Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Vlad]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I have a question about Trumpeter's 1/700 Essex class kits. I've been looking at reviews and build pictures and I'm suspicious of the hull shape. In particular the parallel mid body at the waterline appears to extend too far forward and it creates a sharp bump where the curve of the bow meets it. This is purely my own observation looking at pictures. Can anyone with access to a linesplan of the Essex class confirm or refute the accuracy of Trumpeter's waterline shape?

[Tracy White]

I won't have time to pull out my plans until tomorrow night (and kits probably until the weekend) and look, but this is fairly common with Trumpeter kits (over-simplifying the hull amidships leading to some odd shapes).

[Vlad]

I won't have time to pull out my plans until tomorrow night (and kits probably until the weekend) and look, but this is fairly common with Trumpeter kits (over-simplifying the hull amidships leading to some odd shapes).

Yeah, I didn't want to jump on that assumption but I thought I would check. Let us know what you dig up

[skinner642]

Hi there to all Essex fans...
I have a question to you all... How often did Essex ships travelled with the hangar doors CLOSED ???? I noticed they usually had (most of the time) open doors, but did they ever closed them ???...And when ???

Thanks...

Doors were usually only closed during heavy weather on the 2 Essex class carriers I was on.

[Mark McKinnis]

Cheers gents for the replies and for Tracy for correcting the bad link. Glad you like my work.

I've posted this over on the Cold War thread, but the Korean non SBC-27 Essex's really seem to straddle both threads. Cv-47 seems a good option with the following configuration.

P

Here is a link to my Dragon 1/700 scale Korean Era Bon Homme Richard.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

The best info I could get was Flight Deck Stain 21 over wood for the deck. If I were doing a 1/350 kit bash, I would get that kit to look at the delta's between a WWII Essex and non SCB-27A Korean Essex.

I think off the top of my head that the big differences are the Bridge Window configuration and the mast. No 20MM in the catwalks but I think they still had the sponsons. Check photos for that.

And as is always the case when trying to do something not out of the box, get Ray's Photo DVDs. He does a couple for the Korean War Boats.

Good Luck,

Mark

[Vlad]

I won't have time to pull out my plans until tomorrow night (and kits probably until the weekend) and look, but this is fairly common with Trumpeter kits (over-simplifying the hull amidships leading to some odd shapes).

Hi Tracy, any luck with the Trumpeter Essex waterline shape comparison?

[Tracy White]

I haven't been able to find my kits yet =/
Alan Raven's "Essex Class Carriers" book has the body plan, but the box I thought I had them in did not contain any Essex goodness and I haven't regrouped to search more yet.

[Vlad]

I haven't been able to find my kits yet =/
Alan Raven's "Essex Class Carriers" book has the body plan, but the box I thought I had them in did not contain any Essex goodness and I haven't regrouped to search more yet.

Ha ha, wow, I can't imagine having a stash so big I can't find a kit

Good photos of this kit are surprisingly elusive, and while the review on this site is incredibly thorough it's missing a waterline plate scan. I have however found the following that may save you the trouble of digging your kit out. I think they're taken square enough to be a good comparison, if you have the waterline scanned you could superimpose.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/ ... arts01.jpg

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2003/mar ... x-hull.JPG

[Tracy White]

Plan was to use a contour gauge like I did here.

[Vlad]

Plan was to use a contour gauge like I did here.

Is that gauge long enough to do the waterplane or were you planning to do sections/frames? I was thinking a simple digital comparison of the waterline itself would suffice. Would you strongly object to scanning and sharing a page?

[anj4de]

Hello all

I received my 1/700 Antietam last Monday and after seeing some heavily warped parts on the hull decided to do some basic glueing and re-enforcing in order to straighten things out right away. Now...when taking a closer look two major faults (?) caught my attention.

1. I believe that late long hull carriers should not have this 5 opening section that was initially intended for the hangar catapults on the port side, only starboard! Am I correct in saying ALL long hulls were like that?
2. Dragon's representation of the 40mm gun tubs on the long nose has little to nothing in commen with the real thing.

I also have Trumpeter's log hull ships and they seem to be way more accurat...but they are overall smaller. For example, Dragon has no details under the overhanging flight deck

All in all Antietam is an intersting subject but unfortunately also a rather badly documented one it seems. Where are those tons of yard photos that for sure were taken during the first US angle deck installation, during the first landing mirror testing, etc...very little stuff out there on that significant but slightle over looked ship!

thanks
Uwe





Had to take the port sponson off again after I detected the glitch in that area in order to make room for the modification to come...

[Mark McKinnis]

Hi Uwe,

Here is a link to a photo of Antietam in 1951, prior to the angle deck. It shows the opening on the starboard side which appears to be close to what Dragon modeled.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023613.jpg

This shot appears to have the same opening but the doors are closed and the shadows hide the detail to see if it was changed during the modification.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023607.jpg


It appears that it is the same but I couldn't really tell.

Hope that helps a bit.

Good Luck,

Mark

[Vlad]

Don't forget the biggest issue with the Dragon long hull kits is the bow is too skinny and too curved. It's not a difficult fix, I've done it but stupidly didn't take progress pictures. You just need to join a slightly curved plastic triangle from about 4mm above the waterline to the front of the flare (bridging the gap across the existing, exaggerated curvature), then fair it into the rest of the hull back to about the forward 5" single mounts with some more plastic sheet. Check pictures of the real thing, drydock or launch shots taken from under the bow are best.

And yes you'll be better off scraping away and rebuilding the forward 40mm tubs as well.

[Dick J]

Unfortunately, there is another flaw with the Antietam kit that is not so easily fixed. The first two long-hulls (CV's 14 & 19) had a shortened flightdeck to allow the bow and stern quad 40MM to have improved arcs of fire. The air departments hated that and only Hancock went to war with the short deck. Tico had the forward end extended prior to combat, and had the after end extended in her first major refit/repair. All others commissioned with the original full-length (same length as the short-hull ship's decks) flightdeck. The Antietam kit has the shortened deck forward.

[Vlad]

Unfortunately, there is another flaw with the Antietam kit that is not so easily fixed. The first two long-hulls (CV's 14 & 19) had a shortened flightdeck to allow the bow and stern quad 40MM to have improved arcs of fire. The air departments hated that and only Hancock went to war with the short deck. Tico had the forward end extended prior to combat, and had the after end extended in her first major refit/repair. All others commissioned with the original full-length (same length as the short-hull ship's decks) flightdeck. The Antietam kit has the shortened deck forward.

I'm not familiar with the Antitam kit but other Dragon Essex class come with an additional transparent flight deck to show off the hangar. For my build I cut this and the solid plastic deck in different places so I could graft on a longer forward flight deck. Only downside is losing the engraved deck details on that section.

[anj4de]

Hello all

Thanks for the replies...
@Mark, the pictures you showed show the starboard side...but I mean the port side. Below is a picture of that area on Hancock that I got from Tracy quite a while back. I assume Antietam should look like that?



The issue with the flight deck lenght I can fix...but what I do not know is... Did the catapults stay in the same position or did they also move fwd a bit?

Another interesting detail on Antietam is the angle deck support. At first is was only I-beams that after a while seemed to have gotten covered up somehow. At that time the angle section seems to have to cat walk, only savety nettings. In the pictures taken tight before she got scrapped she has a proper cat walk and doors to a section right under the flight deck just like a "normal" carrier. Also the structure to support the deck now looks refined in comparision to earlier days. I guess (?) this was done at the overhaul in 58?

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023630.jpg

Anyway, an intersting subject but as I said before, the picture situation on her is rather thin and being in Bavaria with no access to the US archives does not make things easier.

cheers
Uwe

[MartinJQuinn]

Does anyone have information on the make up of Hornet's (CV-12) strike group for the Mission Beyond Darkness, on June 20, 1944?

TIA

[MFH]

Does anyone have information on the make up of Hornet's (CV-12) strike group for the Mission Beyond Darkness, on June 20, 1944?

TIA

From William T. Y'Blood's "Red Sun Setting", pp. 234-5, Hornet's Carrier Air Group Two (CVG-2) air operations against the Japanese Fleet were:

VF-2 (F6F-3) - 15 launched, 1 abort; 14 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 7 lost operationally
VB-2 (SB2C-1C) - 14 launched, no aborts; 14 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 11 lost operationally
VT-2 (TBF/M-1C) - 8 launched, 2 aborts; 6 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 2 lost operationally

All should have been in the tri-color camouflage scheme, with the white "ball" on each side of the vertical stabilizer.

If you need more information, let me know!

[MartinJQuinn]

Does anyone have information on the make up of Hornet's (CV-12) strike group for the Mission Beyond Darkness, on June 20, 1944?

TIA

From William T. Y'Blood's "Red Sun Setting", pp. 234-5, Hornet's Carrier Air Group Two (CVG-2) air operations against the Japanese Fleet were:

VF-2 (F6F-3) - 15 launched, 1 abort; 14 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 7 lost operationally
VB-2 (SB2C-1C) - 14 launched, no aborts; 14 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 11 lost operationally
VT-2 (TBF/M-1C) - 8 launched, 2 aborts; 6 attacked the Japanese Fleet; 2 lost operationally

All should have been in the tri-color camouflage scheme, with the white "ball" on each side of the vertical stabilizer.

If you need more information, let me know!

I don't have that book - thank you very much!

Do you know in what order they were spotted on the deck? I'm assuming Hellcats first, Helldivers last?

[ModelMonkey]

Those are some shocking single-mission losses, probably catastrophic for the squadrons involved. Really brings home the gravity of the fighting.