Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Erik W]

I had another question about CAG-7 on the Hancock in late '44, specifically VF-7. http://www.polish-aircraftprofile.stref ... cat_17.jpg Did VF-7 have a nickname (like VF-17 was know as "Jolly Rogers" for example)? I can't locate anything on the net.

Thanks,
Erik

[One-Oh-Four not logged in]

I had another question about CAG-7 on the Hancock in late '44, specifically VF-7. http://www.polish-aircraftprofile.stref ... cat_17.jpg Did VF-7 have a nickname (like VF-17 was know as "Jolly Rogers" for example)? I can't locate anything on the net.

Thanks,
Erik

According to this website it was "Lucky Seven". If it's historically correct or the nickname of the whole Air Group, I don't know.

http://www.wwiijeepparts.com/ForSaleSto ... ductId=138

On a different note: Maybe these pages are useful to you?

http://www.usshancockassociation.org/ww ... y-3.html#6 october 1944

http://www.usshancockassociation.org/ph ... album5.htm

Cheers,
Erik.

[Erik W]

I had another question about CAG-7 on the Hancock in late '44, specifically VF-7. http://www.polish-aircraftprofile.stref ... cat_17.jpg Did VF-7 have a nickname (like VF-17 was know as "Jolly Rogers" for example)? I can't locate anything on the net.

Thanks,
Erik

According to this website it was "Lucky Seven". If it's historically correct or the nickname of the whole Air Group, I don't know.

http://www.wwiijeepparts.com/ForSaleSto ... ductId=138

On a different note: Maybe these pages are useful to you?

http://www.usshancockassociation.org/ww ... y-3.html#6 october 1944

http://www.usshancockassociation.org/ph ... album5.htm

Cheers,
Erik.

Erik,

Thanks for the info. That's what I was looking for. I'd already found the Hancock Association pages, but the first link you posted is new to me.

Erik

[drdoom1337]

If I were trying to build a Bunker Hill in either early (January/Feb) or late (November) 1944, what 1/700 kit would be the most recommended to get the island and radar configuration correct?

[Mark McKinnis]

I would go with the Essex(I like the DML kit) for Dec 1944 and older, the DML Lexington for Jan 1945 on. I think that her radar suite was different than Essex and lexington so check photo's for the corect configuration.

[Tracy White]

Actually, I think the CV-12 kit (7085) would be a better start. I haven't found any really good shots of the radar suite yet, but it looks fairly close (mounts and pedestals in the right place, if the antennas themselves aren't, so you'd only need to swap the antennas around instead of scratch-building new platforms, etc.

[Erik W]

While we're talking about the Bunker Hill, a question for Tracy, do your lists of aircraft on a particular ship at a particular time have the actual aircraft numbers on the fusilage? If so, I was curious if you had the aircraft numbers for the 6 F6F-5Ps that were on the Bunker Hill in February 1945. I know from photos that 134,135 and I think 138 were 3 of them. Anyway, just thought I'd ask.

Thanks,
Erik

[Tracy White]

No, unfortunately. I think that would take looking through the actual logs generated by the ship, and I'm not sure which logs those would be and if they survive today.

[drdoom1337]

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/021604.jpg

I saw this photo on the navsource site and I am curious if there was actually any radar suite on Lex during trails? I am unable to tell with the smoke coming from the stacks, but it looks like no radar has been installed yet? Or perhaps the photo was just edited? I thought it was cool to see an Essex in the snow

[Dick J]

The lack of radar is entirely possible. Radar was classed as "government furnished equipment", and was more often than not, only installed after the builder turned the ship over to the navy.

[drdoom1337]

The lack of radar is entirely possible. Radar was classed as "government furnished equipment", and was more often than not, only installed after the builder turned the ship over to the navy.

That's the assumption that I was under, however it does look like there is a lattice structure there after blowing the picture up in photoshop. I'm not sure what to think.

[Tracy White]

I'll try and look tonight; I think I have a high-res shot at home from Ron Smith.

[keithhufnagel]

In the "Detail and Scale" book USS Lexington, vol. 29, by Bert Kinzey, for this photo (Feb. 17,1943) he states "There is little in the way of radar antennas on the superstructure." Hope this helps!

[drdoom1337]

Well that does clear up the assumption a bit, but still there is somewhat of a lattice structure there. Obviously a SK radar isn't mounted, but something still could be hidden by the smoke? I guess I could always model the ship with a smoke puff and not have to worry about controversy.

[Tracy White]

Sorry, I keep on forgetting to look when I get home... I'll try again tonight.

[keithhufnagel]

This particular photo shows the formast, mainmast, FC director (bodies), SK platform (starboard), ships horn (portside funnel level) and 5 radio antenna. Apparently the SK, the SC (on mainmast), SG unit and the SP on foremast have not been installed as well as the FC antennas on the director tops. The SG units were moved around quite a bit from shakedown, shakedown modifications, and finally through sailing for and from Pearl Harbor in 1943. She also appears not to have added the 2 40MM mounts on the starboard quarter yet as they seem to have been either a post shakedown or Pearl Harbor addition. Hope this helps!

[Michael Vorrasi]

This particular photo shows the formast, mainmast, FC director (bodies), SK platform (starboard), ships horn (portside funnel level) and 5 radio antenna. Apparently the SK, the SC (on mainmast), SG unit and the SP on foremast have not been installed as well as the FC antennas on the director tops. The SG units were moved around quite a bit from shakedown, shakedown modifications, and finally through sailing for and from Pearl Harbor in 1943. She also appears not to have added the 2 40MM mounts on the starboard quarter yet as they seem to have been either a post shakedown or Pearl Harbor addition. Hope this helps!

All the outboard quad mounts (as Tom Walkowiak called them years ago) were installed after Panama Canal transit. Essex class clearances were very tight. If you ever look at photos of Franklin CV-13 returning to NYC, you will see all of the outboard mounts have been stripped off. That was done to allow her eastbound transit. Once these outboard mounts were installed, the ship was going to stay in the Pacific for an extended period, barring extraordinary circumstances such as Franklin's.

[Dick J]

The starboard quarter quad 40MM were not installed on the first three Essex class ships upon commissioning. They were added, in the "inboard" position as part of the post-shakedown overhaul. Only after the ships received the 5 "outboard" quads (the three below the island, and the two at flightdeck level on the port side aft) were the sponsons added and the starboard quarter mounts extended outboard. Of course Intrepid, as usual, did it in a non-standard way, extending only the forward starboard quarter mount when the other outboards were added. The other one was extended during one of the (many) repairs.

As Mike indicated, ships with the extended quads could not transit the Panama Canal. After the first three ships, a number of Essex's commissioned with the starboard quarter quads in the inboard position. However, after a time, they stopped doing this, knowing that the guns would installed as part of the outboard package added after the ships reached the Pacific.

[lisec]

Hello gents! Could use a help with a model i`m making, Hancock. Basically, im a bit puzzled about its camo Measure she wore after the Okinawa damage. As i read in a document from January i think, she was to be painted in Ms 12, is there any circumstantial or a good evidence she did receive it? If not, what Ms should i make it after June/July? I read about revised colors for the measures, so what versions(of colors) should it, or most likely been as there are not a lot of photos of Han?
Thank you in advance!

[denstore]

Two quick questions. I have tried to go trough the complete thread today, so I'm a bit wobbly at the moment...
My plan is to build two 1/350 Essex-class carriers. As usual, I care more about how they look than what or when they did something. So, I would like to do one short hull, and one long hull. One in 32/3a and one in 33/10a. Possibly a Measure 22, but that is definitly not my first choice...
I have the Essex and Ticonderoga kits.
Would it be possible to do Intrepid in 32/3a from the Essex, and Ticonderoga as she is in 33/10a? Hancock as Measure 22?

Anything on these kits that is in dire need to be updated or changed?