Calling all USS Yorktown CV-5 fans

[Frank Ren]

The Merit CV5 kit over emphasizes the hull plating. Is it everyone opinion that to provide a more scale appearance to the kit hull that all plating and vertical straps should be sanded off completely such that the hull is smooth?

Frank R

[Devin]

Yes, the best thing to do would remove it completely. Not only is it overstated, but it's a completely incorrect pattern.

[Tracy White]

It's really a matter of opinion. Yes, the hull strake detail is overdone, but some people like it and you do catch a hint of it from time to time in different lights on the real thing (uhhhh when she was afloat...)

Simply taking off the vertical straps is the easiest improvement as they sand away a lot quicker than the whole strake that runs the length of the kit. Taking it all off and either leaving it smooth or putting a more correct pattern and thickness back on are the other two main options. It's been suggested to fill in the "lows" with sheet styrene, but this option would require re-drilling a lot of portholes and would require a lot of test-fitting and tweaking for the strips fitting over the compound curves on the bow and stern.

[Guest]

Hey guys, I plan on building my 1/350 Merit USS Yorktown as soon as I have as much data on her as I can. I'm planning on adding the mural located on the elevator #2 starboard side well deck wall, and the only snippets of photos I can find showing it are the ones of the ships band playing by it and the photo of a still from the wreck. Does anyone else have any other info on it? I'm doing a sketch first and will post it on here to get people comments as to the possible accuracy of it. I appreciate all comments, and also if there is a good place to get a good set of plans of her. Thanks!

[Devin]

There are people who've spent YEARS searching for a full photo of that mural, and to this day one has not been found. It either doesn't exist, or it's in a file drawer or someone's shoebox of old photos somewhere.

Below are the only two photos that show it, to the best of my knowledge.

For plans, check out my review of the Webb series here: http://cv5yorktown.com/?page_id=504

[Tracy White]

I'm one of the one who's spent "years" looking for it so I'll give you a rundown. Going to try and take another stab at it in a couple of months as well, so it ain't over yet.

US National Archives receives many records from many different government agencies. In the case of Naval records, you have many different groups (official term is "activity) submitting records, such as the Bureau of Aeronautics, Bureau of Ships, Chief of Naval Operations, Assistant to the Vice Chief of Latrine Development on Johnston Atoll (OK, that one's made up, but there's a couple that show up where your first reaction is, "really? We had that?"). Short of it is that there's a lot of places to look.

Next, one of the prime areas to look is a subset of Record Group 80, which is "General Records of the Department of the Navy, 1798-1947." There is a subset of RG 80 known as 80-G titled "General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, 1943 - 1958" (the beginning date is a misnomer, there are photos in 80-G that are much earlier - at least WWI). This is nearly 3,000 boxes long, about 540 linear feet. To say it takes a while to go through this is an understatement.

When the Navy turned over the photos, they also turned over a card catalog that lists photos and allows us to search for a subject as opposed to simply starting at one end and going from box to box until we get to the other. I covered a little bit of this here for those that are interested. They do things a couple of different ways - there's a section that is organized by ship name, another by designation, etc..

Neither the "CV-5" or "Yorktown" section has more than five cards in it, and there are far more than five photos of the ship in 80-G. So, it's become a case of grabbing known 80-G numbers for the ship, pulling the appropriate box and the ones on either side, and hoping that there was more than just that one photo.

Ron Smith said that at one point he saw a full picture of the mural in 80-G in the background of a shot of an admiral, but after a few boxes your mind turns to mush and it's really impossible to remember where you saw what. There's a good chance there's a photo out there, we just have to figure out where. We had hoped to get this included as a decal on the Merit kit, but it just didn't happen.

I'm sure you just wanted to know which book to buy or which website had the elusive image, but that's the state of the archival research, anyway.

[Devin]

I wasn't aware Ron had spied the unicorn. That's at least encouraging.

[Jon C Ryckert]

Anyone know of a link to the underwater still of the mural taken by Ballard. I did a quick internet search and came up empty. BTW, why hasn't more (1000?) pics that Ballard took not been released? Just wondering.

[Devin]

The underwater photo in the "Return to Midway" book is of roughly the same section of the mural. It's so deteriorated that you can make out the circle of the globe and the right ray of the searchlight, but that's it.

Over 10 years ago I wrote National Geographic and asked about those "thousands of photos". I never received a reply.

[Tracy White]

$$

[Haijun watcher]

Alright, here's a question not just for CV6 fans, but for all Yorktown class modeller experts in general...so I'm cross-posting this same question to all three threads that deal with each ship in the class. (makes one wonder why there isn't just one Yorktown class fans thread)

If Tamiya's Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown kits are all wrong since the hull is aid to be smaller at 1/719 scale, then what about the superstructure?

Is the superstructure the right scale? Or was it just made sized proportional to the hull?

It couldn't be that Tamiya got everything wrong even down to the planes and superstructure.

I don't see why we can't just attach the Tamiya kits' superstructures to Tom's modelworks Hornet hull which is the correct 1/700 scale.

It could be like the way others attach the Trumpeter Hornet superstructure and flight deck to the Tom's modelworks hull.

[Devin]

The superstructure is way too thin; maybe by as much as 1/3rd.

[Michael Vorrasi]

Alright, here's a question not just for CV6 fans, but for all Yorktown class modeller experts in general...so I'm cross-posting this same question to all three threads that deal with each ship in the class. (makes one wonder why there isn't just one Yorktown class fans thread)

If Tamiya's Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown kits are all wrong since the hull is aid to be smaller at 1/719 scale, then what about the superstructure?

Is the superstructure the right scale? Or was it just made sized proportional to the hull?

It couldn't be that Tamiya got everything wrong even down to the planes and superstructure.

I don't see why we can't just attach the Tamiya kits' superstructures to Tom's modelworks Hornet hull which is the correct 1/700 scale.

It could be like the way others attach the Trumpeter Hornet superstructure and flight deck to the Tom's modelworks hull.

The entire Tamiya kit is underscale. They re-sized all the drawings they used based on the mistaken OA length being 809 feet when it is really 825 feet. All other dimensions are off by the same percentage of error. I never measured the planes but it is easy enough to do. The island is even thinner than it should be for 1/719 scale. Nothing from the Tamiya kit will work with Tom's replacement hull. It is made for the Trumpy kit only.

[DavidK]

I had always hoped that Timothy Dike would elaborate on his September 2013 review of the Toms Modelwork's Yorktown with some additional comparisons to the other kits, e.g. how the flight decks compared dimensionally since those are a major piece, but it doesn't seem to have happened. I have an unbuilt Tamiya Yorktown kit, but nothing to compare it to (no dimensionally scaled plans, no other kits,...). All I ever hear is that the Tamiya kit has "problems", usually the hull is blamed first.

I would think that widening the superstructure by ~30% could present a fair number of scratch-building challenges (e.g. the top of the stack, some of the wrap around platforms,...)

Dave

[Cadman]

I had always hoped that Timothy Dike would elaborate on his September 2013 review of the Toms Modelwork's Yorktown with some additional comparisons to the other kits,

I only wish I had the time to do this Dave. I'm barely able to keep up with doing the in-box reviews as it is. It takes hours as it is to lay out the parts, photograph them, edit the photos, and write and publish a review. Ideally I'd build everything too and comment on fit as well.

Your best bet is to wait for one of our members to publish their finding here and I'm sure someone will.

[ModelMonkey]

Having read the discussion above about Tamiya and Trumpeter scaling issues, just for comparison, I pulled out the old Revell 1/490 scale Yorktown class kit, originally released as CV-6 and then reboxed as CV-5 in 1969, reboxed again as late as 2003 as "Battle of Midway Carrier" (erroneously labeled as 1/542 scale), and compared the kit's hull and flight deck to reduced Booklet of General Plans drawings.

Generally, Revell way back in the late 1960s just about nailed it.

Here's what I found:

[Michael Vorrasi]

Having read the discussion above about Tamiya and Trumpeter scaling issues, just for comparison, I pulled out the old Revell 1/490 scale Yorktown class kit, originally released as CV-6 and then reboxed as CV-5 in 1969, reboxed again as late as 2003 as "Battle of Midway Carrier" (erroneously labeled as 1/542 scale), and compared the kit's hull and flight deck to reduced Booklet of General Plans drawings.

Generally, Revell way back in the late 1960s just about nailed it.

Here's what I found:

Steve, nice work-up. My measurements, based on the hull at 809'9", worked out at 1/487 scale. I believe the Revell flight deck is a tiny fraction too short for the hull, which may be why you got 1/490 based on the flight deck measurement. If you go by the deck,then the hull is a fraction too long, but I think the hull should govern. The lack of the deck supports would make it look too long on the aft overhang, which may be why they shortened it slightly. Regarding the positioning of the clipping room and forward gun tubs, they are actually correct on the kit, which has them positioned as per late 1942 CV-6 positions. You have compared their location to the original 1.1" placements. When CV-6 got her 40mm tubs, the two forward ones were moved forward of the original spots. The kit was designed for both pre-war CV-5/6 and late 1942 CV-6 configurations based on parts used, so Revell compromised on these tub locations and used the 1942 locations. But you are right, Revell nailed it back when I was a kid. If they took the hull and flight deck molds and built some new detail sprues to replace the crude 60's ones, this kit would be a world class.

[ModelMonkey]

Great response, Mike! And very informative.

My measurements, based on the hull at 809'9", worked out at 1/487 scale. I believe the Revell flight deck is a tiny fraction too short for the hull, which may be why you got 1/490 based on the flight deck measurement. If you go by the deck,then the hull is a fraction too long, but I think the hull should govern.

Yes, indeed, my scaling was based upon the flight deck. I concur that the hull should govern.

Regarding the positioning of the clipping room and forward gun tubs, they are actually correct on the kit, which has them positioned as per late 1942 CV-6 positions. You have compared their location to the original 1.1" placements. When CV-6 got her 40mm tubs, the two forward ones were moved forward of the original spots. The kit was designed for both pre-war CV-5/6 and late 1942 CV-6 configurations based on parts used, so Revell compromised on these tub locations and used the 1942 locations.

That sure explains why the kit's tub locations are so different from the pre-war CV-5 plans while everything else matched so nearly perfectly. It will also help me decide whether to build the model as a pre-war/Midway CV-5 or late '42 CV-6 and what I might have to adjust. Hmmm....

But you are right, Revell nailed it back when I was a kid. If they took the hull and flight deck molds and built some new detail sprues to replace the crude 60's ones, this kit would be a world class.

Wouldn't it be cool if Revell was reading all this and thought to themselves, "Yeah, we could do that." (or, "Ja, wir k�nnen das tun.")

I remember years ago when I opened Trumpeter's 1/350 Hornet kit and looked at the supertanker hull, thinking, "That box is where Trumpeter buried all my hopes and dreams".

[TOMLABEL]

Before I get too far into the build of the Merit CV5, is there any evidence either way that the fighting top was or was not painted in 5H Haze Gray around Midway time frame? Or was it painted Ocean Gray along with the rest of the ship above the hangar?

Thanks!

TOMLABEL

[Dick J]

A photo of Yorktown at Norfolk in late '41 clearly shows the top to be a lighter color than the rest of the superstructure. (The photo can be seen in the book That Gallant Ship.) However, in this famous photo of the ship at the end of May of '42 ( http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020503.jpg ) there is no evidence of a color differentiation. In my opinion, the top was repainted to match the rest of the upperworks. But the question is when?