lvsquarerigger wrote:
So we are still left with nothing definitive but it seems the guesses and lucky pics here and there are what we have to live with. Still, it's more than what we had before so there is some progress even if it's only a little.
James
James -
Not sure what you mean by "nothing definitive" or little progress. I have seen several pictures that I think it is reasonable to say do confirm what the PHNY changes were - and that they are as documented in the drawing Steve Wiper published in WP-33. I have made my case about the drawing's authenticity elsewhere above, as has Steve Wiper. Even though we don't have the whole ship in pristine shape, those photo glimpses confirm what the drawing says. I saw no contradictions for that matter where something in a photo was different than the drawing. Therefore I think it is reasonable to infer that the other changes documented in the drawing were done as the drawing documents - even on the parts of the ship we have not yet seen, and may not ever see due to the massive destruction. The Flag Plot changes show up as partially complete in the PHNY photo posted a ways back with the barges in the foreground. In the same photo, the upper forward pair of twin 1.1" mounts show them arranged fore and aft as in the drawing, though not the shape of the forward end of the bulwark. Seeing the bulwarks for the after three 1.1" mounts certainly makes the case pretty strongly the shape (rounded end) is the same on the forward two pairs even without a photo (yet). Why would it be different? The picture of the bulwark on the 1.1" mount just aft of the stack has the same unique teardrop shape as the drawing does. How many bulwarks shaped like that have you seen? Not many I'd bet. Back to the Flag Plot changes, they are documented (including the rangefinder location on top) in the drawing. Finally, most of one of the 20MM swing-up platforms placed in some boat pockets shows in the ninth picture from the top above. And one key detail in the drawing and further clarified on page 70 of WP-33 is that the platforms are sectional, not one continuous unit. Each gun mount and splinter shield swings upward separately - probably due to the weight (each 20MM mount itself weighs ~1600 Lbs). The picture shows the platform is indeed split between each pair of 20MM mounts.
We may have gotten the most info we will ever get, but I think it brings us really close.
One thing I have wondered for some time is where did the idea of the 1.1" "cattle pens" shape come from. I have never seen a photo that clearly confirms the rectangular shape, nor any drawing. I think I know that answer based on a conversation I had by e-mail last week with someone I thought would know for sure. That answer was that there was no documentation upon which that shape was based. It was just an assumption - as many have made including me - that the quickest way to do the job was to use flat plates in a rectangular shape.
Tracy (not the person I e-mailed) has posted correspondence that shows the Yard had at least a week to ten days to work before LEX's arrival and they fabricated as much as possible in advance of the ship's actual arrival to expedite the work when she did arrive. (That's the Navy way.) The grease pen / paint markings which show in the pictures above on some of the newly installed components, are like the part numbers on a plastic model sprue to identify a specific part so that assembly would be as quick as possible. With plenty of lead time, the actual shape could be more like then-current USN standards (don''t the rounded bulwarks just look right?) rather than Civil War-era Gunboat iron plate chic.
Honestly, I think we have really got a lot of the puzzle filled in. Opposing points of view respected, but please make them with data.
Hi John. By definitive I meant a clear photo of any specific item under discussion. It seems it's always off in the background,the pic at Pearl behind the barge, the battle shots obscured by smoke or at the wrong angle to show the detail we want. For instance the flag deck extension in the pic behind the barge is a framework but not filled in. In the photo of her steaming after the first torpedo attack the flag bridge is not clear as to whether it's open or closed at the front but the FC radar is clearly visible.
As to the fold up 20mm platforms I used that same detail to make my pockets mount above the deck instead of flush but did not really see that they were separate sections. When I looked at it again the delineation is there along with that obvious word platforms at the bottom. So I agree we do have much evidence of what was done but in some areas not concrete. It suits me but I'm anal by nature and just picky.
Tracy White wrote:Sheridan hasn't been active in message boards since maybe 2003-2004, I think. I remember my first trip to NARA II in College park in 2005 and Don Montgomery was there by chance looking for the negative of that same photo to see if it was any "larger" than the print (i.e. was the print cropped at all?) for Steve. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
Tracy -
John has been doing model related work for the same Railroad Historical Society to which I belong. ("Hysterical" Society to some who don't like details and historical research to verify things such as what we are doing here.)
John
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
lvsquarerigger wrote:
Hi John. By definitive I meant a clear photo of any specific item under discussion. It seems it's always off in the background,the pic at Pearl behind the barge, the battle shots obscured by smoke or at the wrong angle to show the detail we want. For instance the flag deck extension in the pic behind the barge is a framework but not filled in. In the photo of her steaming after the first torpedo attack the flag bridge is not clear as to whether it's open or closed at the front but the FC radar is clearly visible.
As to the fold up 20mm platforms I used that same detail to make my pockets mount above the deck instead of flush but did not really see that they were separate sections. When I looked at it again the delineation is there along with that obvious word platforms at the bottom. So I agree we do have much evidence of what was done but in some areas not concrete. It suits me but I'm anal by nature and just picky.
James
James
Being "picky" doesn't make you a bad guy. Many of us here want to "get it right", perhaps to somewhat different levels of "right". My personal view is that we've always had good pictures and plans sufficient to do a creditable model of LEX up to about mid-March 1942. The work done at PHNY just before the 15 April 1942 departure was in question, however. But we've pretty much had the baseline - how she looked upon entry to PHNY - as the starting point. Diligent work by folks on this site have filled in some things here, some things there describing the changes. The Flag Plot area is pretty clear in the famous shot of LEX down by the bow after the torpedo hits. Finally, Steve Wiper's WP-33 helped wrap up, in my view, the likely changes. The pictures from PETREL showed agreement in those pictures taken of areas were the PHNY work was performed. For me, there was sufficient correlation with the drawing that, again in my view, I find authentic for me to feel comfortable to continue my build of LEX. I respect that others may not quite be willing to pull the pin on that grenade. But I would think most people probably think that with the wreck exploration we pretty much have close to enough information. It would be great if we got the photos of the completed work referenced in one the Naval letters Tracy found. But I think the likelihood of any photos we uncover after this point showing something different or even radically different is very small. I could be wrong. But I am proceeding under the assumption there's little chance of things changing. Put another way, we have photographic samples of parts of the drawing and they all seem to agree with each other. What is the chance that some areas not photographically sampled will be different? Not much I believe.
Being an engineer by training, we were always taught to be meticulous in our calculations and double check the results. Be picky in other words. We also learned as a result of practical experience when to quit and accept the results as "close enough". One can calculate to ten decimal places. Many times an answer to one decimal place is way good enough.
John
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
They have now posted images of the bridge. The one where they are speculating "5 inch gun directors" is actually the top of the 8" spotting level. You can see the 8" director and the base/lower framework for the MK-3 radar.
Jon C Ryckert wrote:https://i.imgur.com/iyk6YQN.png[/
Trying to post a pic of the 1.1 gun sponson. Hope this link works.
I wish they had gone a bit lower, showing how it faired into the hull. Note that the rounded outboard extension of the tub was bolted, not welded, just as we had speculated earlier.
Ok. Here are more. I first photoshopped them to lighten them and show more detail. Some of them I rotated on my computer, not the photoshop so don't know if they post that way until I post. Oh well. Nope they didn't rotate .
James
Attachments
Where the bridge broke off
Port side of the bridge
The starboard side of the bridge
The top of the 8" director platform. The base of the FC radar is clearly visible
Looks like the enclosure for the flag bridge was destroyed when she sank. In the photo labeled "starboard side of the bridge" you can see the windows of the navigation bridge, and the original enclosed flag bridge above (to the right in the photo) that.
Martin
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne
I Was looking at this photo and noticed that there was a door on the side of the housing. Anything I had seen previous had the doors on the back of the housing. To put a door there would mean changing the deck or making the housing narrower. I looked at my bridge and am not sure how to proceed.
Any thoughts?
James
Got the books and plans out and was thinking and trying to figure out what had been done when it dawned on me I was turned around. Looked at the struts and realized I was looking at the back not the side so a lot of fuss for nothing.
MartinJQuinn wrote:Looks like the enclosure for the flag bridge was destroyed when she sank. In the photo labeled "starboard side of the bridge" you can see the windows of the navigation bridge, and the original enclosed flag bridge above (to the right in the photo) that.
I am not sure that the modified bridge was exactly what some of us are thinking it was. The remaining deckhouse on the flagbridge level that you can see in that new photo was not original. That deckhouse was extended forward in her final Pearl Harbor mod and displaced the rangefinder to the top of the new structure. The deck edge bulwark was extended around the front of the new deckhouse and everyone assumes that the open walkway was enclosed with a glassed in structure. But what I see in James Noblin's photo is an awning, possibly steel, supported with a few thin posts. I am not convinced that more was added after his photo was taken. Obviously such a light structure would tear away during the sinking, let alone the explosions that marked Lexington's end. Some photos of the ship taken before the combat seem to indicate that the roof in that section did not extend fully out to the outer lower bulkhead on the sides, so I question the side-to-side glassed in structure depicted in the Trumpy kit.
I took the high res photo of Lex after the first torpedo attack and cropped and lightened it. With the higher exposure you can see the front of the flag bridge cabin and the walkway around the front. That was how I had done mine but after the pics here I started to change it so the cabin went all the way forward. Now it seems I had done it right and now have to do it over again. Imagine that?
In this Navsource photo, does it look like the roof over the front of the flag bridge extends all the way out to the edge of the walkway bulwark? http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/0202ah.jpg
The "as modified" drawings in Steve Wiper's book show the faceted front to the flag bridge deckhouse seen in the new photo. The drawings don't reference the walkway being enclosed. Perhaps less was lost than some are thinking.
lvsquarerigger wrote:Anything I had seen previous had the doors on the back of the housing.
I think that is the back.
That looks like both tripod legs on the left of the picture.
Bob
Agreed - that is the back.
Martin
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne
I went back and edited my post to give my aha moment when I realized I was turned around but the reason for this post is more pics from Petrel and this time of aircraft. The thing for me is they have quite a few tbds and it's possible my dad flew in one of them. I don't know for sure as the copy of his service record only says torpedo squadron two and later unit six when he was on Sara. Does anyone know of a listing of air crew and planes?
This is just an emotional communication with everyone here. I viewed the aircraft pics from Petrel and thought "Gee, my dad could have been flying in one of these aircraft". After my reaction this morning I think one of them is his plane, I'm drawn to the two upside ones together, and I've been a wreck all morning. All I want to do is cry. So I do think he flew one of these but thought to share my reaction, and also release some of what I'm experiencing.
James, I think everyone can understand your emotional connection with the history of that ship after seeing the pics it and aircraft after 76 years. Have you thought about contacting some of the folks that have posted on Petrels Facebook page. A couple seem to be very knowledgeable about the Lex's Devastators and their aircrew. Just a thought
Followed up on your idea and look what I found in the comments:
Mark Horan Ummm ... Joe Taylor was VT-5 ... VT-2 T-1, assuming the CO got his bird, was Lt.Cdr. James Henry Brett, USNA28, Duncan F. Hallock, AOM2c, and Albert D. Hensley, ARM1c.
This is his plane when he was on the Lex. Thank you so much.
