The Ship Model Forum

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020623.jpg

This picture is of Enterprise at Midway getting ready to launch TBD's. Hope it helps. The SBD's were arranged in three plane rows like the TBD's in this picture due to no wing folding.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020236.jpg

Here is one of the famous pictures of Lexington cv-2 at the Coral sea Battle but deck park doctrine is usually the same through out.
Also as well in launching the strikes at Midway to get the max number of planes flying I'm sure they launched using the catapults until there was enough deck length space to launch without them.

Ya think?

_________________
Mike

Icksnay on deck catapults in 1942. They were rarely if ever used, and most deck cats were removed from the fleet carriers. With a moderate wind over the deck, which these fast ships could make on their own, an F4F could start well ahead of the island and be airborne with deck to spare. SBD's, just a bit more, TBD's probably needed the most deck because the airplane was basically underpowered. That is why they left last.

_________________
Mike

Echoing what Michael said, Catapults took a long time to catch on during the war. I have a letter from one of the CVL captains recommending they remove the catapults and use the weight to put a third quad 40mm in place. It was essentially the heavier weights they wanted to launch in 1943 and later that started to force the issue. You couldn't launch a heavy plane without breaking the strike into multiple sets and keeping part below to preserve free space. You could launch the heavy aircraft with a catapult, but that drove the desire for multiple catapults and the higher launch rate they provided.

Until then the single cat was largely seen as a waste.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Fortunately some of us buyers do come here to check. I was at the shop today looking at the kit in question but decided to hold off on the $45 price tag to confirm it was/wasn't a new (accurate??) mold Yorktown. I was getting ready to post the question but thought I'd look back a couple of pages to see if it had been addressed previously.

I'm sadly disappointed to see it is not a new mold but relieved I held off spending that money before finding out. Thanks to all involved.

Guess I'll just keep waiting for somebody to mold her accurately in 1/700.

Anybody? Beuller?

_________________
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today"

Great stuff! Thanks, all.

Now I have no excuses if I don't get it right.

Bill

Question:
Isn´t it possible to adapt (plus a lot of sanding) the underwaterhull from another 1:350´ modell. For example the forward underwater-part of the Saratoga/Lexington Hull!??

The Lexington class was much larger than the Yorktowns. "Adapting" the hull would be like "adapting" a Cadillac into a Volkwagon. Also, there is more wrong with the Trumpeter Hornet hull than the bow, it is just that the bow is the most visible error. The Hornet kit hull is "wall sided", like an Essex. However, it should taper in somewhat just below the hangar deck level. While an Essex hull has a moderately sized segment amidships where it reaches max beam for the entire segment, the Yorktown class hull had a very short max-beam length amidships and tapered foreward and aft of that point. Simply grafting in a more tapered bow wouldn't solve most of the issues.

Hub2
Anything is possible, but what sort of lengths would you have to go through. I am amazed at what some modelers will go through to avoid doing a little wood work. A new hull can be created to a correct shape faster than hashing something together and still winding up with a compromise. Not to mention the satisfaction of having created it yourself.

Paul

_________________


http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/Neptune/Lockheed_Neptune_Model_Budzik.html
http://paulbudzik.com/tools-techniques/outside_the_box.html

Fear of the unknown is a great "motivator" for many modelers.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

If I could fabricate even half as good as your wooden hulls Paul, I might give it a try!

Mad -
You won't know unless you try. Some have more talent than others, perhaps, or maybe just more willingness to try something with the recognition it may result in 'failure'. But much of this sport owes to being able to follow directions as closely as possible. Many posters here are quite willing to share the 'how to' to at least start the process and make the leap a bit shorter for someone who's never tried a particular technique before. Paul's posting on his own blog spell it out pictorially quite well. You could certainly try a halfway step and make up a small hull of, say, a tugboat with only a few 'lifts' and see how you make out. If you take it one step at a time rather than be overwhelmed by seeing all the steps at once you might surprise yourself.

_________________
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 . . .)

A question for those who are/have worked on the 80's era Revell Yorktown 1/487 scale kit:

The GMM kit seems to have the 20mm and 50cal machine guns covered, but what to do about the 1.1 Chicago Pianos? The ones in the kit are god awful, although not as bad as the 5'/38cals which are closed mounts (!). Is there an aftermarket supplier, or am I going to have to scratch these? Thanks guys!

80's era...wow, I built one of these gems back in the late '60s!!

Man, I must be getting OLD.....

(Sorry this doesn't help answer your question, tho....)

_________________
Danny DON'T "waterline"...!

I can't help with replacements, but I don't think the 5"/38's are closed mounts. I think Revell molded them with their canvas covers for simplicity (or cost cutting).

Nautilus Models made a detail kit for the old Revell Yorktown. It came with an improved island, decent 5-38 guns, and 1.1 inch Chicago pianos. They re-issue it occasionally. There is a link to them on the Steelnavy front page.

By now I'm sure most of you are aware that Trumpeters next 1/200 scale model is CV-8, Hornet, due to be released sometime in early summer I believe. I have always been a Yorktown fan, and am not all that interested in Hornet. Question is, how close is Hornet to Yorktown? I know she was built several years after, but how many changes were made to the design and how many of them affected the exterior appearance. I know there are differences in the front of the island, but is it worth buying the Hornet version and converting it, or should I wait and hope they do another release of either Yorktown or Enterprise?

Nautilus Models has plans for a conversion, but I'm not sure what form it will take. Resin in some case, but I don't know how they plan to handle the different forward flight deck. I would imagine that it will take them a bit of time once the kit is out to acquire, plan, design, produce, etc. as well, so it won't be ready for a month or so after the kit is out.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

You can begin the path to answering your own questions by reading the posts on YORKTOWN (this thread), HORNET (Calling All Ship Fans (CASF) CV 8 thread), and CASF ENTERPRISE CV 6 thread. Start at the beginning of each and you will find almost all the answers you'll need. The answer is not a simple paragraph or two as you'll find. This site is a great compendium of modeling info on these ships. Many have asked or wondered the same question(s) as you may be thinking - find out what the answrs were (are) here.

_________________
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 . . .)