The Ship Model Forum

Mike V -
Say it isn't so! Melting, melting! I'm melting!

For what it's worth to those who haven't yet started, I have tried about everything in the many years I've been trying to complete the HORNET. If I were to start over, I would make the hull out of wood - probably Basswood - using the so-called 'lift method'. I am nearly done carving and shaping (and lengthening) the resin BWN hull to match the hull lines drawings. Before resorting to this method (again - it was the one I first tried) I had thought I could a.) heat and pull in the Trump hull with appropriate internal bracing, or b.) fill the hull forward section with resin then grind it to shape, or c.) graft another ship's bow onto the Trump hull, or . . . . .
If you really want the hull even close, the carving method is the only way to go. Sorry, I wish there was an easier, softer way. There is almost no place on the hull that is flat for any distance. (Yes, I know the hangar deck edge is parallel for a considerable length, but the hull is not parallel except for a short distance amidships, and it flares up to meet the hangar deck with varying degrees of flare depending on where along the hull you are looking.
I get wound up about this because the ship's hull lines are very graceful, and I mean to capture them as best as I can. I respect others who take a different route, as Lord knows I could have been done a long time ago if I'd chosen not to be this anal. But guys like the two Mikes keep egging me on to do better, so blame them.

_________________
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 . . .)

It's bubbling up like a witches' caldrun! Big blobs of gray Trumpy plastic oozing out everywhere. I'm waiting for Dorothy to click her heals and take me back to Kansas. LOL

I'm thinking frame and skin rather than lift. I used to built flying model planes out of wood that way, so no new skill development needed. Also, less carving!

_________________
Mike

For whatever its worth I've been building plastic models since I was 7 years old and have always kept to myself about how I do what I do in the world of modeling,I'm just private that way and I've always enjoyed watching people say, "I wonder how he did that."That being said,I'm 46 years old now and recently joined the Ship Modelers Association in Southern California to expand my knowledge of wooden ship modeling simply because I was commisioned to build one and needed some incite on Rigging of Period Ships.Anyways,I was at one meeting recently and became aware that one of the members is very knowledgeable about WWII Carriers (which have recently become a passion for me).He turned me on to ModelWarships.com and as a result over the past couple of months I've been really enjoying myself asking questions,giving comments,etc,etc.Keep in mind I've never done anything like this in my life. I think I'm enjoying this because I dont have to deal with alot of small talk out in the open. Anyways Please bear with me as I go on and believe me when I say I dont want to offend anyone but I get a strong sense of "over engineering" as I read alot of whats said and asked in this forum.I think I'm as much of a perfectionist as any devote modeler but I have found in my years of modeling that the simplest approach is usually the best. Now I get to the main reason for this submission;I've noticed that quite a few people have battled with trying to get the Trumpeters 1/350 Hornets bow and hull to the correct shape.Keep it simple,everything you need is right there in front of you. It involves first:removing the first two cross pcs at the water line at the bow,then cut through the rest of the cross pcs down the center and shave away about 5/32nds inch of their width.Rejoin the ends of these cross pcs and use some evergreen sheet (.040 thick)on the upper sides to keep them strong.Next: take some .060 sheet and cut out pcs to fill in the spots under the cross pcs,(what your doing here is simply replacing the part of the red waterline hull that fits into the notched area under the cross pcs) this should result in a completely flat bottom (sand the .060 if needed to make sure everything ends up nice and flat) except for the forward section where you removed the first two cross pcs.Do not fill in this area yet.I made the fill in pcs in sections from cross pc to cross pc and one for the rear(5 pcs total).I found this easier then making one long pc.Now: take the middle and aft hanger decks and shave off about 3/64ths inch of both sides from both but none from the very back of the aft portion.The areas adjacent to the fore and aft elevators will need some close attention,you will not want to shave away so much from the aft deck that it just falls in nice and easy,you'll want the hull to expand slightly all along its length to start to create that flared look that you see clearly just below the hanger level,you will add more plastic later to really bring that flare to life.At the forward elevator area you can cut away a little more from the sides,these areas are better if they do not touch the hull because this will help when you start to bend the forward section to get the nice curves going toward the bow.The middle section should go on first,just make sure you test fit both sections together before glueing (liquid cement is best) and remember the hull should have to stretch out slightly.Add glue a little at a time as you go along.I let mine sit with some makeshift weights on top until I was sure the glue cured overnight. Oh well, please let me know if anyone is interested in hearing more,its getting late and I would not want to rush through this. I'm sure if you ponder what I've said so far you'll see how really easy this is and dont worry I know that what I've said so far prompts alot of questions.I'm pretty sure I'll have the answers.Looking forward to your comments,Jake Hernandez

Jake,

I would be interested in hearing more of your hull remake. The Hornet is on my list of ships to build and am interested in how to get the hull shape corrected. Pictures would also be a big help. I was thinking of using thin sheet plastic and build the hull in a manner similar to building wings for balsa aircraft (ribs covered with tissue paper, but with the plastic in place of the paper). Looking forward to hear more.

Jake,
Another oldtimer here! Started at 5 myself, now coming up on 54! Your method had been my original plan of action. Once I started measuring and comparing the the ship's actual blueprints, I realized that only a minimal correction was possible. Anything further would either badly distort the existing hull, or simply was beyond what it could be bent into. Once you measure the waterline beam at the main hangar deck forward catapult opening, you will see that the Trumpeter hull is fully double the distance of the real ship's scale dimension. Styrene has its limits. For a waterline hull, it might be live-able. I would love to see photos of what you have done though.

_________________
Mike

Jake,
As Mike and Sixmanhas already stated, we would love to see what you have done with the hull. As you can see this is a hotly debated subject. Your post seem pretty straight forward and I would love to see the pics so I can fully understand.

_________________
http://www.USS-Silversides.com

From what I have been able to determine about the decks of USN carriers during WWII, they had six inch wide wood strips running parallel with the ships beam and a tie-down strip every four feet. For the required strength, I assume these tie-down strips were metal. If that is ture, what color would these tie-down strips be painted since they would not absorb and of the Norflok 250N Flight Deck Stain that the wood flight deck would absorb. Also, would the color difference be enougth to show up in pictures? If the plastic flight deck would be used in a model, should two different colors be used for finishing; one for the 'wooden' portion and one for the metal tie-down strips?

Jake -
Another somewhat oldtimer here - a bit older than Mike Vorrasi, that is. My experience was the same as Mike describes above. I tried almost exactly the same approach you describe. I went so far as to glue the foredeck in place and brace the crap out of it on the underside to keep it from bulging up when I drew together the two sides of the hull to get the bow more tapered. I used the bow of waterline plate from the Trump ESSEX and also tapered the bottom of the HORNET hull and braced it as well before gluing it to the upper hull in order to further strengthen things for my full hull build. The stem of the actual hull is extremely thin as well. I went so far as to cut a slot in the plastic stem, sand both sides of the inner hull and glue them together to get as sharp a stem as possible which also helped strengthen the bow. Within about two weeks, I noticed two things. Firstly, there is still a significant amount of flare as far back as the forward edge of the island (see Mike's avatar, you can see the shadowing from the flare) and my method did not sufficiently duplicate that. Secondly, the plastic began to stress crack just below the foredeck - the plastic just couldn't handle what I wanted it to achieve. The waterline also got 'ripply' from the induced stress. Maybe there's a better way . . . .
Here is the point where I made a personal choice. My choice was to start over and build as accurate a reproduction of the hull (and the rest of the ship) as I am capable of doing. When I set about making hull station templates (and a fixture to hold the hull while I checked the templates with it) and compared them to my modified Trump plastic hull, I could see no way of coming as close as I would like by using the plastic hull. That decision has led to a huge amount of work that continues to this day. As I said in a previous post, I'd do that part differently by using wood instead of resin to carve the hull. However, I fully respect any modeler who chooses to make the Trump plastic hull acceptable to him/her rather than take my approach. I am striving for historical accuracy within my talents and capabilities. I personally take a dim view of people that tell me there is only one 'right' way to build a model. For my purposes, though, I am very much in agreement with how both Mikes are doing their projects and I fully appreciate what they are sharing.
I am being careful not to use the term 'good enough' because I think that would imply that there is something wrong with doing it less than full-on, gnat's ass perfect historically accurate model. Jake, if you can get a good-looking hull out of the Trumpeter hull, I would be among the first to cheer you. Sad that they couldn't do as good a job in the first place as they did on the LEX hull. Sigh . . . .

_________________
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 . . .)

Hi Sixman, FWIW, Norfolk 250N was very closely matched to Deck Blue 20B, so they most likely would have used the stain on the wood and the paint on the metal. Color photos show uniform matching blue on the tiedown strips on CV-8 and all her sisters as well. In fact, even the prewar decks, using mohagany stain show the metal tie downs to be a matching brown shade, as considerable prewar color photos of CV-6 deck details show. Whether the stain would hold to metal or they used a similar paint formula is uncertain. I have had wood stains adhere fairly well to metal myself, just going by my backyard fencing!

_________________
Mike

Ha! I'm just a young whippersnapper who's been modeling for only 43 years, but Trumpeter's Hornet has aged me prematurely beyond my time. Sorry to hear about the meltdown Mike V. (For those who are new to this forum, nobody knows more or is more generous in sharing knowlege of Hornet than Mike.)
I too would love to see pix of Jake's hull work. I am constantly amazed at the variety of innovative approaches that modelers have taken to correcting the hull, and an easier way would be most welcome. For now my vote for best results (although probably greatest effort) is on John W.
It is hard to make predictions about the state of the modeling industry in these economically uncertain times, but I am very hopeful that recent releases from Japanese firms of Japanese subjects will spread to include Allied ships as well. Can you imagine an all new tool CV-5/6 of the quality of the new Akagi and not drool? All credit to Trumpeter, they started the ball rolling, but the sad truth is that their Hornet is an overpriced toy and not a serious replica. To those just starting it I recommend:
Purchase one (1) Trumpeter Hornet kit
one (1) set of every PE fret available for it
one (1) set of every aftermarket aircraft and accessories pack
one (1) aftermarket flight deck
Open the Trumpeter box. Remove all the contents. Throw them in the trash (do not just toss them, hurl them violently). Close the box. Glue the aftermarket parts to the box. Place it on your shelf and smile.
(And please, everybody smile, I'm just blowing off steam.) Like any model, it can be built. You will get what you choose to make out of it. This site has been a haven for those of us who have chosen to struggle with the inaccuracies, and I' for one am the better for it.

Cheers, Mike

Well said Mike

_________________
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...

On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"

Bob

_________________
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 . . .)

Well, here goes. I'll post a picture of my HORNET build to show the differences between the Trumpeter hull (upper) and the carved resin hull (bottom) - the artist formerly known as BWN. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to crop and export the picture to get the best resolution, so this effort may need improvements.

Believe it or not, the photo angle makes the differences appear less than they are.
I'll stop here to see how this picture posts.

_________________
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 . . .)

I'm not happy with the picture, so I'll work on it and re-post. Hopefully this will still show how much work is necessary to match the actual hull lines. I have sometimes felt a strange kinship to blacksmiths of the bye-gone era. Wonder why.

Crap. I can't seem to get an improvement in resolution. The original is cropped to 156K - just too big - but when I reduce the size, even though it looks good enough on my photo editor, I get the same blob picture as above when posting. Help anyone?

_________________
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 . . .)

Could you please post official the lines and body plan?

Do you have a photbucket account (or similar) that you can upload the photo to? You can then post it here that way.

Eddie

_________________
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...

On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"

What sizes were the arresting cables and barricade cables on the Hornet? I have a local source for fly tying line that is monfiliment (clear or smoke) in .004", .006" and .008" diameters.

Also, on page 54 of "Warship Pictorial 9", there is a photo of the Hornet arrestor gear in which some of the arrestors appear to have one cable and some with two cables. Were some set up that way or is the second cable for something else?

Here we go again.



It seems the transmission process is fogging up the lens or something. Just kidding - I have dial-up, that may be the problem. Trust me, though, these pictures look much better in the folder than here.
It's quite hard to see, but there is a great deal of flare under the foredeck because the hull is very narrow there. The width of the hull at the waterline under the forward edge of the 5" galleries is just about 20% of the width of the hull at the waterline at midships. You can see that the Trumpeter hull is nearly as wide at the forward edge of the 5" galleries as it is at midships.

A1: I don't have a Photobucket account.
A2: I don't have the body plans in digital form.

_________________
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 . . .)

Thank you Mr W for responding on the body plan question.
I have no idea what Trumpeter charges for the kit of the Hornet, but if I was to buy the thing and then to find out about this enormous error, one for which there can be no excuse, I would be more than upset.
What a disgrace, Trumpeter should be keel hauled for this. I can only think that they found the hull drawings scrawled on the wall of a pissoir.
This kit, as it appears in the picture that you have posted, is near fraudulent.