Calling all USS Lexington CV-2 fans

[Dick J]

Looking at the picture of the F2A landing, was the word LEX still on the flight deck at Coral Sea in the grey paint?

Actually, by Coral Sea, the lettering was gone, as were the wide stripes. If Lex had dashed lines (like all of the other carriers seem to have had), nobody has found pictures to prove it. What appear to be stripes in the well known photo of aircraft on her smoking deck are actually metal strips that someone found out were part of a water drainage system. The shine on the metal makes them appear lighter than the surrounding deck.

[Jerry Phillips]

"L E X"...aft flight deck was still there 10 Nov 1941 (overhead photo of Ford Island, w/ Lexington at her berth). I gotta believe that was removed by the outbreak of war a month later. The "L E X" was certainly gone by Jan 1942, as photos prove. I am still undecided if CV-2 had flight deck markings during wartime. The few photos would appear to be no....but the contrast (in B/W photos) between 250-N and 251-N is very slight, so it is possible. I am very much looking forward to Mike's posting of more stills of Lex., Oct 1941!

Jerry

[Tracy White]

We thought for a bit that CV-5 had no markings because you could not see them in photos taken during the battle. However, a video clip in the F4F Wildcat DVD shattered that belief; they were there in glorious relief; we had just never had the right angle or color photography to see it before. Given Navy directives of the time I would be surprised if Lexington did NOT have lines.

[lvsquarerigger]

I'm just about finished with the bridge and funnel assemblies and the boat pockets are next. Hopefully this time I'll get it right the first time and not have to redo it so with that in mind I was looking at the drawing on pg 70 of WP 33 on the hinged platforms for the AA guns and I have questions if there is anyone out there who knows. Why hinge the platforms? Is it so they can be pulled in in rough weather? Or is there some other reasoning at play here? The diagram shows the platforms only going slightly into the pockets and the overhead view doesn't show the end of the pocket and how they fit there. The photo on pg 50/51 shows the platform clearly ending at the beginning of the upward curve of the pocket but is not clear on whether there were liferails in these short spaces. Also the platforms do not go clear back as the kit parts do.

Help anyone?

James

[Dick J]

Why hinge the platforms? Is it so they can be pulled in in rough weather? Or is there some other reasoning at play here?

The overriding requirement for the pre-war AA additions was the need for the ships to fit through the Panama Canal. That was why the funnel gallery and the .50 cal platforms limited to the narrower parts of the ends of the ships. Sara did not add fixed extended AA positions at or below flightdeck level until the blister was added in '42, which prevented a canal transit anyway. Even though it was unlikely that Lex would transit to the Atlantic, until she was blistered, no additions were allowed that would limit her going through Panama.

[smithec]

The photo on pg 50/51 shows the platform clearly ending at the beginning of the upward curve of the pocket but is not clear on whether there were liferails in these short spaces. Also the platforms do not go clear back as the kit parts do.

Without detailed documentation, drawings and photos we have to deal with ambiguity and make judgements based on best guesses and what seems reasonable. That doesn't mean we draw the correct conclusions though! Regarding the ends of the hinged platforms, I 'feel' certain that life lines would have been rigged between the end of the STS plating and the hull shell plating. Why? Because everywhere you look on this ship every deck-edge gap or aperture is protected with life lines. When building this model and researching it, I was very impressed at the lengths that were gone to to protect crew going man over board.

The hinging of the boat pocket platforms reflects the same pre-war treatment of the 5-inch semi-circular (eliptical?) platforms. Although in the period we are modelling here they were welded in position and had STS splinter plating added. So for anybody back-dating this kit or building the Trumpy Saratoga, this is worth noting. On pages 6 and 11 of WP11 you can see them folded up, and that they were not solid steel but perforated.

[Dick J]

The hinging of the boat pocket platforms reflects the same pre-war treatment of the 5-inch semi-circular (eliptical?) platforms. Although in the period we are modelling here they were welded in position and had STS splinter plating added.

The usual procedure did not include welding the hinged platform sections into place. They remained hinged. The splinter plating was welded to the fixed portions of the decks and bolted to the hinged sections. This was necessary to enable Panama Canal transits. When Enterprise returned to the east coast in '45, all of the extreme extensions were either removed (unbolted) or folded up. The circular extensions for the 5"guns were folded (once the splinter plating had been unbolted) because the capability to do so had not been removed.

[lvsquarerigger]

The hinging of the boat pocket platforms reflects the same pre-war treatment of the 5-inch semi-circular (eliptical?) platforms. Although in the period we are modelling here they were welded in position and had STS splinter plating added.

The usual procedure did not include welding the hinged platform sections into place. They remained hinged. The splinter plating was welded to the fixed portions of the decks and bolted to the hinged sections. This was necessary to enable Panama Canal transits. When Enterprise returned to the east coast in '45, all of the extreme extensions were either removed (unbolted) or folded up. The circular extensions for the 5"guns were folded (once the splinter plating had been unbolted) because the capability to do so had not been removed.

THanks to all of you for responding. It now makes sense. But Trumpeter, as usual, seems to have gotten it wrong! If my scaling of the drawings is correct the depth of the platforms only goes just inside the outer hull. Also the splinter shielding should be 42" from the deck plating, not the bottom of the platform. What the kit has is only knee high, much too short. So it looks like more scratch building.

[lvsquarerigger]

Aanother thing I noticed has to do with the splinter shielding on the 50 cal. gun platfrom on the funnel. It seems that there is a small protusion at the end of the rear shielding. It shows plainly in pictures on pg 25, port side, kind of hidden on 26/27,and again clearly, starboard side, on pg 31, all in WP 33. Anyone know what this is?

[Jerry Phillips]

Good question...wondered about this myself. However to clarify, there was no STS protecting any of the .50cal galleries, stack, fwd or aft platforms. They had pipe rails with "splinter mats" tied onto the rails. These protrusions on the stack gallery however do appear to have a rounded STS protection. They do not appear on plans pg. 36/37. Possible future locations for Mk-49/51 directors for the aft 1.1" guns (the positions look empty in pg. 31 photo)?

Jerry Phillips

[Dick J]

I doubt that these would be AA director positions. They are too far removed from the future 1.1 locations, and they were in place before the decision was made to remove the 8" mounts. Only having two aft and none forward is one more indicator. Another possible explanation for these unknowns is additional ready ammo boxes. The .50 cal ammo was raised to the platform by the dumbwaiters on the outside of the funnel. It was obviously transferred to the inboard side around the fore and aft ends of the gallery. Extra ammo storage close to one of the dumbwaiters would not be unlikely. If they are boxes, that would account for them being metal and not splinter mats.

[smithec]

THanks to all of you for responding. It now makes sense. But Trumpeter, as usual, seems to have gotten it wrong! If my scaling of the drawings is correct the depth of the platforms only goes just inside the outer hull. Also the splinter shielding should be 42" from the deck plating, not the bottom of the platform. What the kit has is only knee high, much too short. So it looks like more scratch building.

Hi James

If you stick the Trumpy 20mm boat pocket sponsors straight on you get a ledge or step above the deck inboard. I thought this looked wrong, and modified them so they joined the hull lower and the deck was flush. This was a mistake. When I was doing this build it was before the drawing on page 70 of WP33 had been published. It also gave me a problem with the underside struts colliding and interfering with the degaussing cables. Don't make my mistake! In fact, the Trumpy ledge or step is vindicatd by (or can be serendipitiously contrived from) the drawing I've referred to above.

But, regarding the splinter shield height, you're quite right. I scaled it as well and dicovered it was knee height, so scratch built the solution.

This build is awsome man!

[lvsquarerigger]

THanks to all of you for responding. It now makes sense. But Trumpeter, as usual, seems to have gotten it wrong! If my scaling of the drawings is correct the depth of the platforms only goes just inside the outer hull. Also the splinter shielding should be 42" from the deck plating, not the bottom of the platform. What the kit has is only knee high, much too short. So it looks like more scratch building.

Hi James

If you stick the Trumpy 20mm boat pocket sponsors straight on you get a ledge or step above the deck inboard. I thought this looked wrong, and modified them so they joined the hull lower and the deck was flush. This was a mistake. When I was doing this build it was before the drawing on page 70 of WP33 had been published. It also gave me a problem with the underside struts colliding and interfering with the degaussing cables. Don't make my mistake! In fact, the Trumpy ledge or step is vindicatd by (or can be serendipitiously contrived from) the drawing I've referred to above.

But, regarding the splinter shield height, you're quite right. I scaled it as well and dicovered it was knee height, so scratch built the solution.

This build is awsome man!

I was working on those drawings in preparation for the platforms and still have some deciding to do. I've pretty much decided to dump the kit parts and build from scratch all the way. The drawings in the book are not to scale but I intend to scan and enlarge them until they are. Then there is the question of what is underneath the deck? Was it closed in? Open? Both ways could be argued but right now my preference is to leave it open. My reasoning is that the pocket is already seaworthy and the platforms do no go all the way to the ends so that part is open anyway. Also because of the discepancy in scale here I presume it also follows on the other quad shielding. All built at the same time I would assume they are all the same so the other quad mounts are also out of whack. Oh well just one more thing to add to the to do list.

[Jon C Ryckert]

lvsquarerigger

Not sure if you have Photoshop or not, but there are plans for I believe the May 1942 refit at www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm. I saved the plans to my computer and then used Photoshop to resize each page to scale. If the web address that I posted above does not work just Google 'hnsa ship plans' and you may also go back a few pages to see if Mike Vorassi had already linked it. I know he did for the Yorktown Fans thread. HTH

[Tracy White]

Hi Jon... plans are pre-refit.

[Jon C Ryckert]

Thanks Tracy.
I caught my mistake after I posted but was never able to edit the post.

[Tracy White]

I've never done that before!

[lvsquarerigger]

lvsquarerigger

Not sure if you have Photoshop or not, but there are plans for I believe the May 1942 refit at http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm. I saved the plans to my computer and then used Photoshop to resize each page to scale. If the web address that I posted above does not work just Google 'hnsa ship plans' and you may also go back a few pages to see if Mike Vorassi had already linked it. I know he did for the Yorktown Fans thread. HTH

Thanks for the link and even pre refit help in that some details that were not changed can be worked out.

It seems that the more I look at WP 33 the more I find wrong with the kit. As I was looking at details for the AA's added I noticed the tubs at the rear of the ship are inaccurate in that the kit has them all on the same level but they aren't. The quad 1.1 is in a special kind of adaptation and the 20 mm's that were added next to them are a lvel higher but still below flight deck level.

The other thing was the discrepancy in the level of the boat deck on the funnel and the roof of the cabin assembly at the rear. The cover photo of WP 33 clearly shows they are on a different level and also other photos and diagrams clearly show this. And I had just finished changing the shielding on this area from the front 1.1 gun tub around to the rear. That whole section of deck has to be removed and lowered. Haven't even looked to see what that will entail!!!!! But onward 'till completion is my motto.

[Tracy White]

Welcome to Trumpeter kits!

[lvsquarerigger]

lvsquarerigger

Not sure if you have Photoshop or not, but there are plans for I believe the May 1942 refit at http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm. I saved the plans to my computer and then used Photoshop to resize each page to scale. If the web address that I posted above does not work just Google 'hnsa ship plans' and you may also go back a few pages to see if Mike Vorassi had already linked it. I know he did for the Yorktown Fans thread. HTH

Thanks for the link and even pre refit help in that some details that were not changed can be worked out.

It seems that the more I look at WP 33 the more I find wrong with the kit. As I was looking at details for the AA's added I noticed the tubs at the rear of the ship are inaccurate in that the kit has them all on the same level but they aren't. The quad 1.1 is in a special kind of adaptation and the 20 mm's that were added next to them are a lvel higher but still below flight deck level.

The other thing was the discrepancy in the level of the boat deck on the funnel and the roof of the cabin assembly at the rear. The cover photo of WP 33 clearly shows they are on a different level and also other photos and diagrams clearly show this. And I had just finished changing the shielding on this area from the front 1.1 gun tub around to the rear. That whole section of deck has to be removed and lowered. Haven't even looked to see what that will entail!!!!! But onward 'till completion is my motto.

I cheated! After looking at what had to be done to lower the former boat deck, now AA gun platform, I decided it was much easier to raise the rear deck on the rear housing. So I cut the support rods, made a slit in the funnel even with the roof deck and then added first a layer of .020 in form with the housing, and then an .030 layer with overhang for the actual deck. Not a bad solution to a ridiculous problem that shpould never be in the kit in the first place.

This also makes me think of problems with scale. Since I actually got drawings to work from and scale out it amazes me at the differences working in 1/350, and I have no idea how people do it in 1/700, as the sailing ships I normally work on are usually in something from 1/72 to 1/96 scale. Because the true scale of some things would be ridiculous, .030 for decking scales out at a few feet, the actual scale would be tissue paper! So another lesson in plastic modeling, that even though you know what it shoud be, the practicalities of modeling preclude doing it totally factual. So now it becomes an exercise in what is really true and how will it show as a depiction. What an education I'm getting after I was so thoroughly comfortable in what I had been doing previously.

James