Calling all USS Hornet CV-8 fans

[John W.]

Wildspear -
I have done a bit more looking and found some additional info that may contradict what I said above. Here's a website of interest for starters: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
What it says is that HORNET was not fitted with the identical 5" 38s fitted to her sisters. YKTN and ENT were fitted with Mk 21 Mod 16 5" 38 open mounts, while HORNET received Mk 24 Mod 2 5" 38s. Looking at some line drawings of the two guns (but no front-on drawings), it APPEARS as though the Mk 24s do, in fact, have the front shields I mention. Crap! If you Google Mark 24 Mod 2 5" inch you'll come across a listing for a 'catalogue' type Navy manual showing line drawings of the guns. I also Googled ENTERPRISE 5" gun gallery and came up with a couple of pictures of the bomb damage I described.
Sorry to lead anyone astray. Hope this atones.

Oh, and by the way - where did you get the perforated stock you are using to support the flight deck (the longitudinal beams, not the transverse truss girders) in your earlier picture? Is that l'Arsenal's P/E version? It's White so it looks like plastic. Jes' wundrin'

[wildspear]

John,
I used scale plastic I beams that I drilled out. very tedious but it gave me the look I wanted.

[MartinJQuinn]

...it says is that HORNET was not fitted with the identical 5" 38s fitted to her sisters. YKTN and ENT were fitted with Mk 21 Mod 16 5" 38 open mounts, while HORNET received Mk 24 Mod 2 5" 38s.

So then the Veteran Models guns would be more accurate for CV-8?

[John W.]

Martin -
Yes, that is my conclusion. You beat me to the punch - here's what I found.
First off, thanks Wildspear for the info and for triggering some thinking.
I had always assumed the CV-8 5"/38 open mounts were the same as the sister ships YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE. When I found the website indicated above, I realized that my assumption was not correct. The Mk 21 mounts on the first two ships were replaced by the Mk 24 mounts - all were pedestal mounts - on CV-8. Likewise, the early ESSEX class ships also had the Mk 24 mounts. As I looked through the Internet searches I did, I found a line drawing of both the MK 21 and Mk 24 mounts. The latter appeared to have a shield low down on the platform that the Mk 21 lacked. Lo and behold, I found a picture of a 5"/38 mount on HORNET CV-12 on the 'other' site - pictures of CV-12 in Alameda which are pretty recent. A couple of pictures show the mount from various angles from behind. One does show the shield, or at least part of it from behind. Some of the newer 5"/38 open mounts (e.g Mk 30) have a shield with vertical stiffeners which wraps partly around to the sides of the gun platform. The MK 24 shield stops at the corners of the platform and doesn't wrap around. Crap! The picture on the front of the Veteran Models 5"/38 open mount (#VTW35001) shows the wrap around shield. I opened the box to see how hard it would be to slice off the wrap around corner and got a surprise. VTW35001 comes with both shields - the wrap around (which I assume is for the Mk 30 open mount) and what looks to be the correct shield for the Mk 24 - no wrap around corners. Unfortunately the l=Arsenal 5"/38 open mounts (of which I have carefully assembled and detailed fifteen with brass barrels) have front shields that are way too high and do not resemble the Mk 24 or Mk 25 shields.
So, yes, it is my conclusion the Veteran Models 5"/38 is the correct (or, at least the most correct) aftermarket part for HORNET CV-8 and probably many of the early ESSEX class when fitted with the shorter width front shield.
Disclaimer: Opposing points of view are welcome since I haven't attached anything to my HORNET and so can be magnanimous in the search for truth. If any one wants to suggest the MK 24 from the Veteran kit is actually a Mod 6 instead of a Mod 2 - be my guest if you can prove it. I couldn't find any differentiating pictures of the various Mk 24 Mod XX mounts.

[Michael Vorrasi]

John, the website you posted above has some great details pertaining to the Yorktowns in the footnotes. See notes 2,4 15 and 19 in particular.

From Mount & Turret data block:

Yorktown (8) and Enterprise (8): Mark 21 Mod 16
Wasp (8): Mark 24 Mod 1
Hornet (8): Mark 24 Mod 2
Independence (2) and Essex (4): Mark 24 Mod 11

From footnote 19:

19) USS Yorktown (CV-5) and Enterprise (CV-6) were originally designed with eight Mark 21 Mod 1 pedestal mounts. During construction, it became apparent that there was not enough clearance around the deck edge for this Mod. For that reason, the mounts were redesigned to have a lower loader's platform and then designated as Mark 21 Mod 16. Yorktown was sunk with these mounts, but Enterprise had hers replaced with Mark 24 Mod 11 mounts during her overhaul at Puget Sound in 1943. Sister-ship Hornet (CV-8) was completed with eight Mark 24 Mod 2 mounts. These were altered to Mod 6 sometime prior to September 1942.

(Note from M.V., the upgrade to Mod 6 was probably in her post-Midway overhaul at PHNY.)

[John W.]

Mike -
Yes, I found a bunch of interesting information there. There is a link toward the top of the page "click here for additional pictures" that shows the Mk 21 and Mk 24 pictures a ways down in the list as well as line drawings. Good stuff.
I'm looking for the version of the 5"/38 open mount that l'Arsenal used for its model. It seems to me to be a post-Mk 30 mount since the front shields are taller than those of the Mk 24 or Mk 30.
Here's a picture of the Mk 24 mount on CV-10 at Patriot's point. Finally a good view from the front to show the shield and how it differs from the Mk 30 with the wrap-around corners.

John

[pocketpencil]

I will take some pictures of CV-12 this weekend (im a volunteer at the museum there) and the 5" guns for you if you want.

[wildspear]

that would be great. The 5" guns and inside the hanger deck, to include the ceiling (the beams and such).

[John W.]

Pocket -
Thanks for the offer. That would help us.

Now, I have to say here that I think I was wrong about the l'Arsenal 5"/38 open mounts not being correct for the Mk 24. I looked at a picture of a review sample and based my conclusions on that. Just now I pulled out some of my samples and looked at them under a magnifier and I feel that I need to correct my earlier conclusion. It does look as though the front shield is correct for the Mk 24 and it resembles the Mk 24 shield in the Veteran Models model as well. The Mk 21 had no shield, so the l'Arsenal model would not be correct without some modification. The Veteran model would seem to be correct if neither shield were applied. The l'Arsenal model does have a large handwheel on the right side over the trunion. I am not sure if the kit came that way or if I applied there according to the instructions. In either case, that wheel is not correct - or is at least way too big - for any of the pictures I have seen. There are two gauges at that location which the Veteran model does show.
Hopefully this correction is merely academic in that no one was drawn off-sides by my original comments.

There were several variations of this mount as the original was upgraded and automated. Some of those changes are easy to spot - the shield for example. Others are a bit more subtle such as the addition of electric motors. Still others change the way the mount functioned though not necessarily how it looked outwardly - for example the change from pedestal mounts requiring ammo to be hand fed from ready ammo lockers to base ring mounts which featured ammo fed up directly from an ammo handling room one deck below the mount. I have learned a lot since wildspear's first almost offhanded comment. Hopefully I have it all in one sock now. HORNET presses on!

[pocketpencil]

that would be great. The 5" guns and inside the hanger deck, to include the ceiling (the beams and such).

Any particular section of the hangar deck? Or any will do?

[wildspear]

I'm interested in the walkways near the top of the hanger area and also the rafters (beams). Also if there are any art work inside the hanger (on the walls) that would be great. I dont want to sound gready but some pics of the elevator working parts would be great also. Thanks in advance.

[pocketpencil]

We will be running the elevator this weekend. I will see what i can get for ya. I may be busy driving the tug when we are running it, but i can probably get underneath afterwords and shoot some photos.

[John W.]

Wildspear -
Assuming you are interested the catwalks inside the hangar up in the crossbeams for CV-8, both the Webb Warships and Maryland Silver plans - especially the latter - have all of their locations shown. The MD silver plans, since they are shipyard blueprints for construction, also show the detail drawings of most of the various platforms all over the ship, including the external ones at various locations. Knowing this information can be a double-edged sword I'm afraid. I realized, for example, that the platforms in front of the pilot house on the island are all perforated metal, not solid (and, therefore, easy to build on the model). Photos such as this one confirm this.

Notice the perforated decking in the lower left corner of this famous shot. This is the floor of the roughly rectangular platform one deck below the pilothouse. The platform that wraps around the front of the pilothouse one deck higher is the same material, most likely used for drainage and weight reduction. I haven't seen the CV-5 MD Silver plans, so I don't know if this is class-wide or not. I'm planning to use material from the perforated catwalks in the WEM or GMM P/E sets to do this job since it is in a visible (for my HORNET) location.
Be VERY careful what you ask for . . .

[MartinJQuinn]

Notice the perforated decking in the lower left corner of this famous shot. This is the floor of the roughly rectangular platform one deck below the pilothouse. The platform that wraps around the front of the pilothouse one deck higher is the same material, most likely used for drainage and weight reduction. I haven't seen the CV-5 MD Silver plans, so I don't know if this is class-wide or not. I'm planning to use material from the perforated catwalks in the WEM or GMM P/E sets to do this job since it is in a visible (for my HORNET) location.
Be VERY careful what you ask for . . .

John...

Is that completely perforated like the catwalks on the side of the ship, or is it a "riser" to keep feet dry, etc?

Regarding the discussion above about the 5 inch guns, here are some photos of 5 inch guns, via Freb B. They are from Essex class ships, but may be helpful to some.

[John W.]

Martin -
Unfortunately for us modelers, yes it is perforated all the way through, and yes the entire deck surface is made of the material. The plans call it out as "6# PL Perforated" which I assume means 6 Lb. plate - perforated. This same material is specified for the catwalks / external decks on the island including those along the sides of the funnel, and the deck in front of the pilothouse and that the larger exterior deck below it on the front of the island. I could not find a callout for the gallery walkways at the edge of the flight deck, but those are clearly perforated too as seen in several photos, so I am assuming it is the same material there as well. Here's a shot of YORKTOWN where you can make out the perforated gallery walkways (if you click on the picture to blow it up):

Those are good shots of the 5"/38s - Mk 24s though I wouldn't hazard a guess which Mod. Here's a shot of the Big E's Mk 21 5"/38s.

And here's a side view of YORKTOWN's Mk 21 as well. No front shield on either gun.

Finally, here's the picture of the Veteran Models model - looks like the Mk 30 to me with that lower shield that wraps around the front of the platform.

[MartinJQuinn]

According to Lundstrom in "The First Team", on June 4th Hornet launched the F4Fs and the SBDs, leaving 6 TBDs on the after part of the flight deck. They then brought up the remaining 9 TBDs and then launched the whole squadron. My understanding is that Lt. Gay launched first and Waldron went last.

Any idea of what 6 TBDs were on the flight deck and what order they were spotted in?

TIA...

[apfelzra]

Hello Hornet fans,

I will soon start construction of my 1:350 Trumpeter USS Hornet, with the GMM standard and extra photoetch sets and L'Arsenal 1.1" quad and 5"/.38 mounts. I will actually be building (separately, of course) two different versions of this ship -- one, on commission, as she appeared for the Doolittle raid, and the other (for myself) as she did for the Battle of Santa Cruz. I have Fred Branyan's USS Hornet photo CDs and have been thinking over what (if anything) I can reasonably attempt in the way of narrowing the hull at the bow of the ship to more accurately portray its correct shape. I have considered gluing the upper and lower hull sections together as one normally would, but then filling in the interior forward of amidships with some type of putty or resin so that, when I begin sanding the plastic external surfaces of the hull (I have both table-mounted and hand-held belt sanders, so I can sand in flat or curved shapes), were I to penetrate completely through the plastic (through carefully applied abrasion, avoiding the melting that can occur from the frictional heat), the hardened putty in the center would then provide the narrower, smooth surface confluent with the remaining plastic hull that I need prior to covering everything with airbrushed paints. I have wood and wallboard putties but these tend to contract once they harden, and I would like anyone's suggestion for a suitable filler material to use. If it is a resin mixture, where could I obtain these materials? Thanks for your help and suggestions -- and if anyone has tried this before with disastrous results, it would not be too difficult to convince me to abandon the whole idea and build both kits as is.

[John W.]

apfelzra -
One of the first things I tried - after trying to draw in the plastic with crosswise supports - was to fill the forward end of the hull with epoxy resin. The resin generates a lot of heat as it cures and it can distort the plastic. The real problem for me was that I could not get the hull to 'look right' by eye. As I looked closer at photos and blueprints / modeling plans it became clear the hull at he waterline is a long wedge that does not reach its full width until very, very close to midships - under the island in other words. That means that at least the lower half of the hull (half the height from the bottom of the hull to the hangar deck) would have virtually none of the original plastic hull left except for a small amount at the midships. I elected to start with a solid hull and carve it down as shown starting back near page ten of this thread. I would NOT use resin again for a host of reasons (miserable to work with, hazardous dust, and so on).
I am not saying you could not do it the way you say. I could see where it was going, so I did not continue with my effort to fill the hull with resin or epoxy and just started over with a complete block.
Don't be too discouraged either way. But it is not a simple task to get an accurate hull. Others have decided where to draw the line on accuracy, and that's their choice. I have posted here what I chose - so you have choices on this project.
Good luck no matter what you choose. This is an important ship to model.

[Dick J]

The real problem for me was that I could not get the hull to 'look right' by eye. As I looked closer at photos and blueprints / modeling plans it became clear the hull at he waterline is a long wedge that does not reach its full width until very, very close to midships - under the island in other words. That means that at least the lower half of the hull (half the height from the bottom of the hull to the hangar deck) would have virtually none of the original plastic hull left except for a small amount at the midships.

It's even worse than that! On the actual ships, the hull flared outward to the edge of the hangar deck. In other words, the hull 3 feet below the hangar was significantly narrower than at the hangar level proper. So, even below the island, most of the original plastic should be sanded away. That is IF you want a totally accurate hull. The Essex class was wall sided from the hangar deck down. Trumpy mistakenly applied that to the Hornet hull. Very little, if anything, below the hangar deck level is accurate on that kit.

[John W.]

Sigh. Dick is quite right. I think the ESSEX Trumpy did is a better representation, but I have a suspicion part of it is not correct either. I don't have a set of templates made yet - HORNET still holds the first place as far as my ship modeling is concerned.