Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

[npb748r]

I'm building the 1/200 Hornet at the moment and have the same result so I'm making it up ! I've been looking at other aircraft carriers of the period as inspiration. I've also struggled to find out what colour things like fire extinguishers were at that time on USN aircraft carriers - I know aircraft ones were bronze but someone mentioned they were red on ships. I have little experience of ships (aircraft modeller using this build as mojo restorer), I'm finding so little reference material a great chunk of my build is coming from my imagination however it's enjoyable - I like these floaty things.
neil

[JTninja]

The new Flyhawk 1/700 Enterprise CV-6 kit is out! I went with the deluxe kit and got it shipped from China before the stupid economic situation went south. Flyhawk packaging is good, hull and flight deck wrapped in a cushion for protection. The deluxe kit adds a few extra aircraft (still not enough), a lot more phototech, brass stuff for things like gun barrels, and a small set of 3D printed parts.

Here's everything from the box


Parts look quite detailed. The instructions are a bit too clustered for my taste, but I do love the colored parts that get labeled.


The very detailed 3D parts, nicely protected


The Hangar deck is nicely detailed. To my surprise, we have a raised catapult! Looks like it will be tricky to align, and will probably require filling. This might have been better as a photoetch part (might be, haven't fully checked yet).


And an initial look at the lower hull. The forward keel looks very flat



When I have time, I place it alongside by other Yorktown class hulls for a comparison shot

If anyone has any requests for close up/detailed shots, let me know

[Devin]

I received the same kit a couple of weeks ago. Overall looks promising in the box, even though the hull plating and some of the flight deck details are overstated. I'm still confused as to why the deluxe kit doesn't have the painting masks, as they're available as a separate item, but otherwise it looks good.

[Jeff Sharp]

February 7, 1942

[JTninja]

TLDR - Flyhawk appears to be under scaled

For this test, I've compared a number of Yorktown class waterline hulls. I've taken the numbers we have for the actual ship, and using the metric system, used my Tamiya hull to check my measurements against those of other members. As others have reported, they have found the Tamiya kits to be at a 1/719 scale. Measuring several difference areas using the cutting mat shown in the images below, I too found results in the 1/714-1/721 range. I measured the length at the waterline, max length of the hull, max length of the flight deck, length of flight deck w/o the ramps, and the overall length of the ship. Now that I have a method in measuring the approximation sizing of the Tamiya hull, I then measured the other hulls and the Flyhawk hull.

For comparison, here's are the 1/700 hulls we're measuring:
Tamiya Enterprise (width modified, but length as it came)
Flyhawk Enterprise
Trumpeter Yorktown (new tool)
Academy Enterprise
Tom's Modelworks Hornet (Resin, "replacement" hull for Trumpeter kit)
MENG Enterprise (Snap kit)
Trumpeter Hornet (older tooling, infamously known for its tanker hull)

Notes on measuring:
- Tom's Modelworks hull was advertised as a replacement for the Trumpeter Hornet kit, but it wasn't actually designed for the kit, but adapted for it. It wasn't a perfect fit, but its works with some modification, and makes for a great improvement. Instructions were provided on modifying the plastic kit to fit the resin hull.
- For overall length, only MENG, Tamiya, and Trumpeter Hornet could be measured accurately, as the hulls were built up enough for the flight deck to fit correctly. For the rest, rubber bands were use to hold the flight deck and hull together, placing the forward and aft elevators in roughly the correct position.

Here are the measurements, based in Centimeters, with comparison of the size of the actual Yorktown hull scaled to 1/700.


Based on my measurements, I estimate the Flyhawk kit to be around 1/715 scale. You can visually see how it compares in size to the Tamiya kit, which as stated above, its known to be under scale. Trumpeter and MENG seems to average very close to 1/700, with Academy just slightly smaller.


Some pictures to show the difference in sizing and shaping :

Here for the overall hull length, the bows are lined up at the 0cm line. Note that each hull has the same assigned number from the above table


Shaping of the upper hull to the waterline. You can see the improvement of more recent toolings since Tamiya and Trumpeters first offering


Comparison of the kits with full hulls with reasonable shaping. No idea why keel of the Flyhawk kit is so flat, that seems like an error. MENG's lower hull seems closest to the old Revell 1/480-487 hull, but I still think it thickens up too far forward. While not perfect, I think all 3 do a reasonable job of depicting a Yorktown class hull.


Comparison of flight decks


So regarding the new Flyhawk kit
Pros:
- Detail. While some might be inaccurate, the level of detail is incredible. Something you might expect from a 1/200 kit, not 1/700. The individual parts are quite detailed, and the number of things made as individual parts instead of part of a larger piece is very nice.
- Aircraft are probably the best you'll see outside of 3D printing.

Cons:
- Underscale
- Hull plating
- Hull shape is close, but it's still not perfect.
- Few aircraft. Standard comes with 3 each of F4F, SBD, TBD. Deluxe gives you a total of 6 each.


Despite its apparent issues, I look forward to building it.

[Devin]

Thanks for the detailed comparison! I'm looking for a candidate to build as CV-5 in 1942, and have been collecting most of the Yorktown class kits to see which is closest, and if there's a mix-and-match approach I can take. I built the Academy CV-6 kit and while it went together great, there's a couple of things I'd have liked to see done better (forward hangar deck under the elevator, something a bit off about the gun galleries in regards to height).

The fact that Flyhawk made the after pri-fly location (not sure what that's called. Secondary-fly?) as a separate piece, makes me hope they may do Yorky at some point. It's a good looking kit in the box, but the more I think on it, the more I believe I'll sand off the hull plating and do that detail with paint and pencil.

[Blue Devil]

It's my understanding that individual ships, or at least ship classes, had specific plans for the placement of blocks, etc. to support the ship when it was dry docked. I thought that it might be interestng to reproduce that as a base for my Big E model, assuming I ever actually finish it (I know, long shot there). Minus the buttresses, anyway.

To do it right, of course, I'd need to know what that plan looked like. Does anyone have a diagram of what the plan was for the Enterprise/Yorktown Class?

Thanks!

Michael

[Tracy White]

There are 26 rolls of CV-5 / 6 class plans on microfilm and I went through some of them 10-15 years ago. I can tell you which rolls those plans are not on, but not which they are on (didn't go through them all and there's no index roll). If no one else has the docking plan this may be your best bet.

[cfrobel]

Posted in the wrong thread.

[FFG-7]

I presume you are talking about this red circled area?

[cfrobel]

Yes, thank you. I had a few threads open while researching and now realize I posted this in the wrong thread. I did not mean to hijack the build thread.

[Brocky]

I'm working on a model of the Enterprise during Nov 1942 to March 1943. I am wondering if she carried Paravanes since she had a cable degaussing system.

I had thought that if the ship had an electromagnetic degaussing system then it wouldn't carry the paravanes, but after poking around on the Inet, I found that the US Navy used paravanes all the way through to the 1970s. So I'm not sure if I should include them or not.

Any clarification or help will be appreciated.

TIA and have a great day
Mark B.

Moderators, can you please move this to the USS Enterprise CV-6 thread. My apologies for posting this here, I thought I was at the tail end of the proper thread.

[FFG-7]

2 paravanes standing up against the forward bulkhead, 1 at each end on the forecastle deck.

[Timmy C]

Keep in mind that degaussing only helps reduce the chance of setting off magnetically-fuzed mines - it does nothing against traditional contact-fuzed mines that are set off when you physically bump into them. For this, paravanes and associated mechanical minesweeping gear is still required, so just because a ship has degaussing gear, doesn't meant they can get rid of their mechanical sweeping gear.

[Brocky]

Thanks Timmy C.
I was afraid of that. Oh well more things to make. Sometimes I feel like it's a never ending project.. Sort of like building a real ship. Maybe I ought to get a Gantt Chart program and map out a build project...

Thanks again for the help
Mark B.

[TZoli]

Does anybody seen photos of USS Enterprise in 1943 testing the Triple 20mm Oerlikon Mark 23 mounting?
Or sketches, drawings or Photos of this mounting?

From Naval Weapons site:
Triple Mount 4d: Mark 23 (not in service)

^The USN Mark 23 triple mount was designed at Pearl Harbor. 50 units were ordered, but testing aboard USS Enterprise CV-6 during 1943 showed that the center gun was difficult to load and the order was cancelled in May 1944.

[MartinJQuinn]

Here you go...I found these at NARA II

[SeanF]

Fascinating mount! But yeah... kind of surprised they'd even try that arrangement, given the difficulty in loading that middle gun is pretty blatantly obvious. Did they learn nothing from the 1.1" quad? And this thing is even more awkward to reach over! Maybe if you staggered the middle gun forward and loaded it from below? (Still doesn't sound like a good idea to me!)
Maybe a split quad mount, like the Bofors, could work... but at that point the utility of the man-handled pedestal-mounted Oerlikon is really getting lost.

- Sean F.

[TZoli]

Fascinating mount! But yeah... kind of surprised they'd even try that arrangement, given the difficulty in loading that middle gun is pretty blatantly obvious. Did they learn nothing from the 1.1" quad? And this thing is even more awkward to reach over! Maybe if you staggered the middle gun forward and loaded it from below? (Still doesn't sound like a good idea to me!)
Maybe a split quad mount, like the Bofors, could work... but at that point the utility of the man-handled pedestal-mounted Oerlikon is really getting lost.

- Sean F.

What about a vertical one like the British 0,5" MG Mark III or the Polsten mount?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.php
http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showt ... p?p=291017

[TZoli]

Here you go...I found these at NARA II

img134.jpg

img135.jpg

Thank you!