MartinJQuinn wrote:
In AA Hoelings "The Lexington Goes Down", he tells a story of someone on the flag plot (I think it was a war correspondent) diving behind the splinter mats during some of the action, then roundly getting poked fun at by those near him, as the mats would not have provided any real protection. This leads me to believe that the sides and back of the flag plot had mats hanging off the railings, not splinter shielding.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and showing your beautiful model Martin! I'm also no expert, also just a fan of the ship, and I happened to build it and therefore researched it's details a bit.
You might be very right here! Before the refit, there was railing here, no splinter shields. And any of the known photo's don't show this element clear enough to be sure, so your interpretation might be the most logical indeed.
I have to say though that the way you represented it on your model looks more like canvas covering of the railing. The splinter mats were thicker elements hanging from the outside of the railing, through which the structure of the railing was not visible anymore.
That said, I'm also not 100% happy with my representation. Next time I think I would sculpt them with Magic Sculp so they would look a bit softer and irregular.
ModelMonkey wrote:
The May 8th photos seem to indicate that the Flag Plot was widened, too. Look again at those battle photos and follow the path of the sloped tripod supports. See how they appear to pass inside the Flag Plotting Station? Both Marijn and Martin built their models that way. If the supports pass inside Plot, that means that the Plot was widened like Saratoga's was. If I'm wrong and it was only lengthened, the sloped supports should pass outside the Plotting Station.
Agreed! It is very hard to see and therefore be sure, but this is my interpretation also. It was also Trumpeter's interpretation, but the more complex faceted front side of your design looks much more accurate than Trumpeter (and my model!).
ModelMonkey wrote:
Agreed. I would like to add it and I think there is enough evidence (barely) to make a reasonable representation of it.
Yes, I think most modelers would prefer your best guess, over having to do it themselves. people who want to follow a different interpretation can still convert the part themselves. And indeed, the evidence is not very clear, but I think your design looks pretty good to me. Also visually, it looks excellent. Something like this would be very hard to scratchbuild crisply in 1/700 scale.
ModelMonkey wrote:
I think there is an additional platform here that has been fixed to the front of the splinter shield but raised a bit. It looks like the platform extends rearwards through the splinter shield (an opening cut for it) between the two inner rangefinders. If true, what is the shape of the rear of the platform behind the shield?
Agreed! I missed this on my model, probably seeing it as part of the splinter matting surrounding the director's platform's railings, but when checking the photo's again now, it looks like it is there indeed. I wonder what it's function was?
When adding it, note there are triangular supports under this addition, or are they struts (see NARA photo)? I missed this on my model.
ModelMonkey wrote:
marijn van gils wrote:
5. At the aft top end of the flag setting station, there were two 24' search lights, on semi-circular platforms (moved up from previous location). These are easily added by the modeller, but could be a good addition for your product.
Ah yes, I inadvertently deleted them when merging
Saratoga's Flag Station with
Lexington's tower. Oops.

Also note these have triangular gussets under them. A photo on p62 of the Squadron book shows this quite well.
ModelMonkey wrote:
The inclined area you see in the design forward of the pilot house is a complex steel venturi, a feature of the ship from about 1936, over which splinter mats were placed. Look closely at the photo on page 39 of Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial #33, you'll see the venturi behind the splinter mats. Although I could certainly design these mats, I think the natural irregular appearance of the mats would be better, more realistically accomplished by the modeler. A 3D design would look artificially uniform.
Agreed! I didn't explain good indeed… Obviously the venturi is the reason the splinter mats are inclined like that.
Also agreed that this is best added by the modeller to get the proper irregular look.
ModelMonkey wrote:
I'd like to include one. Still looking for good drawings and up-close photos. If good references can't be found, I'll omit it in favor of the Trumpeter part until good references are available.
The squadron book has quite some photo's showing it from different angles. Plans I don't know…
One additional idea: some of the supports under the pilot house's level are not strait beams, but triangular gussets. They seem to be under the front and protruding sides (at least the front port side) of the walkway. See p67 of the squadron book.
The spinter shields around the 1,1' platforms look perfect BTW! Exactly like the close-up on p53 of the Wiper book, and with 8 'ribs' on the side.
ModelMonkey wrote:
Indeed! Please be advised that analysis indicates that a complete 3D-printed funnel is likely to be very expensive due to the volume of printed material needed to make one. I intend to design one, however, but fear few sales due to very high cost. Perhaps there are features of the funnel that can be designed for 3D printing as lower cost alternatives. I'm considering this for a short-stack design for Saratoga, too.
In understand! Maybe the first thing would be to include the 1.1' platforms at the rear of the stack as extra parts with the bridge, so they will look identical to the ones in front of he bridge? Another good one would be the radar control room, as this is completely wrong in the kit and is easily replaced.
Thank you for your kind words BTW! On this model, I feel however my weakest point was the research. I have quite some experience with diorama's and feel comfortable with a paintbrush, but it was my first ship model and had to catch up on detailed nautical knowledge. I started my research a bit to late, which prevented me from correcting some detail mistakes in the kit as I found out about them too late… But that's the upside of doing diorama's that tell a story: as long as the story is told successfully, there is no real need to sweat these smaller mistakes too much, and I can still be happy with the model even when I see all the imperfections. And I have to say, for the research, this forum was a fantastic help without which it wouldn't have been possible!
Cheers,
Marijn