Calling all Essex-class (Cold War configuration) fans

[Essex]

Thanks Tracy!

Hello all - a couple of Antietam-related questions for the folks at home.
....
Does anyone have any other CV-36 photos post-55? References are few and far-between for this ship after the addition of the angled deck.
...
So back to that period when she was still a carrier with regular planes. I really need photos, so if anyone has a line on some, let me know.
.....
Also, I am guessing by the could of pictures I can find that the 20mm AA guns are only present on the island or is that wrong as well? I think there are few guns left on CV-36 by 1956, the only ones I think I see are on the sponson port side at the large forward doors and the area just forward of that, for a total of 5 guns.

I think you would like to build the ship with the pole mast replaced the tripod mast as it can be seen on the NavSource photo 023617. This modification has made sometime between 1953 and 1956 (maybe in 1955?). I have found some info in Stefan Terzibaschitsch's book "Aircraft Carriers of the U.S. Navy".

Her armament is in 1953: 10-5"/38, 32-40 mm, in 1961 only 8-5"/38. It means that there is no 20 mm guns afer the angled deck modification and seeing the photos I can't find any of them.

There are some photos (and even a drawing) of the ship in 1953 but these are different from those on the NavSource page. There are only two photos with the pole mast, one is about from the same angle as the photo 023618, the other one shows only the island's port side in November 1956 in Brest. It can be seen that the armament has reduced, the bow 40 mm guns are gone, but the port side 5" guns and Bofors guns are on the place. On the mast are SPS-6, SPS-8A and SC-2 radars and there is a TACAN at the masthead.

If you are interested I can scan this photos some time, maybe on the weekend. Write me a PM with your email adress and I can send to you.

[jgrease]

PM sent - thanks Essex! Wow - this post-war stuff is ponderous...

[Tracy White]

this post-war stuff is ponderous...

That's why I've been limiting myself to the war time stuff for now

[sumpter250]

Can anyone post detail shots of underway refueling stations, on the Essex class carriers, circa 1963-1965. I was never able to take those pictures when alongside.

[sumpter250]

The reason I ask for refueling rig details is so I can model these two ships USS Randolph CVS-15, and USS Lowry DD-770 in an underway replenishment scene. Lowry, and Randolph under construction, progress limited to research results. These are 1:700 scale.

[Stefan Buysse]

Hi,

Thanks to this forum, I discovered that the 1/700 Dragon and Trumpeter instructions would have us glue the paravanes to the wrong end of the ship.
It's too late for my Trumpeter Hancock, they're already glued in place. I plan to leave them there, and maybe add the surplus paravanes from my Dragon Boxer, that I plan to build as a 1960's LPH, in the correct place on my Hancock.
I don't see directions to install the paravanes in the Dragon LPH instructions. However, they haven't added the blue colour indicating "parts not for use" to part K10 on the front page of the Boxer instructions.
Can anyone confirm that the LPH's of the 1960's didn't carry the paravanes anymore?
And what about the Essexes of the Korean war, did they still have them?
I realise it's probably not an easy question.

Cheers, Stefan.

[ModelMonkey]

Although these photos are of Wasp and Hornet, they suggest how things may have looked on Randolph. You can see the hoses on Hornet clearly.

[sumpter250]

The low angle shot of Wasp, is excellent! this is the kind of starboard side detail that's hard to find.
The shot of Hornet, shows her in the "receiving" mode, where the fuel line rig is that of the oiler. It does provide the specific location of one of her "providing" rigs. This shot also shows the aft starboard elevator in the "down-tilted up" position, which was standard for any alongside, underway evolution.
Thanks for those, they help.
Pete

[jgrease]

To Tracy - I have posted two more pictures on the thread related to Antietam as CVS-36. I have no source for them, and have indicated as much, but they are great reference pics.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36143&p=231795#p231795

[Jeffcsr]

I may have skipped over and missed it (this thread is over 80 pages now ) but is the angled deck of the Antietam the same as the angled deck used for the rest of the class that went thru SCB-125 ?

I know hte deck guns and Island aredifferent but can the Antietam Deck be used to model other ships?

TIA,
Jeff

[Dick J]

No. The Antietam angled deck was totally experimental, and therefore unique in its shape. The supports underneath were very different from any of the SCB-125 upgrades. Also, the Antietam deck does not have the length added at the bow when it was enclosed (and the kit deck is actually too short for the open bow config, as well). All of the SCB-125's were based on SCB-27 upgrades, and so were lacking the twin 5" fore and aft of the island, the bases for which would have to somehow be removed from the Antietam deck if it were to be used. The Antietam deck is scribed for H-4 cats, while the SCB-27A's had the longer H-8's and the '27C's had even longer steam cats that were angled somewhat toward the starboard side of the bow, so the deck actually got wider going forward from the starboard 5" single mounts.

[Jeffcsr]

A question for you guys, I have the Dragon 1/700 Princeton kit and instead want to build an LPH. Can this kit be used for the LPH or should I get the Boxer kit? I've checked photos, the only area I'm not sure about is the deck, did the LPH still carry the CVS type deck with alll the trap wires & catapults? I tried the US Navy history link (but the photo's aren't downloading.


It'd be really nice if I could do the Valley Forge w/ FramII conversion but I can't find any detailed close ups.

TIA,
Jeff

[Dick J]

I have the Dragon 1/700 Princeton kit and instead want to build an LPH. Can this kit be used for the LPH or should I get the Boxer kit?

Princeton was one of the Essex's that was converted to an LPH. The flightdeck in the kit is the full-length deck required for all of the LPH's. The one in the Boxer kit (unless they have changed it since I bought my kit) is the length of the Randolph kit deck, which is too short for anything but Tico (as commissioned), Hancock (WW-II), or possibly Randolph (as commissioned).

[Jeffcsr]

Thanks for the reply Dick,

While I'm trying to get US.History.Navy pics to download... looks like it's not going to happen anytime soon... I am trying to see close ups on the decks of any of the 3 LPHs. Did the Carriers keep or lose their catapults & arresting gear when converted to LPHs? And is the deck Asphaulted or still exposed wood? The best pics I've viewed still do not clear that up with me, although the deck looks dk grey - black in color.

Really wish there was a review on the DML Boxer kit. I'd like to see all the differences they've made from CVS to LPH.

[ModelMonkey]

Hope this helps a bit.

[Tracy White]

And is the deck Asphaulted or still exposed wood?

Active ships wouldn't have asphalt or concrete decks; too heavy, too brittle, or too flammable.

[Jeffcsr]

Thanks guys,

Dick, those pics are great! I can see the Catapult detail just fine but can't make out if the arrestor cables are there or not.

Tracy, got it on the wood deck. Thanks for clearing that up

[Stefan Buysse]

Thanks guys,

Dick, those pics are great! I can see the Catapult detail just fine but can't make out if the arrestor cables are there or not.

Hi, Jeff.

I also want to build an LPH and have been wondering about the same things.
I don't know for sure, but I figure it would have made sense to remove the arrestor cables.
These cables would only get into the way...Marines loaded with gear would trip over them while running towards the helicopters and the helicopter wheels and tyres would get extra wear by rolling over them.
The catapult tracks would be harder to remove and I don't think they were as obtrusive as the cables.

Cheers, Stefan.

[Tracy White]

It's outside what I'm researching, but unless the Navy wanted to retain the capacity to land fixed wing aircraft they would have removed the arresting gear. Not only do you have the extra hazard for crew on deck, there was a lot of maintenance that went in to those systems. They could make the ships cheaper and safer to operate by landing that equipment.

[awetherhorn]

The first ship I served in was USS Valley Forge (LPH-8). She was just finishing a FRAM overhaul. She did NOT have arrestor cables then. Some of my OE division sailors spent a lot of time removing excess electrical cables that had been left behind/overlooked when the old 40mm mounts had been removed some time earlier. The cables we pulled out had been used for both control of mount positioning and moount power supply. Catapults had also been removed, but I recall that there was still some leftover useless material, possibly the base for the catapult cylinder, in what had been the catapult machinery room under the flight deck on the port side.

Aryeh Wetherhorn
Elazar, Israel