Calling all USS Lexington CV-2 fans

[MartinJQuinn]

In an effort to keep these CASF threads from getting too big, Jim's excellent in-progress build of his Lexington has been moved here, in the Picture Post forum.

[lvsquarerigger]

In an effort to keep these CASF threads from getting too big, Jim's excellent in-progress build of his Lexington has been moved here, in the Picture Post forum.

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=40911&start=30

An interesting topic has come up over on this site. Someone brought up the difference between the height and shape of the splinter shields on the 5" gun tubs on the Trumpeter kit and photograpnic evidence of the same. It seems the ones on the kit scale out at about 2' in height while pictures show them to be midchest high or so. This can change with the height of the individual in the photo but they are clearly higher than depicted in the kit opening another whole area of scratch building to rectify.

You might want to mosey on over and check it out. It begins with a reply from John just after the pic showing the vents on the stack structure.

Jim

[lvsquarerigger]

In my roamings I came across a new Lex kit soon to be offered by New Yankkee. They have a description and picture but no price or release date yet. What intrigued me was the pic of their completed model.

The different bridges are totally different from any other rendition I have seen. Also some of the detailing on the stack is different.

Their rendition of the splintershielding on the 5" gun tubs is also different though not quite accurate according to a few of the photos I've seen of them during the battle .

I downloaded the pic so I could enlarge it and look more closely at details. You might also enjoy this.

http://www.yankeemodelworks.com/35106_Lexington.htm

Jim

[Dick J]

An interesting topic has come up over on this site. Someone brought up the difference between the height and shape of the splinter shields on the 5" gun tubs on the Trumpeter kit and photograpnic evidence of the same. It seems the ones on the kit scale out at about 2' in height while pictures show them to be midchest high or so. This can change with the height of the individual in the photo but they are clearly higher than depicted in the kit opening another whole area of scratch building to rectify.

Something you may want to consider before you jump through all the hoops is the difference between the inside dimension of the kit splinter screen vs. the outer dimension. How thick, scale wise, is the kit deck? In 1/700, in order to have something strong enough to handle, and thick enough that the glue doesn't melt it into nothingness, we are faced with a trade off. Either the inside or the outside dimension is reasonably accurate, but not both. This leads to another trade off on the height of the weapons inside the tubs relative to the height of the screens. And the correct answer is ? . . . . . . ?

[MartinJQuinn]

In my roamings I came across a new Lex kit soon to be offered by New Yankkee. They have a description and picture but no price or release date yet. What intrigued me was the pic of their completed model.

Jim,

This kit has been around since 2002. I have one, and it's very, very nicely cast.

The Yankee Modelworks kit is the epresented in her final configuration at the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942.

I copied that directly from the YMW site, the spelling errors are not mine. Anyway, the YMW model represents the Lex before her last refit, and does not represent her at the time of Coral Sea.

[lvsquarerigger]

An interesting topic has come up over on this site. Someone brought up the difference between the height and shape of the splinter shields on the 5" gun tubs on the Trumpeter kit and photograpnic evidence of the same. It seems the ones on the kit scale out at about 2' in height while pictures show them to be midchest high or so. This can change with the height of the individual in the photo but they are clearly higher than depicted in the kit opening another whole area of scratch building to rectify.

Something you may want to consider before you jump through all the hoops is the difference between the inside dimension of the kit splinter screen vs. the outer dimension. How thick, scale wise, is the kit deck? In 1/700, in order to have something strong enough to handle, and thick enough that the glue doesn't melt it into nothingness, we are faced with a trade off. Either the inside or the outside dimension is reasonably accurate, but not both. This leads to another trade off on the height of the weapons inside the tubs relative to the height of the screens. And the correct answer is ? . . . . . . ?

I wasn't thinking so much of thickness as it is probably impossible to get that part correct and still have something that holds up. It was the height and shape of the shields I was looking at. There is one shot that is looking back over the port side tubs right in that angled section of the flight deck that clearly shows the rounded portion at one height and then it rises up to a higher height between them and continues back toward the ship at that height and this is nowhere in the kit, or any I have seen for that matter.

Jim

[lvsquarerigger]

In my roamings I came across a new Lex kit soon to be offered by New Yankkee. They have a description and picture but no price or release date yet. What intrigued me was the pic of their completed model.

Jim,

This kit has been around since 2002. I have one, and it's very, very nicely cast.

The Yankee Modelworks kit is the epresented in her final configuration at the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942.

I chuckled at that myself as I read it. It also said in the section I was looking at that the price was TBD. Perhaps if I'd known of it I might have gotten that one instead of Trumpeter. It also comes with a lot of PE included according to the site information.

I copied that directly from the YMW site, the spelling errors are not mine. Anyway, the YMW model represents the Lex before her last refit, and does not represent her at the time of Coral Sea.

[John W.]

An interesting topic has come up over on this site. Someone brought up the difference between the height and shape of the splinter shields on the 5" gun tubs on the Trumpeter kit and photograpnic evidence of the same. It seems the ones on the kit scale out at about 2' in height while pictures show them to be midchest high or so. This can change with the height of the individual in the photo but they are clearly higher than depicted in the kit opening another whole area of scratch building to rectify.

Something you may want to consider before you jump through all the hoops is the difference between the inside dimension of the kit splinter screen vs. the outer dimension. How thick, scale wise, is the kit deck? In 1/700, in order to have something strong enough to handle, and thick enough that the glue doesn't melt it into nothingness, we are faced with a trade off. Either the inside or the outside dimension is reasonably accurate, but not both. This leads to another trade off on the height of the weapons inside the tubs relative to the height of the screens. And the correct answer is ? . . . . . . ?

A: Model in 1/350! Sorry, couldn't resist.

But I have come to the conclusion that the answer, at least for me, is to scratchbuild the necessary parts. I haven't always felt this way, to be sure. But you are making the case, Dick, by explaining the manufacturer's tradeoffs. The manufacturer has to dial in some ruggedness for shipping, handling, and releasing of the part from the molds. As an end user, this can be helpful or not depending upon one's perspective. In 1/350 I have the flexibility to construct the parts required from plastic sheet / strip knowing (or at least hoping) it will be subject to fewer of the mentioned stresses. I have seen work in 1/700 that makes my work look crude, so I know it can be done in smaller scales as well. My personal philosophy is that I am not in the production business - each ship I build is likely to be the only model of that ship I do build, so I am willing to do more work - once - even at the expense of doing fewer ships. To my eyes, the effort is worth it.
As always, I respect other choices and approaches.

[lvsquarerigger]

Something you may want to consider before you jump through all the hoops is the difference between the inside dimension of the kit splinter screen vs. the outer dimension. How thick, scale wise, is the kit deck? In 1/700, in order to have something strong enough to handle, and thick enough that the glue doesn't melt it into nothingness, we are faced with a trade off. Either the inside or the outside dimension is reasonably accurate, but not both. This leads to another trade off on the height of the weapons inside the tubs relative to the height of the screens. And the correct answer is ? . . . . . . ?

A: Model in 1/350! Sorry, couldn't resist.

But I have come to the conclusion that the answer, at least for me, is to scratchbuild the necessary parts. I haven't always felt this way, to be sure. But you are making the case, Dick, by explaining the manufacturer's tradeoffs. The manufacturer has to dial in some ruggedness for shipping, handling, and releasing of the part from the molds. As an end user, this can be helpful or not depending upon one's perspective. In 1/350 I have the flexibility to construct the parts required from plastic sheet / strip knowing (or at least hoping) it will be subject to fewer of the mentioned stresses. I have seen work in 1/700 that makes my work look crude, so I know it can be done in smaller scales as well. My personal philosophy is that I am not in the production business - each ship I build is likely to be the only model of that ship I do build, so I am willing to do more work - once - even at the expense of doing fewer ships. To my eyes, the effort is worth it.
As always, I respect other choices and approaches.

I understand what you mean. I have a 1/700 Lex, the only one I could find previously, and it sits in a box, semi finished, because it was both the wrong timeframe, translated 8" guns, and I couldn't get the details right. My normal background of building squareriggers is much closer to building from scratch even though I do use kits which basically consist of a bunch of sticks of the appropriate sizes, translated thicknees, varous sizes of string, some fabricated deck furniture, and a set of plans. I am finding that plastic starts to come closer to this the more I go.

I set out to build something, chose what I thought was the appropiate kit, then find out it isn't as advertised, it can be remedied with some forethought and work, and there are a whole new set of skills and materials necessary to do so. Like John I choose to do it right as far as I can determine. Right now the gun tubs seem to be the biggest detail, don't even think of the island and stack, that has to be worked out. It seems more than probable I will redo the splinter shields, perhaps even remove the platforms already installed, and get it right as best as my skills allow. So now I await my 5" inch guns, due to arrive any day, so I can compare how they will sit and what size shield looks the closest to what I can see in photographs. The PE set and paint are also somewhere in transit and will bring their own demands as they arrive.

A little aside off topic but still relevant to how I see things, I found a local chapter of IPMS and attended a meeting, met some new people, had one over to the house to compare notes, and because I had mentioned the squareriggers I am currently building, he brought along a ton of photos of the Charles W. Morgan, which he had visited in Mystic. I picked ones showing some details, downloaded them to the computer, and then spent a lot of time taking each one, enlarging it, zooming in on details, and finding that as much as I had researched there were several details wrong!!!!!! Uh OH!!! Now I have to remove several things I had already done, redo them to be accurate, and then continue. The good part is that as I do so I have a ready reference for further accurate work.

So now it's back to the task? No it's too much fun to be a task, of figuring out how I will attack the next step. All the while those pics of the Lex billowing plumes of smoke, with the island and stack just not quite viewable, tantalize me as I stare at them and ry to visualize what is hidden within them.

Boy that was a long one,

Jim

[John W.]

Jim -
What you are saying in a nut shell is: The good news is that I have found plans and detailed information for my project! The bad news is that I have found plans and detailed information for my project!
A thought on MORGAN if I might. Is she being represented as currently being in her original state? I know they have replaced timbers and such, that's not what I mean. When I was a boy living nearby, she was painted up with fake gunports - a feature she never had during her whaling days for example. They have disappeared after research indicated they were probably painted on for a movie role as I recall. But what I mean is, does the Seaport say she looks as she did back when? For instance, the Model Shipways kit of CONSTITUTION (which is on my shelf as one of only two sticks and strings models) represents CONSTITUTION as reconstructed in the late '20s and as she sits at the pier now. That is NOT how she looked in 1812 - there are significant differences as detailed by several sources. Her transom was pretty well shot-up and was replaced by a different design, for example. However, no photos of her in her 1812 rig have yet surfaced - even with sailors standing in such a way as to block key features.
Just thinking out loud here.

[lvsquarerigger]

Jim -
What you are saying in a nut shell is: The good news is that I have found plans and detailed information for my project! The bad news is that I have found plans and detailed information for my project!
A thought on MORGAN if I might. Is she being represented as currently being in her original state? I know they have replaced timbers and such, that's not what I mean. When I was a boy living nearby, she was painted up with fake gunports - a feature she never had during her whaling days for example. They have disappeared after research indicated they were probably painted on for a movie role as I recall. But what I mean is, does the Seaport say she looks as she did back when? For instance, the Model Shipways kit of CONSTITUTION (which is on my shelf as one of only two sticks and strings models) represents CONSTITUTION as reconstructed in the late '20s and as she sits at the pier now. That is NOT how she looked in 1812 - there are significant differences as detailed by several sources. Her transom was pretty well shot-up and was replaced by a different design, for example. However, no photos of her in her 1812 rig have yet surfaced - even with sailors standing in such a way as to block key features.
Just thinking out loud here.

The way I am finishing her is with natural wood finishing on the hull and I will have white paint on the masts and bowsprit. Mainly I am doing her as she is now unless I have evidence (photographs) to the contrary. One thing I noticed was the cooking out station has wood covering the bricks on three sides while I have open bricks all around. I also have the top on that station, and the pics I have seen do also, but the details of how the supports are built is totally different from what I have. There ae many more of the same, little changes but they seem to grate on me if I don't "correct" them. But that is for another day as the Lady has my attention for now and I will finish rigging out the top two yardarms on my Constitution cross section before I return to the Morgan.

Jim

[smithec]

What I meant to say was I think there is something on the roof of the spotting top...maybe that's what you are referring to?

Hi Martin,

The "blurry object" on the former 8" control station (spotting top) is what Michael Vorrasi and I have been trying to ID for some time. With the newly discovered antenna on Yorktown's stack (see Yorktown thread), we are wondering if the mysterious Lex object could be something similar. In the book "The Lexington Goes Down", by A. A. Hoeling, he talks about the "new secret radar room two levels above the bridge" which they had not yet gotten to work. It is interresting that they kept the forward control position, but removed the after one when the guns were unshipped.

Another question I would like answered is about the MK-19 directors. Friedman indicates that the RF and control position were combined, leaving the "former" RF positions free for .50 cal mg's. I would disagree. The combined MK-19 units can be seen on the Pensacola and Northampton classes (as a fairly large "box") and on the Pearl Harbor battleline. Lex never carried the combined units, even if they were planned. If you look at the RF positions, the supposed "gun barrel" is never in any position other than straight vertical. The RF had a vertical periscope attached (see pg 99 of the Stern book), and I believe that is what can be seen, even in the "burning and sinking" photos. (And enough locations for the correct number of .50's can be found elsewhere.) I would like to see a better photo showing what the non-RF component of the system looked like. Also, few people notice that on both Lex and Sara, the center section of the foretop, where those directors were located, was extended forward, probably during 1941.

I guess I have the typical gripe - more questions than answers!

OK guys, here's my take on the fire control situation. The 'blurry object' is certainly a puzzle. My best guess is that it is a signal flag (see first image). On the other hand, in the second image taken from a slightly different angle, but probably a couple of hours later, there is no signal flag there but there is still something indistinct there above the 8-inch spotting top. Frankly, I haven't made up my mind.

However, moving on to another area of debate, in both these pictures you can just make out the range finder atop the flag plot. In the second shot you can clearly see the starboard side range finder tube sticking out. The third photo shows the range finder atop the pilot house, about 1937, before the flag plot was constructed above it. Now, I had always assumed (wrongly as it turns out) that it was a rangefinder for the 8-inch guns, and therefore couldn't understand why it was retained after these were removed. Having just bought a copy of Naval Firepower by Norman Friedman, I now discover that this would have been a 'tactical' or 'navigational' rangefinder. It was used to help plot position of own and enemy forces and supplied data to the tactical plot. It was NOT a gun rangefinder. The tactical rangefinder was a very common fitting on the bridge structure of all pre-WW2 capital ships and cruisers. Take a look at the San Francisco class cruisers - it's very prominently perched on the foward edge of the pilot house roof. So that, I think, solves that uncertainty.

As for the 5-inch director situation, the Mk19 was indeed a divided unit. Below is a rather poor quality copy of a photo showing the ranging unit. The final diagram shows the bearing unit.

And you're quite right about the centre section of the foretop being extended. It was also a higher platform.That's very, very clear from photographic evidence. Have attached a couple of photos of how I did it for my Lexi. The Strumpeter kit is again, inaccurate here.

Hope all this helps!

Regards, Chris Smithers

[Dick J]

Thanks for the drawing! It is exactly what I was looking for.

As for the "blurry object", I think it is way to large for a signal flag. (Compare to flags on the other side.) I am still leaning toward some type of radar antenna - but which?

[charles c]

Gentlemen, Where there any f4u, sb2c, or tbm-3w attached to the LEX2 at any time? Thank You, Charles C.

[Tracy White]

Not to CV-2, no. CV-16 Lexington, yes.

[lvsquarerigger]

Does anyone know if there is a realistic anchor chain available in 1/350 scale? The kind similar to a figure 8, not just linked circles?

[John W.]

Jim -
The chain to which you refer is called stud link chain. I do not think anyone makes (non-P/E that is) it in a size suitable for 1/350, though other larger scales do have it available to them. I think Bluejacket and probably Model Shipways both have it, but it would be for the CHARLES W.MORGAN-sized models, not LEX.
Fine progress on the WIP by the way. I found that finding the correct info is usually much more difficult than actually implementing it on the model - as you continue to show with your WIP.

[lvsquarerigger]

Jim -
The chain to which you refer is called stud link chain. I do not think anyone makes (non-P/E that is) it in a size suitable for 1/350, though other larger scales do have it available to them. I think Bluejacket and probably Model Shipways both have it, but it would be for the CHARLES W.MORGAN-sized models, not LEX.
Fine progress on the WIP by the way. I found that finding the correct info is usually much more difficult than actually implementing it on the model - as you continue to show with your WIP.

Thanks, will check them out

[lvsquarerigger]

Jim -
The chain to which you refer is called stud link chain. I do not think anyone makes (non-P/E that is) it in a size suitable for 1/350, though other larger scales do have it available to them. I think Bluejacket and probably Model Shipways both have it, but it would be for the CHARLES W.MORGAN-sized models, not LEX.
Fine progress on the WIP by the way. I found that finding the correct info is usually much more difficult than actually implementing it on the model - as you continue to show with your WIP.

Thanks, will check them out

Shipways has some but in much too large a scale just as you thought. I did find some at Drydock Shipyard, of all places, but it only lists them by links per inch. I sent an e-mail requesting a translation into scale, or specifically which one fit 1/350 if any. Still awaiting word.

[John W.]

Jim -
As an approximation - definitely not as the last word - you are probably looking at something around 30 links per inch. I have seen chain as small as 42 links per inch, but not as stud link chain. Also, you are looking for chain that has flat links. Some jewelry chain has links that are twisted (for lack of a better description). Many folks find chain from armor parts vendors and model railroading supply vendors. If your research is anything like mine, you will probably end up compromising on the anchor chain.