Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[ModelMonkey]

Great minds think alike! Thanks for all the kind compliments!

[Frank O'Neill 2025]

Hi everyone:
Alright-I finally decided to make the jump and start on my Trumpeter CV-10 (350 scale). I understand the kit represents the ship in a 1944 fit-correct? I'd like to do the build in the ms 33-10a scheme. Is this possible with the kit as-is out of the box? Also, I ordered both of the Gold medal essex sets-do they have everything I need? Is there any record of the date of the ms 33-10a painting (i.e. if I depicted an airwing from any particular action would it conflict with the carrier's paint).
Are there any obvious inaccuracies for the kit in the 1944 time period (something that is glaringly obvious and screams out FIX ME!!!!)
Does anyone have any experience with James Coreley's replacement wood decks?
And lastly, but perhaps most importantly. Being a battleship guy I've studied the instructions and referance pictures etc as much as possible but can't figure this one out. WHERE DO THE BIG GUNS GO . Thanks for your help with the first of many rounds of questions.

[Frank O'Neill 2025]

Thanks for the info Steve:
Looks like I'm in for some surgery (oh well-nothing comes easy I guess). Do you know where I can get this Warships data book you're referring to?

[Anonymous]

Hi Frank!

"Warship's Data" series is now published by Floating Drydock under "Pictorial Histories". Look for:

USS YORKTOWN CV10 by Robert F. Sumrall. A complete history with 54 pages, line drawings, 84 photos, soft cover, full color center spread. ISBN:0-929521-44-7 price $9.95

Here's a link:

http://floatingdrydock.com/books.html

[Charlie]

Were railings installed when the roller doors were opened on the hangar deck level? I have studied a number of photos and cannot determine for myself.

Thanks in advance!

Charlie Letteer Jr

[ModelMonkey]

Hi Charlie!

Yes. The GMM set includes them. Hope this helps!

[Frank O'Neill 2025]

Steve:
How are you gonna paint the island with all the p.e. already attached ? Inquiring minds want to know.

[ModelMonkey]

Thanks to all for the kind remarks!

Hello Frank!

The tripod mast is not fixed to the island yet nor is the signal deck or director
towers. They'll be fixed in place after airbrushing. As for the camouflage
pattern, very careful masking will be required but Yorktown's camouflage
pattern on the island isn't too bad. The decks will be touched up last, gone
over by hand. Wish me luck.

I usually prefer to add the PE last. But there is so much PE on the island, and
the plastic parts fit is so bad, it seems a better approach to install the PE first.
This gives me a chance to make any corrections to the PE or joints without
marring the finished paint

For parts like railings, I find that it sometimes helps to install the PE railing
just a hair inboard of the deck edge or platform edge. Then sand the plastic
edge back using a sanding stick to match the PE just a few minutes after
installing the PE (while the CA is still "sandable"). I think the end result is a
much cleaner PE-deck edge joint. But of course, it's a matter of the
individual modeler's preference.

I am always just amazed at the fine PE work we see on so many 1/700
kits. I honestly don't know how modelers like you, Frank, and Jim
Baumann achieve that.

[ryckert]

Steve, your work looks great. I've got the CV-9 kit and I'm doing it as Yorktown. The ship took a fall a couple of years ago and I'm just now starting to put it back together. Before the fall, the ship was painted in 5-N and had the numbers and centerline stripe in black on the deck. I'm curious to know that if I painted my ship in the dazzle would the markings on the deck still be correct or do have to paint the dash lines? I really don't want to mess with the deck anymore. The hull was stripped with Easy-off and so it's back down to bare plastic. I'd hate to have a 5-N CV-10 next to a 5-N CV2 on my shelf. TIA, Jon Ryckert

[ModelMonkey]

Thanks, gents!

Jon, the references I have indicate that white dashed lines would be correct. I'll defer to Tracy for confirmation.

I better get back to work before Winston hits me with that whip again.

[Poppop]

There are a kajillion ejector pin marks on the undersides of the gun platforms on the Yorktown (and I'm sure on all other Essex kits). No nice clean way of sanding them away!

Does anyone have a technique or advice on how to fill and smooth these with the minimum amount of time?

Thanks in advance folks!

Charlie Letteer

[Bryan Holtby]

Hi all.

I have just received DML's 1/700 version of CV15, the Randolph, and was disappointed to discover that it really isnt the Randolph at all.

Pictures on NavSource clearly show Quad 40 gun tubs on the starboard side under the island when the ship arrives in Ulithi.

So.....which ship is it? It has both catapults, which seem to indicate a late 44 outfit, but it doest have the starboard midship quads.

At what point were the midship quads added or were they not added to early long hulled Essex, but a late model design change?

Overall Im really impressed with the molding quality, from that standpoint its a fantasic kit but its totally ruined by this HUGE error.

[Devin]

"Minimum amount of time"? Well, what I use is Mr. Surfacer and Mr. Putty, applied to the holes, let dry, and sand. That's about it. The only way to reduce the time of any filling and sanding process is to use a fast-curing filler. The fastest being superglue (CA) kicked with accelerator.

-Devin

[Bryan Holtby]

To update my previous post, after searching the net I found a pic of Randolph's starboard (during workups, with cammo) side and as built , the quad 40's under the bridge were not present.

It also looks like she was painted overall blue by the time she reached the combat zone, but I havent found any good profile pics to be certain.

[AndrexP]

...as built , the quad 40's under the bridge were not present.

Makes sense. Essex class were designed to be just narrow enough to squeeze through the Canal, so ships were built without the sponsons, and received them once on the Left coast. (Recall that Randolph was built at Newport News, Virginia.)

Any chance you can post the picture you found of the starboard side?

Thanks,

[Bryan Holtby]

http://ussrandolph.com/ww2photos/photos/photo16.html

There is no location or date on the pic.....no absolute guarentee that its even the Randolph (internet = misinformation highway at times), although it is the correct cammo scheme and it is the USS. Randolph website.

[Tracy White]

Hi all.

I have just received DML's 1/700 version of CV15, the Randolph, and was disappointed to discover that it really isnt the Randolph at all.

::snip::

So.....which ship is it? It has both catapults, which seem to indicate a late 44 outfit, but it doest have the starboard midship quads.

It's not really any of them if you want to nitpick. The Randolph is the most disappointing of their kits in my opinion.

It's best used for Randolph on her shakedown cruise.
A little background if y ou've never read this before. The "long hulls" received a bunch of design changes that would be reflected in some of the shorthulls later when they went in for refit. But they also had some changes that were never added to the short hulls; the most noticible of these is the longer, clipper bow. But what drove this was a desire for increased AA effectiveness, and there were other changes that went along with this. They had LONG hulls but SHORT decks... the flight decks were cut back fore and aft to give the quad 40s a better overheard firing arc. The air groups hated the loss of deck spac ethough and most of the ships had them lengthened by the end of the war (Only Hancock went through the entire war with the short deck)

I don't have the exact date, but she launched with the short deck and went to war with the regular deck... and probably had it by the time of her shakedown cruise

Kit comes with the short deck. You get to lengthen it or live with it.

The flight deck is the major falling-down point of any long-hulled kit in any scale, but that's because all four of the long hulls had a different version of the deck

[Jose Chaica]

Does anybody knows which hull line corresponds to which hull station, in A. Raven�s book "Essex Carriers" (or even the WP book, which seems to share the same info), as they have no placement information ???
Thanks...

.

[Bryan Holtby]

Thanks Tracy.

Did the US carriers use a hangar layout in a similar way as the IJN did? IE the IJN carriers put the fighters in the bow, dive bombers in the middle and torp bombers in the stern on most ships.

Ive done some searches on the net and have found nothing so far.

[Jose Chaica]

Thanks Tracy.

Did the US carriers use a hangar layout in a similar way as the IJN did? IE the IJN carriers put the fighters in the bow, dive bombers in the middle and torp bombers in the stern on most ships.

Ive done some searches on the net and have found nothing so far.

US policy was to have all airgroup placed in the flightdeck, not the hangar deck, like the IJN did.
Hangar was only used for maintenance and accomodation in rough weather.

.