Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[W.H.min]

The data of Essex full load draft seems unreliable

This is quite true. AotS Intrepid quotes 30' "as built," whereas "Essex Class Carriers" by Alan Raven states 30' 10." Neither gives a source. My favorite reference is Warship International Vol 36, No 4 (1999) which is incredibly well sourced. The below is quoted from that (pages 341 & 2) and is from CV-16 (1943) and CV-37 (1946) "BuShips General Information Books."

"The waterline used as a basis for measurements was the designer's waterline, specifically the normal waterline corresponding to the designed normal load and draught. This waterline was 26-ft. 6-in. above the molded baseline."

Underline is mine here - the AotS Intrepid book lists the designed waterline as 27' 6" but I'm not sure where this came from. Typo or was Intrepid actually "designed" deeper than Lexington? There is no actual mention of a "full load as built" draught. There is a lot of discussion of overloading and mention that CV-17 Bunker Hill reported departing Ulithi in March of 1945 at 30' 5" draft, but that would have not been a draft used to plot where the boot topping went.

Also sort of a moot point as far as my ability to definitively answer the question as I haven't found any documentation on waterline and boot topping yet.

Thank you, Tracy. Really helpful to me!

[Guest]

Apologies in advance if this question has come up before in this thread (I haven't had time to go through all 114 pages).

What is the actual overall length of the USS Essex (CV-9) in 1943?

The preliminary design of Sept '41 has it at 870' but the most commonly stated figure is 872'. Does 872' include the aft 40mm gun tub (not included in the PD) which extends about 5' beyond the overhang of the flight deck? If so does this mean that the flight deck was shortened from the preliminary design?

Stephan Terzibaschitsch gives a LOA for CV-9 in 1943 of 876'8" so this would be about right if the aft gun tubs are not included in the official LOA.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Charybdis]

EDIT: Solved! I managed to get hold of a copy of AOTS USS Intrepid. Info as follows:

Length: 820ft (pp), 870ft (oa)*; increased to 876ft 8in (oa) by 40mm sponson added at stern in 1945.

* Units with 20mm AA platforms under the after end of flight deck were 4ft longer (oa); the later long bow units were 888ft (oa).

[PAT D]

Hello

Does anyone here know the plank width for the flight deck planking? I did a search here and didn't find much. One comment said about 8 inches. Is that close enough? I want to build a 1/32 scale base for an F4U aircraft. TIA

Best regards
Patrick

[Tracy White]

I haven't pulled any microfilm for the Essexes but some CVL plans I have state 3" Douglas Fir.

[PAT D]

I haven't pulled any microfilm for the Essexes but some CVL plans I have state 3" Douglas Fir.

Wow, that's small. I served on the USS Wasp CVS18, and don't recall them being that narrow. Thanks for the reply Tracy.

Best regards
Patrick

[Mike W]

Which Blue would be correct for Randolph's Flight Deck while she carried her MS32 camouflage?

thanks
Mike

[Tracy White]

Flight Deck Stain #21 revised (Matched to Navy Blue, not Ocean gray as the original FDS #21) is most likely. I don't have any direct documents as proof, but she commissioned in October 1944. Alan Raven states, "About mid 1944 there was the introduction of #21 Flight Deck stain (revised). This revised stain was (when newly applied) identical to 20B deck Blue (revised).

[Mike W]

I thought it might be in the darker stain. So should I use Deck Blue to paint the flight deck with or Navy Blue?

thanks
Mike

[Tracy White]

The Flight Deck Stain "was matched" to Deck blue, which "was matched" to Navy Blue, but each was a different formula and they didn't look precisely the same, just close to each other. It's the modeler's choice - I prefer having the slight differences to break up and give some variance to what would otherwise be a solid blue blob.

[Mike W]

Thanks for that, I think I'll use Deck Blue as the base colour for the darker stain, that way it's not quite the same as Navy Blue, so if I make anything with Navy Blue in the camouflage, it'll be slightly different.

thanks
Mike

[Rick E Davis]

Another thought on the carrier decks, they saw a lot of abuse. It would be much like a "Car Shop Floor" with a lot of tire wear/marks, oil spills/leaks, and gasoline overflow. The few color images I have seen of carrier decks shows in places almost a "brown tint" to the deck. Depending on how long since a fresh coating had been applied, your model could have a different appearance. Plus they were wood and not steel. Paint/stain just didn't look the same because of the texture of the wood. Even if they had used the identical shade of coating, it would have looked slightly different.

[SeanF]

Regarding the hangar catapult:
I'm working on a Dragon early Essex at the moment, and there is no catapult track molded into the hangar floor. I'd like to portray it with the launch doors completely open, extensions lowered, and an Avenger posed in launch position. I've been looking through my reference books for a drawing of the hangar deck with the catapult track and extensions to get a sense of alignment, but have come up blank. The molding of the kit leaves the outriggers not directly in-line with each other (but I have seen a photo or two that indicates the outriggers are not exactly aligned with the catapult track anyway - and on that note, is the catapult fully perpendicular to the ship's centerline, or angled slightly forward toward the launching end?)
Would anyone know of a source for a plan-view drawing of the early-fit Essex-class hangar catapult?

Thanks much!

Sean F.

[Tracy White]

I don't have any plans of that - but be aware that if you are doing CV-9 herself she did not receive the hangar catapults at all. In fact, her flight deck H4 catapult wasn't ready in time either and she went to war with the earlier H2 that was fitted to the Yorktown class. The tracks were parallel though and not offset by much at all, so they should be perpendicular to the center line.

[SeanF]

I don't have any plans of that - but be aware that if you are doing CV-9 herself she did not receive the hangar catapults at all. In fact, her flight deck H4 catapult wasn't ready in time either and she went to war with the earlier H2 that was fitted to the Yorktown class. The tracks were parallel though and not offset by much at all, so they should be perpendicular to the center line.

Right, though I do recall someone on this thread (a long while back) saying that Essex herself did have the track in-place, just never received the actual catapult. But in this case I'm thinking of Wasp or Hornet, which did have the functioning catapult.

- Sean F.

[Dick J]

Right, though I do recall someone on this thread (a long while back) saying that Essex herself did have the track in-place, just never received the actual catapult. But in this case I'm thinking of Wasp or Hornet, which did have the functioning catapult.

I think you are recalling a post about the flightdeck cat. Essex commissioned without any cats, but did have the track in her flightdeck where, as Tracy said, they eventually installed an H-2. Lexington commission with only a flightdeck H-4 cat. CV's 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 & 18 commissioned with one H-4 on the flightdeck and one in the hangar. However, before she deployed, Franklin (CV-13) replaced her hangar cat with a second flightdeck unit. The rest of the class commissioned with two flightdeck cats and none in the hangar. Those later ships also had smaller openings inboard of their hangar level quad 40MM because the large port side catapult opening was no longer needed. The starboard opening remained because it had a crane for lifting aboard aircraft from piers and barges.

[SeanF]

Right, though I do recall someone on this thread (a long while back) saying that Essex herself did have the track in-place, just never received the actual catapult. But in this case I'm thinking of Wasp or Hornet, which did have the functioning catapult.

I think you are recalling a post about the flightdeck cat. Essex commissioned without any cats, but did have the track in her flightdeck where, as Tracy said, they eventually installed an H-2. Lexington commission with only a flightdeck H-4 cat. CV's 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 & 18 commissioned with one H-4 on the flightdeck and one in the hangar. However, before she deployed, Franklin (CV-13) replaced her hangar cat with a second flightdeck unit. The rest of the class commissioned with two flightdeck cats and none in the hangar. Those later ships also had smaller openings inboard of their hangar level quad 40MM because the large port side catapult opening was no longer needed. The starboard opening remained because it had a crane for lifting aboard aircraft from piers and barges.

Ah, that's right. Checked it again - your post, Dick, on October 24, 2014: Flight deck catapult track without catapult at time of commissioning.
And a note about those port-side doors: I'm in the midst of a multi-ship 1:700 build, and it seems that only Trumpeter picked up on that distinction - they have a separate part for the different door configurations. Dragon has the large opening molded-in to all their hulls, and Hasegawa has the small doors molded-in.

But back to the question: For the ones that did have the hangar catapult - has anyone seen plan-view drawings that can confirm alignment of the track and outriggers? (At the moment, I'm thinking that the Dragon kits might have the port-side outrigger too far aft. Easy fix, at least.)

- Sean F.

[Tracy White]

I've got a photo somewhere, but I'm at work and don't have it with me (it's of CV-11 as well). I have one of CV-12, but it was shot at knee level and all you can see is the catapult ramp and not the tracks at the top of it.

[SeanF]

Dick -
Back to that point about the Essex herself having a flight deck catapult track but no cat upon commissioning -
Do you know if the empty track was set up for the length of the H2 cat she eventually got, or the H-4 that was intended? And if the latter, would they have filled-in the extra length of track past the end of the shorter H-2? Just thinking that if they didn't, then visually there might not be any significant difference when modeling her - just where along the track the catapult cables should connect to an airplane if you wanted to portray a launch.

- Sean F.

[Dick J]

Unfortunately the "as commissioned" photos that I have are not high enough resolution to pin that one down. This photo from 1945 shows that the H-2 track stops short of the forward elevator:
https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 73816.html
unlike the H-4s in these two photos of Intrepid and Franklin:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021125.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021303.jpg
where the actual slot or the starboard cat goes back to the middle of the elevator and the hold-down point is even with the back edge of the elevator.