The Ship Model Forum

Beat me to it! 1944 was a long year.

With regard to the picture - check out the main deck level on this set of plans at the Historic Naval Ships Association site. Is it around frame 105? It was about the only area in bay 2 that matches the structure and hatch configuration. If so, then I'm 99% sure this is a post-war mod as I've never seen any textual description of such a station in any of the 1945 departure reports I have. That's close enough to where the aft center line elevator was on this ships that I don't think they'd want to restrict that side of the hangar bay.

However, the hangars on these ships changed just as much as the outside... there was just less action there, so we have less comprehensive photos to draw from. There's a chance this was done during the war and I haven't seen the documentation, but it certainly wasn't an "as built" feature.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Cheers guys, I really want to model her when she and Enterprise covered the Hollandia invasions in April. Thanks again guys. Any pics of her or her airwing would be greatly appreciated.

_________________
Planned projects
1/700 USS Macon CA-132
1/350 USS Wasp CV-18
1/350 USS Alabama BB-60

As Mark said, that would be Air Group 16, so try searches for VF-16 F6F-3, VB-16 SBD-5, VT-16 TBF/M-1C, and VF(N)-76 F6F-3N & TBF-1CN.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

After I went to bed last night, I realized linking "CVG-20" and "G-symbol" is incorrect. Official G-symbols didn't come into being until January 1945...

Tracy, yes, I agree and think my latest photo is the "HD CONT STA" (I would assume this means "hangar deck control station") around frame 105.

For the life of me I can't figure out where the Bunker Hill shot on page 103 was taken and I'm going to keep digging...

It's not really helpful to the determination of that location, but in terms of referencing posts, if you click on the linked title next to "post subject" you get a URL that will link you directly to the post in question. The problem with referencing page numbers is that if the mods ever prune out large sections of posts (I probably pruned half of this thread over the years when I was a mod) or split out posts in the future, that page reference changes.

That photo appears to have been either slightly double exposed or shot in the hangar with a movie screen in the background through the window.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Now why would I want to make things easy for people?!

Oh heck, who cares about the other people, I'm just talking about making it easier for yourself in the future!

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

I am about to embark on building a 1/350 Trumpeter Yorktown (CV-10) (late 1944 w/Tom's PE set) and was looking for threads/websites that walk through build issues (such as fit) with this kit. Of course, this thread is a terrific resource, but I haven't been able to find a thread specifically focused on construction issues - any recommendations?

Have you looked through the Works in Progress and completed works sections?

_________________
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 wanted to make a Shangri La in 1944 from one of the Dragon 1/700 kits, what's my best starting point? I'm thinking either the Randolph or the Hancock. What are the differences between these two kits? Is one more appropriate than the other and what would I have to change to get an accurate CV-38?

_________________
Vlad

I would start with a Princeton kit. It has the full-length flightdeck without the 40MM cutouts. The correct aircraft are easier to obtain than the proper flightdeck for one of the other kits.

Dick, are you sure about that? According to the review on this very site:

http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... eview.html

the Princeton kit deck "is the same as the one included in the Randolf kit", and you can clearly see from the pictures that the 40mm cutouts are there even though they are not in the box art. Is the review wrong?

Also, would the Princeton kit not have the wrong bridge? Or are there enough common parts with the other kits to make the WWII bridge?

_________________
Vlad

I don't think any of the Dragon long hulls have the regular deck. I don't think any of the Essex kits period had a deck without hte quad 40mm cut-outs. I'll try and look over my notes tonight / this weekend if someone doesn't beat me to the answer, but I think your best bet may be to combine a long hull and CV-16 kit, but even then you're going to have the flight deck to deal with. I seem to recall that some 3rd party company had brass brass PE decks that might help, though.

_________________
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 the flight deck length and cut-outs are the only problem, I'm more than happy to attempt to do this using styrene rather than buy two kits. The cut-outs are an easy fix, the deck length I will probably try to do by sawing the end off and inserting a section where it will be least noticeable. If everything is else about the ship is the same as Randolph/Hancock (as far as can be differentiated in 1/700) then I'd rather buy one of those.

_________________
Vlad

I will have to pull out one of the kits to check the 40MM cutouts. But I do remember that the Boxer kit had the short deck, and I was relieved when the Princeton kit had the proper length deck.

Dick/Tracy,

I've been trying my best to dig up reviews and pictures of the kits in question. What I believe now is that the Princeton kit has the correct long deck and no cutouts, the Randolph kit has the short deck and the Hancock kit has the long deck with cutouts. So as far as Shangri La (or any other long hull, extended deck late war ship) is concerned, the Hancock kit would be the ideal starting point and major deck surgery is not required, only filling the cutouts.

I believe the reviews on this site are a little misleading since the photo of the flight deck is the same in all three kit reviews when in fact this part is unique in of the three kits.

As a side note, the Princeton kit seems a bit hard to find and crops up at ridiculous prices in some places.

_________________
Vlad

Common wisdom even recently was that the first three long hulls were launched with short decks but had them changed before going to the war zone, that at the very least only Hancock had the short deck. We've managed to determine that each ship was in fact entirely different, and that makes things more complex, obviously. However, the reviews were written when this wasn't as well known and it's not abnormal for short cuts to be made when writing a review for a product that is 90% the same as another kit that was already shot and written about.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Indeed, I am sure there are many complexities of variation to each ship, but the purpose of the reviews is not in my opinion to document the subject matter. Even in the absence of detailed knowledge on individual configurations, and especially when several kits have a 90% parts commonality, the purpose of the reviews should be to seek out and highlight the differences.

Anyway, this was probably not the best thread in which to raise this slight criticism, but I do think the kit differences are worth noting for other builders.

I will probably buy a Hancock for my purposes and report back, but if anyone else owns some or all of these kits (even built) it might be nice to get a side by side photo of the flight decks.

_________________
Vlad

Sorry to interrupt. Now hear this:

What was promised us has now been delivered:

Cranes, Moto-tugs, Jeeps. Even more: bombs and trolleys to boot.
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=157353

Excellent!

On LBJ's Birthday (a state holiday here in Texas, but one I'm not too proud to celebrate), I spent the day with a friend who was a B-29 veteran. As I was looking for information about his bombardment group, etc., I ran across the Bangor, ME, Public Library Digital Commons (http://digicom.bpl.lib.me.us/ww_reg_his/).

Luckily, at this site, I was able to find histories for both the 497th Bomb Group and 73rd Bomb Wing (my friend's units), and not go to his house COMPLETELY ignorant of his experiences.

As a bonus, there are downloadable PDF cruise books for three Essex-class carriers:

U.S.S. Franklin,
U.S.S. Ticonderoga, and
U.S.S. Hancock.

There are some great pictures contained in them, and the OCR seems pretty robust (not to mention just the history contained in the books). I'm putting them here if they might be help to modelers. There's a lot of details I hadn't seen before (hangar deck details, island details, plane markings, etc.).

For other navy "stuff", there's a fair amount of ships' histories, such as destroyers, cruisers, battleships, etc., which I think could be great help to modelers, not to mention construction battalions. And, lots of USA & USAAF histories as well (such as my dad's 11th Airborne Division, which he served with in Deutschland in the 1950s).

Anyway, I just wanted to share, as I think they are pretty darn interesting...