Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Tracy White]

I'd start off with the Dragon CV-16 Lexington kit. Intrepid at that point was in a bit of a different configuration that no kit represents out of the box. The Dragon Lex has parts for the later config but also includes pieces for the earlier fits that came out with earlier kits and between them you should have pretty much everything you need.

[DennisJP]

While i'm at it. Another quickie if you don't mind.

This ones more related to the aircraft on board. The Trumpeter yorktown colour sheets info seems a little messy. Do the aircraft 3 tone colours use the same paint codes as the ships. If this is the case, which ones should i use circa 1944.

I generally use Vallejo model colour (Sometimes model air). I have a conversion chart between the actual codes and model colour.

Thanks

To me in all the color photo's I have seen the thre tone color period for the aircraft where two different styles.
1) First was a BLUE/GRAY on top useing intermediate blue as the blue color mixed with gray. Then the main body was an intermediate blue and bellow was a light gray or off white.
2) The second was the popular navy blue on top around the cockpit and the main fusulage was intermediate blue and a light gray or off white on the bottom. Different with the bombers. the bombers had folding wings so the bottom of the wings were painted not off white or light gray, like the devastator in 42. The color bellow was either intermediate blue or navy blue. Not sure right now. Don't have my research in front of me.

[DennisJP]

While i'm at it. Another quickie if you don't mind.

This ones more related to the aircraft on board. The Trumpeter yorktown colour sheets info seems a little messy. Do the aircraft 3 tone colours use the same paint codes as the ships. If this is the case, which ones should i use circa 1944.

I generally use Vallejo model colour (Sometimes model air). I have a conversion chart between the actual codes and model colour.

Thanks

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021052.jpg

Here is some pictures for you.
This is Yorktown CV-10 after commissioning in 1943.
This tone on the aircraft was used in 1943 and shifted to the navy blue, intermediate blue and off white or light gray in 1944.


Hellcat in same time period on Yorktown CV-10 with over all intermediate blue and light gray or off white bottom.



http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021058.jpg



Here is an Avenger. I believe referbished.



Here is a reberbished Curtis Helldiver.



Here is a Dauntless. I believe 1944 camo design that on closer inspection will match Yorktown CV-10 Dauntless's

I hope this helps.
By late 1944 all the aircraft were painted all navy blue, which is the top color on the Dauntless, Avenger and Curtiss Helldiver above.

[ADavies]

Mark, Tracy.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. How you guys manage to store and process all this information is beyond me.

Thank you and all the very best.

Adrian.

[Brent Jones]

Howdy Essex-class fans. This is my first post on this forum, although I have interacted with several of you before regarding my web projects related to the USS Astoria cruisers.

Thought I would share several images from my latest trip to the National Archives. These come from record group 80-G-K. Although several of them are online elsewhere, I have never seen them reproduced together in sequence. Therein lies the rub.

After some digging and cross-referencing against deck logs and the Ulithi berthing chart, I feel pretty good about the date and IDs below. I believe this sequence had to have been taken between 12-14 March 1945 in Ulithi during final preparations for Operation Iceberg.


Hancock CV-19, Wasp CV-18 and an unidentified CVL. As with each of these images, any additional thoughts on ID are welcome.


Enterprise CV-6, Bunker Hill CV-17, Essex CV-9, and an unidentified CV in the distance at center right. My best guess is Bennington CV-20, but I will save that thought process for now unless anyone is interested. Foreground cruisers are Flint CL-97 and Miami CL-89 with USS Shannon DM-25 underway at center. Note that Miami is either launching or recovering her starboard floatplane, a detail that I think is fairly significant (see below).


A closer view of Flint CL-97. The bow of Enterprise is at left, Bunker Hill at center and Essex CV-9 at right.


A closer view of Miami CL-89. Note that her starboard Kingfisher is missing, perhaps the floatplane visible overhead. An intriguing side note is that Miami's aviation unit was responsible for the overhead view of USS Randolph the day after her Kamikaze hit in her berth on 11 March, making it entirely possible that these photos show that flight in progress. Randolph's berth would be in the center distance of this photograph and all ships identified were present as of the morning of 12 March, so it all matches well.


DD-660 passes between the photographer and Bunker Hill CV-17. The cruiser at left is either Pasadena CL-65 or Springfield CL-66, and USS Astoria CL-90 is partially visible off the port quarter of Bunker Hill.

Happy New Year, gentlemen. Just restored these images for color, contrast and blemishes and had to share. They will be going on my website soon, but wanted to run them past you first to see if I mis-IDed anything in your opinion. Any thoughts or additional ID work is welcome. I would love to verify the source of the photos. I have seen one posted as taken from West Virginia BB-48, but there is no corresponding entry for this in the deck logs of ships I have in my possession.

PS If a post like this belongs elsewhere, feel free to educate me and move it.
-Brent

[AndrexP]

Howdy Essex-class fans. This is my first post on this forum, although I have interacted with several of you before regarding my web projects related to the USS Astoria cruisers.

Thought I would share several images from my latest trip to the National Archives. ...t

Great pictures! Excellent work too on the investigative process and your conclusions. I really appreciate knowing the who, when and why behind the photos.

Thanks for posting these.

[simon b]

Thanks Dennis

[Mark McKinnis]

Awesome Pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hippy Ed]

Awesome Pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ditto!!

[kidcurrie42]

Great Pics indeed, Thanks for sharing

Happy New Year Everyone, and Happy Modeling

John

[gtbred]

Great Pics indeed, Thanks for sharing

Happy New Year Everyone, and Happy Modeling

John

DITTO!!!!!

[ofrezca]

And ditto. Thank you very much for sharing.

[Bill Luther]

Rick, thank you very much for the pictures they will be a big help.

Bill

[Michael Riddell]

Hi everyone,

I've started a 1/700 build of the Hancock using the DML Randolph kit as a basis (had the kit "instock" as it were!) and I'd like some advice.

I currently intend building her dazzle painted and before the starboard gun sponsons were fitted.

I've browsed this thread over the last few days and I can see that the Randolph kit is arguably the "lemon" of the initial run as it's pretty much incorrect for any long hull in it's in-box form, mainly due to the flight deck.

Would I be correct in assuming that I'd have to chop a scale 7 ft of the rear overhang to properly represent Hancock's "short" flight deck?

What other alterations would I need to make? My brain's currently suffering from overload from reading the thread, so I apologise if I've missed it!

Thanks in advance,

Michael.

[Dick J]

Yes, you need to shorten the after end of the flightdeck. Cut off the round down, trim 7 scale feet, and reattach the round down. Also, there was a section of flightdeck just aft of the port-forward 5" gun gallery that was cut out to allow a third MK-37 director to be fitted. The director was never installed, but was replaced with 40MM quads. Hanna was the only Essex to enter combat with the notch in the flightdeck. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021917.jpg You will need to modify the bridge. The first units to delete the quad 40MM on the bridge face extended the flag spaces and the open bridge on the pilothouse level, but did not enlarge the pilothouse itself. That can be seen in this photo of Ticonderoga. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021467.jpg This photo also shows the short forward flightdeck and the port-side notch. Tico had these last two features "corrected" to the standard config prior to deploying. The early Essex's had the port-side 40MM quads (the ones adjacent to the 5" singles) slightly higher than the 5" mounts and the flightdeck had a small notch to accomodate it. As the numbers of 40MM increased, there was less need to try and fire "cross deck", and so the 40MM were lowered to the level of the 5" and the notches eliminated. Hanna still had the raised 40MM and notches in the config you are doing.

[NCMac]

Thanks to Bill for posing the question and to Rick for answering as well as posting more of his ever helpful photos.

Could this thread be copied or moved to CASF? I'll get to my model eventually and suspect this exchange will be well buried by then (yes I should build faster but I'm not optimistic my habits will improve ).

Thanks again,

Mac

[Michael Riddell]

Yes, you need to shorten the after end of the flightdeck. Cut off the round down, trim 7 scale feet, and reattach the round down. Also, there was a section of flightdeck just aft of the port-forward 5" gun gallery that was cut out to allow a third MK-37 director to be fitted. The director was never installed, but was replaced with 40MM quads. Hanna was the only Essex to enter combat with the notch in the flightdeck. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021917.jpg You will need to modify the bridge. The first units to delete the quad 40MM on the bridge face extended the flag spaces and the open bridge on the pilothouse level, but did not enlarge the pilothouse itself. That can be seen in this photo of Ticonderoga. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021467.jpg This photo also shows the short forward flightdeck and the port-side notch. Tico had these last two features "corrected" to the standard config prior to deploying. The early Essex's had the port-side 40MM quads (the ones adjacent to the 5" singles) slightly higher than the 5" mounts and the flightdeck had a small notch to accomodate it. As the numbers of 40MM increased, there was less need to try and fire "cross deck", and so the 40MM were lowered to the level of the 5" and the notches eliminated. Hanna still had the raised 40MM and notches in the config you are doing.

Thanks for the pointers Dan, much appreciated! I've perused the Hancock's instruction sheet in the review here and compared it with Randolph's. It looks as though I won't have to do any major surgery as the two kits use the same parts for the island and comparing it to the photos it appears to match?

How big would the flightdeck notch be in 1/700? I'm toying with the idea of getting the Shipcraft volume on the class and I'm curious to know if it's featured on any of the plans?

Mike.

[Dick J]

How big would the flightdeck notch be in 1/700? I'm toying with the idea of getting the Shipcraft volume on the class and I'm curious to know if it's featured on any of the plans?

I haven't ever seen it on a plan, and therefore have no firm dimensions. The best I can suggest is to go back to the Hancock photo and measure each facet relative to a known length, such as the distance from the forward end of the flightdeck to the 40MM notch. Then compare that to your kit deck. For example, find the ratio between the length I mentioned and the distance from the elevator to the back of the big notch. Copy the same percentage of the measurement on the kit deck and lay it out - I would suggest with masking tape at first. Then check it visually to see if it appears to match the photo. That is how I plan to do it when I get to that point in my stash. (I have a few kits to finish before then.)

[Mark McKinnis]

Nautilus used to do a replacement flight deck with the notch in it. You might check with them and see if they still offer that. They had done one for both the Trumpeter and the Dragon Kits since they are sized slightly different. Drop them a note and they are pretty good about responding. I looked into it some time ago. I am still trying to figure out what era I am doing the Ticonderoga.

Good luck,


MM

[Michael Riddell]

Thanks guys!

Mike.