Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[coolrunnings_99]

Hello all,

Please, a photo or a drawing of a simplified rigging scheme (1/700) for BHR, late WWII or Korea?
Any help would be greatlly appreciated!

Much obliged,

Ante

[Essex]

Steve, thank you for the answer! What do you think, is the Trumpy's paravane correct both in size and shape?

An other question: what was the color of the ship's boat in case of a MS 3x camo and in case of overall blue or gray? Was it white?

[ModelMonkey]

In the reports of the shake-down on Shangri-la there are comments as to a paravane being 'installed' on the opposite (wrong) side and when deployed it continually steered the wrong direction and slammed into the ship's hull!

I can just imagine the XO having a cow over that.

Steve, thank you for the answer! What do you think, is the Trumpy's paravane correct both in size and shape?

It's not bad. For better: I think it is L'Arsenal who make some in resin that are really good.

An other question: what was the color of the ship's boat in case of a MS 3x camo and in case of overall blue or gray? Was it white?

Not white. Generally, the boats on US Navy ships in 1944-45 were supposed to be painted the same color as the bulkhead behind them when stowed. I have been studying photos of Yorktown and the boats are not clear in those photos so I'm not really sure how Yorktown's crew painted their boats at that time. It is clear that by late 1945, when Yorktown was painted overall Navy Blue 5-N, the boats were painted 5-N.

Perhaps Tracy will have some 1944-45 photos that show boats on a camouflaged Essex more clearly.

[Tracy White]

Perhaps Tracy will have some 1944-45 photos that show boats on a camouflaged Essex more clearly.

I forgot to look through my books last night... don't really have any super secret pictures of the boats, but in general anything mounted on the hull was to conform to the pattern, including boats

[ModelMonkey]

Here is a paravane aboard USS Massachusetts. You can see for yourself how accurate your kit's paravane is.

[Capt652]

Stefan Buysse wrote:

I discovered that the 1/700 Dragon and Trumpeter instructions would have us glue the paravanes to the wrong end of the ship.

I just wondering...
Is there any reason for a paravane to be on the fantail of a carrier? If both Trumpeter (in 1:350 scale too) and Dragon shows those there how did they both come up with that location? Was there any use of a paravane 'sailing' back there?

Capt652

[ModelMonkey]

I just wondering...Is there any reason for a paravane to be on the fantail of a carrier? If both Trumpeter (in 1:350 scale too) and Dragon shows those there how did they both come up with that location? Was there any use of a paravane 'sailing' back there?

Not sure how both companies got that wrong. Although paravanes can be deployed from the stern, there are two good reasons not to:

1. Paravanes deployed over the stern offer no protection for the deploying ship. The deploying ship's hull would contact the mine(s) before the paravane cable will.

2. Paravane cables deployed from the stern may foul the screws.

[Essex]

Not sure how both companies got that wrong.

Sometimes I have the fieling that they took over some details from each other (or Dragon from Trumpy, if the Trumpy's kit was the first one).

The most interesting details are the flight deck foundations at the bow. This position of this parts are wrong in the similar manner! There are two girders between the front bulkhead and the front wall of the superstructure (marked with red), the aftermost (marked with green) is about in the middle, the foremost (marked with blue) is about at the quarter. (I hope you understand what I want to say!) At the models these bulkheads are about one third, exactly at the same position at both models! It is strange thing to made the same errors if they constructed the models independently! ("Fortunately" there are other errors that are different at the kits.)

There are the photos of the bow from the 1/700th models. You have to add the thickness of the superstructure.

Trumpeter Essex:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... 10-04b.jpg

Dragon Essex:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... v9-04a.jpg

[ModelMonkey]

On Trumpy's 1/350 kits, the chock locations are wrong too, most noticeably in that they are positioned away from deck edge but should be flush with it. That is a problem if using PE rails with chock cutouts.

And the kit's chocks are too tall.

The easiest way to fix that if using the GMM PE set is to:
1. cut the bottoms of the chocks to the height of the PE parts cutouts
2. fill in the holes on the deck
3. fix the PE rails to the deck edge
4. fix the chocks to the deck at the back of the PE rails

[jgrease]

Here's a link to another thread with info on Antietam from 55-56:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36143

[ModelMonkey]

She's looking great Timm!

With plans available from Floating Drydock, Tracy's considerable research available, and the AOTS book being in print for years before Trumpeter released their kit, it bugs me how many conspicuous details (like the number and location of Bofors tubs and stowed paravanes) and the shape of prominent features (like the hull) Trumpeter got so wrong.



I was hoping to be done with my Yorktown and bring to the Nationals in August but it's not looking like that will happen. The flight deck is now fixed to the hull and I am correcting some of the camouflage pattern. I have opened up the cockpits of the aircraft and filled the panel lines with putty. Although the panel lines are interesting, IMHO they are overdone and therefore detract from the scale appearance of the aircraft. I have used nearly a quarter tube of Squadron Green on this kit.

Timm are you going to paint yours in Ms. 32 10a or overall blue?

[sumpter250]

I have used nearly a quarter tube of Squadron Green on this kit.

Steve..........Squadron thanks you!

[MartinJQuinn]

I was hoping to be done with my Yorktown and bring to the Nationals in August but it's not looking like that will happen.

I'm not sure whether to be sad because your model won't be there, or rejoice because it won't be in the competition

[Essex]

Something interesting about the 26' whaleboats...

The Essex class carriers have two 26' Mk2 whaleboats, but I could find data only of the Mk1 boats in the Fletcher AOTS book. The boat has a length of 26' and a beam about 7'5", scaled down to 1/350th: 22,6 mm * 6,4 mm. Maybe the Mk2 boat is wider? And now the models...

I have one Trumpy Essex (Yorktown) and one Tamiya and one Trumpy Fletcher in 1/350th scale. The most interesting thing is that the two boats by Trumpy are quite different both in length and shape. The boat from the Essex kit has a length of 25-26 mm, and the other one from the Fletcher (The Sullivans) has the correct 23 mm. The difference looks not too bad, but on the attached photo it seems to be larger. The third boat from the Tamiya kit has the correct length too. The Tamiya boat is 6 mm wide, the two boats from Trumpy are 7 mm.

There are differences in the shape too, IMHO the Tamiya's boat is the most correct, but the engine cover is on the wrong position, and its size is wrong too. The boat from the Trumpy's Fletcher lacks the details and the shape is incorrect. The details of the boat from Trumpy Essex kit are the best, but it has an incorrect size and shape. And there are is an other probleme: there is only ONE boat in the Essex kit instead of two!

Should I buy the whaleboats from L'Arsenal?

[sumpter250]

I'm looking at a photo of USS Ticonderoga CV-14, that shows one of her MWB's hanging just aft of the port side elevator. The L'Arsenal MWB is the wrong shape, and the sternpost is too large. I agree that the Tamiya boat has the most correct shape, and the engine cover could be removed, and replaced. The 1:700 MWB's from Dragon, have no sheer, but there were two provided (two identical sprues, with one boat each, and guns ).

[ModelMonkey]

Rigged paravane drawing of Yorktown (CV-5) class carrier. Essex class was probably similar if not identical.

[Capt652]

Re: Paravanes

Any ideas as to the function of the chain positioned right down the middle from the main deck down to the bottom forward-most at the bow? Was it used as a last attempt to explode a mine before contact with the hull? In pictures of ships underway that chain is taut and slicing through the water.

Capt652

[Capt652]

Since I don't want to chance posting what is probably copyrighted material here's a question for those who have access to Robert's AOTS Intrepid book. Starting with page 21, picture 7 shows a large diameter horizontal pipe that terminates at the aft end of the ship, runs forward and parallel with the flight deck, drops to a junction and into a 'box' between the director and quad 40mm, and continues on to a second 'box' ahead of that same quad 40mm gun. Page 22, picture 8 shows the same from a forward point of view. On page 32, drawing A2/2 shows same area from the side view (not the piping, but the boxes). Page 44 Drawing A8/1, top view of the main (hanger) deck has those same 'boxes' labeled ....potato storage.....POTATO STORAGE!!! Is this true? Freakin' potato storage? Isn't this a distance from the galley? Does this seem strange to you? And if this IS in fact potato storage, are those large diameter pipes related to potatoes too? Not many pictures in my possession show this part of essex class ships for comparison.

Capt652

[sumpter250]

While I can't speak to the Essex class carriers, I do remember that the spud lockers on Lowry (DD-770), were all topside. Some on the main deck, just aft of the break, and some on the 01 level, on both sides of the forward stack. I believe the idea was to keep the spuds as dry as possible, and, at the same time, in fresh air. Distance from the galley, was not a concern.

[Tracy White]

I believe the pipe is the incinerator... I'll have to look at my book when I get a chance to confirm it.