Calling all USS Yorktown CV-5 fans

[TOMLABEL]

John,

Many thanks!!! I took a look at pg 20 this evening when I got home and it took me a bit to locate it (forest for the trees/trees for the forest!!) but you are right - its there! I have seen the racks before in other pics as well as the builder's model pics and always wondered what they were for and basically thought the same as you. But one thing that stuck out is the date of the pic/s is 1937 and I'm not sure that extra fuel tanks were in service at the time (although I could be wrong)

So I was looking at the general plans again and noticed that there is a CO2 storage compartment one deck up just behind the aft boatdeck and a oxygen tank storage/workshop right above in the next level up right under the flight deck. So, I wonder if those racks had anything to do with those CO2/oxygen tanks - maybe? Don't know as the curvature width looks a bit large for those tanks, but would be about right for the size of a droptank. I just don't know if those were in use at that time. I want to take a look at this area in the Webb plans as soon as I get them back from a buddy.

Anyways, thanks again John for pointing that out to me and a reasonable explanation for its purpose!!!

Kelley

[Jinkeez]

Can I just take a moment to point out how cool y'all are? I just love poking my head in this thread to see whatever neat discoveries have been dug out of old archives, or come to light from comparing blueprints. I almost always learn something new about the ship, carrier operations, or naval history, thanks to all the great research compiled here. Someday I might even get started on my kit, too!

[John W.]

Kelley -
Just had a look at the Webb plans and the racks do not show up in the drawings.
I have some pictures of the YORKTOWN builder's model and the racks and tanks are there just as shown in the photo. Each photo is over 1Mb and so won't post here without editing. But the tanks in the rack look like drop tanks to me. O2 and CO2 tanks are much smaller in diameter. I will see if I can compress the picture enough to post without making it too tiny to see. There is a second rack as well on the same deck as the aft crew boat, up against the aircraft elevator bulkhead on the starboard side.
As far as when drop tanks came into use, look at photos of the Curtiss SBC HELLDIVER and there's a 50/50 chance any photo you find will show a drop tank on centerline under the lower wing. Those aircraft were on the YORKTOWNs from the beginning. They were, of course, used in a scouting role (as well as dive bombing, hence SBC designation) and so needed lots of fuel to patrol at scouting ranges from the ship. Off came the tank, on went the bomb for dive bombing.
Tracy has posted pix inside of the hangar deck looking aft into the #3 elevator pit and drop tanks are triced to the aft bulkhead. I THINK it was pix on ENT taken by a Life Magazine photographer late in 1941. I could be wrong as to date and ship, but I think I'm right.
John

[Devin]

Just tossing this out there, but for Yorktown during early 1942 the Wildcats did not use drop tanks, both -3 and -4 versions. This is well covered in Lundstrom's "The First Team". Wildcats didn't start using them in combat until the Guadalcanal battles.

[John W.]

Here are some compressed pictures of the YORKTOWN Builder's Model showing YORKTOWN pretty much as built - late 30s. Hopefully the pictures are good enough to see the features.

Again, they sure look like (empty) drop tanks to me - probably for SBCs.

[John W.]

Devin -
That wouldn't surprise me because the F4Fs wouldn't have been used in a scouting role early in the war, and fighter sweeps were used much later. The aircraft the F4Fs would escort had significantly less range than the F4F did even without drop tanks. Ranges (total miles out and back): F4F4 720 NMi, SBC 350 NMi, TBD 380 NMi, SB2U 630 NMi. Early war strikes were pretty much done at less than 200 miles from the carrier. Not until the SBD, which was specifically designed for long range scouting (on its internal fuel tanks), did the range approach 1,000 NMi for a carrier-based aircraft. At that, the SBD would only carry a 500# bomb for a scouting mission instead of the 1000# bomb for strikes.

To complete the overall picture, in the 1930s the USN saw its long range reconnaissance needs being met by dirigibles so the carrier didn't need to carry long range scouts. When the dirigibles had some, er, problems, the USN settled on a two tier approach. One tier was initially to extend the legs of carrier-launched scout aircraft as much as possible, hence the SBC with external 'drop' tanks. The preferred approach was probably not to actually drop them, just to put one in place of the bomb for scouting missions. In this sense, the racks on the YORKTOWN stern make sense as a storage place for the reusable empty tanks. The development of the SBD after YORKTOWN was designed and built allowed both the greatly increased range and a bomb to be carried. (I don't recall seeing any photos of HORNET with these racks.) The second reconnaissance / scouting tier was to develop long range landbased aircraft to replace the dirigible - PBY, PBM, PB4Y, and others.

Fun fact: the first USN ship designed from the keel up to be an aircraft carrier was - wait for it - NOT USS RANGER. It was USS AKRON, by a couple of years. Yes, an AIR ship. And, yes, those are the specific words used in conjunction with the design and launching of AKRON and sister MACON. All the pieces seemed to come together just months before the war started.

[TOMLABEL]

Jinkeez - Yes, I agree, these guys are awesome!!

John - Thanks for checking the Webb plans and like you said, the O2 and CO2 canister's diameters are just way too small as compared to the diameter of the racks as seen in photos and the builders pictures that you posted. Thanks for posting these as they show different perspectives of the area in question and are a nice addition to the ones posted on the Yorktown site: http://cv5yorktown.com/

And thanks also for the additional information in response to Devin's post as it is very convincing to me that, indeed, the racks were for the additional fuel tanks for aircraft such as the SBC. It's also interesting, and fits your explanation as well, as to why those racks have not been spotted in Hornet photos.

I'm going to have to find that pic you mentioned that Tracy posted now!!!

Fantastic!!! Thanks, John!!!

Kelley

[MartinJQuinn]

New detail set for Yorky, for those who may have missed the posting, by Infini-Model: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=162216

[Mike C]

Could the racks be for fire fighting foam canisters? I've seen photos of Essex class carriers that stored their canisters on the stern.

[TOMLABEL]

Could the racks be for fire fighting foam canisters? I've seen photos of Essex class carriers that stored their canisters on the stern.

Mike, that is very interesting about the FF foam canisters. Would you mind to post one of those?
Thanks

Kelley

[Mike C]

Mike, that is very interesting about the FF foam canisters. Would you mind to post one of those?
Thanks

Kelley

I wish I could, but it was many years ago and I can't find the photo now. It could be in one of my Essex books, but I don't know which one, or which ship. All I remember was it was a starboard quarter photo taken close aboard to highlight a donkey engine exhaust with a side note about the canisters. Sorry for the false hope.

[TOMLABEL]

Mike, that is very interesting about the FF foam canisters. Would you mind to post one of those?
Thanks

Kelley

I wish I could, but it was many years ago and I can't find the photo now. It could be in one of my Essex books, but I don't know which one, or which ship. All I remember was it was a starboard quarter photo taken close aboard to highlight a donkey engine exhaust with a side note about the canisters. Sorry for the false hope.

Understand. But at least I know what to keep an eye out for in the future.

Thanks!

Kelley

[Charybdis]

just a quick question...

Did CV-5 have her forward boat crane removed before Midway?

Thanks.

[Michael Vorrasi]

just a quick question...

Did CV-5 have her forward boat crane removed before Midway?

Thanks.

Yes.

[TOMLABEL]

Hey guys!

Does anyone know (or have a good idea) what the canvas looking structure/container is mounted to the side of #2 1.1mm gun tub? At first I thought that it may be for expended shells, but the tub shields have cutouts in them where they could be kicked out of the tub when necessary. I'm at a loss on this one.

Also, curious if the Yorktown class carriers had green tinted glass in the skyward pointing windows of the Pri-Fly and fighting top like the modernized Essex's had. It doesn't look like it in photos, but its not absolutely conclusive. Does anyone know about this or have a good guess?

Thanks.

Kelley

[Charybdis]

I came across this cracking photo of a Yorktown class carrier online. It claimed to be of Yorktown, but after reading the various info posted in this thread, I think it may be Enterprise due to the 20mm tubs forward of the main deck crane (I thought Yorktown had 8 x .50 cals on the stb side). However, the 20mm gallery on the stb island looks to be like Yorktown.

Also, is it Measure 12 camo? That would surely be definitive.

Does anybody recognize this photo? If so, do you know the time frame it was taken?

Also... it seems that the .50 cals were fitted with splinter shields like the 20mm (??)

[robertmelvin]

New detail set for Yorky, for those who may have missed the posting, by Infini-Model: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=162216

Any idea of when this may hit the market? I have their set for Yukikaze and though I have not started the build, on basic inspection it appears very nice and quite comprehensive. The Yorktown set appears to be just as good, though I shudder to consider the probable cost. I would expect Infini's offerings to be of the first quality, at least this early in the game, since they are a new player and going up head to head against such established names as LionRoar and FlyHawk.

Last I heard was that they expected to market it the last of April, which has now come and gone. Any information would be appreciated.

Bob M.

[ModelMonkey]

I came across this cracking photo of a Yorktown class carrier online. It claimed to be of Yorktown, but after reading the various info posted in this thread, I think it may be Enterprise due to the 20mm tubs forward of the main deck crane (I thought Yorktown had 8 x .50 cals on the stb side). However, the 20mm gallery on the stb island looks to be like Yorktown.

You are right, that's Big E. The aircraft by the round-down are Avengers. Yorktown was lost before receiving that type of torpedo bomber. Photos of the wreck show that Yorktown's degaussing cables are continuous at the stern, not split like here.

Great photo!

[Michael Vorrasi]

I came across this cracking photo of a Yorktown class carrier online. It claimed to be of Yorktown, but after reading the various info posted in this thread, I think it may be Enterprise due to the 20mm tubs forward of the main deck crane (I thought Yorktown had 8 x .50 cals on the stb side). However, the 20mm gallery on the stb island looks to be like Yorktown.

Also, is it Measure 12 camo? That would surely be definitive.

Does anybody recognize this photo? If so, do you know the time frame it was taken?

Also... it seems that the .50 cals were fitted with splinter shields like the 20mm (??)

This photo is Enterprise, returning to Pearl Harbor after Eastern Solomons, and she wears Measure 21 Navy Blue. Note the damaged 5 inch battery, which was hit by a bomb in the battle. Also, the aft corner tubs are upgraded and mount 20mm guns. The original 50 calibers were in the catwalk, not mounted in tubs notched into the aft ramp. (Hornet had same aft corner 20mm tubs). At her repair period prior to return to South Pacific, an additional 20mm was added inboard of these two corner ones.

[Charybdis]

Fascinating. Thanks for the info.

A couple of interesting points; I notice no number 6 or a name plate across the stern. Censored perhaps or was CV-6 different from her two sisters in this respect? Do you know what the small ring is just forward the aft 20mm on the stb side? There also seems to be a small overhang around the base of the crane on the main deck. I'm sure this wasn't as built.

Thanks again.