.5 ft and Hornet at 824.75-825.0 ft. The island is Hornet, but I feel it can altered to Yorktown and I've already made changes to the flight deck. Now I need a complete pic of the mural!



Did you measure just the hull and get 809 feet? If so that is correct for all three ships for THE HULL only. The overall length for all three ships is 824'9" when measuring the entire ship from fore-peak to the end of the aft flight deck ramp. Don't trust any dimensions you read somewhere. Most of them are wrong, including the DANFS. Read the threads on all three sister ships here, from the start to the finish, and you will know more than most so-called trusted references. I explained the length error sometime ago and showed in the original plan compared to the as-built plan, how this arose.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 5:32 pm
Posts: 17
I have located a set of drawings copied from original naval drawings which included a general specs sheet showing Yorktown to be 824.5 as the overall length. Measuring the Merit kit from the end of the deck to the bow of the ship I get 4.045 ft. which makes the kit 809.0 ft. at 1:200. The hull looks to fit the x-section drawings that I have.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
rcl111 wrote:
I have located a set of drawings copied from original naval drawings which included a general specs sheet showing Yorktown to be 824.5 as the overall length. Measuring the Merit kit from the end of the deck to the bow of the ship I get 4.045 ft. which makes the kit 809.0 ft. at 1:200. The hull looks to fit the x-section drawings that I have.



If they did that on the 1/200, they made the same critical error that Tamiya did on their 1/700 kit, namely confusing the hull length with the overall length. I do not know what plan you are looking at, but the Trumpy hull cross sections are not even close to being right, even after consuming vast quantities of adult beverages.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:44 am
Posts: 24
Location: Southern Oregon
Finishing up my Merit 1/200 scale CV-8,,, About to do the rigging, incl signal halyards. Does ANYONE know what her Flag Hoist/Call Sign was? Even NavSource shows no call sign. CV-12 is no problem, but I cannot find the hoist for CV-8,,

This model will be displayed in my VFW post's WWII "museum", so I don't want to get this wrong. I'm getting enough "flak" over building a "bird farm" instead of one of my old "tin cans" without messing this up. Thanks in advance for any help you can give this 77 year old destroyer sailor/modeler..... Sweetwater Jack

_________________
The Man has NO enemies...... He IS, however, intensely disliked by his friends.... Oscar Wilde


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
sweetwater@uci.net wrote:
Finishing up my Merit 1/200 scale CV-8,,, About to do the rigging, incl signal halyards. Does ANYONE know what her Flag Hoist/Call Sign was? Even NavSource shows no call sign. CV-12 is no problem, but I cannot find the hoist for CV-8,,

This model will be displayed in my VFW post's WWII "museum", so I don't want to get this wrong. I'm getting enough "flak" over building a "bird farm" instead of one of my old "tin cans" without messing this up. Thanks in advance for any help you can give this 77 year old destroyer sailor/modeler..... Sweetwater Jack


Hi Sweetwater Jack,

I think what you are after does not exist. The radio sign/flag hoist codes appear on NavSource only for carriers that survived 1942, meaning they were not yet in use during Hornet CV-8's life. Saratoga, Ranger and Enterprise all have them because they were still around for the full war after 1942's losses. Langley, Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp and Hornet do not have any listed because all were lost before this code system was put into use.

During the time she lived through, mid-1942, Hornet's radio code was "Blue Base." I don't know if she hoisted any flags, however. The color base code seems to have come into use just prior to Midway.

(Yorktown was initially "Scarlet Base", but later, Saratoga became "Scarlet Base", Enterprise was "Red Base" and also later, "Reaper Base", Wasp was "Green Base." Lexington seems to have been lost prior to the color code system. The base codes seem to tie in to the FDO aboard, not just the ship itself, as Black Base was aboard cruiser Chicago and Purple Base was aboard a transport, Neville. The last two were the location of the FDO's controlling the fight.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Time for a bump on HORNET, especially since a new 3D printed island is soon to be available which should correct the errors of Trumpeter's version, and allow the Merit kit to be built into HORNET with some additional scratching, of course.

I have been going over plans and photos of HORNET - particularly of the island - to help Steve Larsen get as much info as possible for the 3D project. I'm sure others are helping as well. Posted elsewhere, we have realized the tripod mast on HORNET was located six feet aft the the tripod masts on the sister ships, for example. Looking back through this thread, I also recall a discussion of the two 50 cal platforms either side of the foremast of the tripod. The photos I had seen showed a searchlight mounted on a pedestal on top of the 50 cal platform, but most of the safety railings had canvas dashers making it hard to see the details of the searchlight pedestal mount and location. This may be old news to some, but I found a photo without the canvas dashers in place.
Attachment:
HORNET island over PriFly.jpg
HORNET island over PriFly.jpg [ 51.12 KiB | Viewed 2127 times ]


Two days ago I also found a shot I had never seen before with a bomb cart and 500# bomb sitting on a bomb elevator adjacent the island of (I'm pretty sure) HORNET - I think the aft of the two bomb elevators. I say HORNET because I think I recall seeing the wavy camo paint. What was unique about the picture was that the watertight door over the bomb elevator was hinged back - it appeared to be resting against the island. It was tilted back on arms that were maybe two feet long so the whole WT door swung well clear of the elevator. These arms show clearly in plans of the flight deck. The underside of the WT hatch had numerous reinforcement ribs.
I thought I had saved the photo with my other HORNET pix, but it is missing. I have searched the Internet fruitlessly for hours trying to find it again. Does anyone happen to have a copy to post? Both the cart and the bomb are light colored - the bomb definitely does not look OD or some other dark green. I have read that there was a color change on USA and USN bombs around this time - the bomb could have been a light gray or even yellow according to one account I read. But if that info is correct (I cannot say either way) it would peg it to around the Doolittle Raid timeframe. Several pictures of Doolittle and Mitscher putting medals on a bomb on HORNET's flight deck show a very light colored bomb and cart.
I really did see it. I'm not going crazy. I think not, anyway.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 299
Location: Hoover, Alabama
I cannot find a picture of Hornet's open aft bomb elevator door - yet. But the top image is a picture of CV6 forward bomb elevator door open and both bombs (on elevator and the other further towards the bow) as well as the cart look gray to me.

The bottom two are a couple of pics of Doolittle and crew on Hornet. Bombs are most definitely not olive drab/dark green/green etc. They look gray to me.

Kelley


Attachments:
CV6 80-G-7859.jpg
CV6 80-G-7859.jpg [ 43.33 KiB | Viewed 2079 times ]
CV8 NH 102457.jpg
CV8 NH 102457.jpg [ 124.78 KiB | Viewed 2079 times ]
CV8 NH 64472.jpg
CV8 NH 64472.jpg [ 188.09 KiB | Viewed 2079 times ]

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
I have read that the Raiders used Navy bombs from ship's stores (except possibly, the incendiary cluster bombs), so they were not OD. Either yellow or gray, depending on when that color was in use. Probably gray. John, see how these shots float your boat. All are Tokyo raid. The bomb elevator doors were not WT, no such need at the flight deck. They merely closed over the open hole when the bomb elevator went down below. They pivot upwards on two arms, and are necessarily reinforced to hold an aircraft's weight. I believe the reason for the arms is to allow access by the deck crew to that side of the elevator the door opens on without it getting in the way. The place the AAF officer is walking illustrates that side's access free of the door in the way. The rows of bombs were the 500 Lb ones used by the raiders. John, the plans may mention 50 cal mounts on those pedestals, but she never mounted these. The pedestals were always used for the search lights. I think those units were actually dual use search and signal lights.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
Posts: 299
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Very great information and pics, Mike!!!
Thanks!!!
Kelley

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
I have read that the Raiders used Navy bombs from ship's stores (except possibly, the incendiary cluster bombs), so they were not OD. Either yellow or gray, depending on when that color was in use. Probably gray. John, see how these shots float your boat. All are Tokyo raid. The bomb elevator doors were not WT, no such need at the flight deck. They merely closed over the open hole when the bomb elevator went down below. They pivot upwards on two arms, and are necessarily reinforced to hold an aircraft's weight. I believe the reason for the arms is to allow access by the deck crew to that side of the elevator the door opens on without it getting in the way. The place the AAF officer is walking illustrates that side's access free of the door in the way. The rows of bombs were the 500 Lb ones used by the raiders. John, the plans may mention 50 cal mounts on those pedestals, but she never mounted these. The pedestals were always used for the search lights. I think those units were actually dual use search and signal lights.


Mike -
Thanks for posting the picture I was looking for. It was driving me (more) crazy. I see the arms on the cover are longer than 2', but you're right - this allows access to both sides of the elevator.
One small nit, the MD Silver plans (p.61) do refer to the covers as "WT Hatch Over Bomb Elevator". It would make sense to keep water from heavy seas or Monsoon rains from getting down the ordnance elevators.
Re: the .50 cal platforms adjacent the mast, did HORNET have any of her AA battery fitted at commissioning? Her sea trials pictures don't seem to show even the 5" open mounts fitted. The focs'l bandstand shows on one of the drydock photos in Nov 1941, but no guns or even splinter shielding seem to be fitted yet. Just wondering, since all the guns must have been GFE, whether any light AA guns were mounted knowing they'd be replaced shortly by the 20 mm. I posted the picture because I didn't recall seeing a clear shot of the searchlight pedestal mount, not that I was debating the placement of .50 cals. The as-built plans call the platforms and locations for the .50 cals, but I just don't recall seeing any actually fitted. Enlighten me if you would.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
John W. wrote:
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
I have read that the Raiders used Navy bombs from ship's stores (except possibly, the incendiary cluster bombs), so they were not OD. Either yellow or gray, depending on when that color was in use. Probably gray. John, see how these shots float your boat. All are Tokyo raid. The bomb elevator doors were not WT, no such need at the flight deck. They merely closed over the open hole when the bomb elevator went down below. They pivot upwards on two arms, and are necessarily reinforced to hold an aircraft's weight. I believe the reason for the arms is to allow access by the deck crew to that side of the elevator the door opens on without it getting in the way. The place the AAF officer is walking illustrates that side's access free of the door in the way. The rows of bombs were the 500 Lb ones used by the raiders. John, the plans may mention 50 cal mounts on those pedestals, but she never mounted these. The pedestals were always used for the search lights. I think those units were actually dual use search and signal lights.


Mike -
Thanks for posting the picture I was looking for. It was driving me (more) crazy. I see the arms on the cover are longer than 2', but you're right - this allows access to both sides of the elevator.
One small nit, the MD Silver plans (p.61) do refer to the covers as "WT Hatch Over Bomb Elevator". It would make sense to keep water from heavy seas or Monsoon rains from getting down the ordnance elevators.
Re: the .50 cal platforms adjacent the mast, did HORNET have any of her AA battery fitted at commissioning? Her sea trials pictures don't seem to show even the 5" open mounts fitted. The focs'l bandstand shows on one of the drydock photos in Nov 1941, but no guns or even splinter shielding seem to be fitted yet. Just wondering, since all the guns must have been GFE, whether any light AA guns were mounted knowing they'd be replaced shortly by the 20 mm. I posted the picture because I didn't recall seeing a clear shot of the searchlight pedestal mount, not that I was debating the placement of .50 cals. The as-built plans call the platforms and locations for the .50 cals, but I just don't recall seeing any actually fitted. Enlighten me if you would.



Hi John, yes I guess weather sealing from rain and heavy seas might be a good reason. I wasn't connecting a need for a WT door on the flight deck! (Weather Tight?) Yes, Hornet did have a few 50 calibers mounted in her catwalks, but not the full set. These show in her commissioning shots. I count three in the forward starboard catwalk (four were supposed to be there, and three in the aft starboard catwalk against four authorized. Port side shows three in each four gun battery as well. The 50's were all pointed straight up and canvas covered, in a rather light canvas. They may have been unplumbed temporary mounts, as she went into the yard right after shakedown and had the 20mm's installed.

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:34 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Smithfield, Virginia
Mike -
Thanks for the info and pix. Hope all is well.
Also hope someone will deliver an accurate wood deck for HORNET in 1/350th to use on Merit kit. Looks as though Pontos is fading away and isn't likely to deliver anytime soon, if at all.
Still, some of the light AA done by 3DParts is really good - 20 mm and .50 cal as well as some awesome looking quad 1.1" mounts, so there's that to be thankful for.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 777 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elvis965 and 6 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