Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Tracy White]

Tracy, does it mean that starboard cat of USS Essex was different in size (shorter ?) then standard H4B of other ships of the class

a-yup. I've managed to determine that there is some misinformation out there. Common knowledge is that Essex was delivered without catapults. This is true, but photos dated December of '42 show that they were prepared for one as a track is visible. So the catapult gear wasn't there, but you can't tell that by looking at the deck. Departure reports I have for her show that the H2 went in in April/May of 1943. Departure reports for her April '44 overhaul list no work done on her catapults. There were two H4s in storage for her at Puget Sound starting about the fall of that year for her next overhaul period, lending more credence to this notion. Finally, photos I have of her in 1949 show ONE track of the same configuration as the December '42 photos.

I don't have the exact lengths with me but the H2 was shorter than the H4Bs. The H4As used on the hangar deck were about the same length as the H2s though, so it's important to distinguish between the H4A and H4B

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:23 am Post subject:
Hi guys, thanks for the great advice.

BTW Tony they look great...

I wander if installing in the plastic provided turrets would be any more difficult.

To save a few bucks I was thinking of buying just one resin dual turrets set, and use resin for the 2 lower turrets (with cupolas), and the plastic Trumpy ones for the 2 superfiring ones (that should not have cupolas on top, right ?).

Don't forget that that the others had quad 40s overhead. I'll double check my CV-13 photos but I think CV-17, for example, had them on all of them. I have good enough shots of CVs 13 and 14 though that I should be able to answer your question later... probably not tonight as I'll be researching until late at night.

[Tracy White]

OK, quick survey from my 1945 shots
CV-13 had the blast hoods on #1 and 4 but not 2 & 3
CV-14 is the same
CV-16 has them on 1, 3, and 4 but *not* #2
CV-17 has them on all four of the dual 5" mounts.

So clearly, your milage may vary and you should check your (my hehe) resources)

[Tracy White]

Spent a little bit more time looking over photos.
CV-17 starts 1945 with four blast hoods. She ends it with three.
After her May 1945 Kamikaze hit she goes back to Puget Sound for a refit and emerges later with the Mk 51 that was on a pedastal between the #2 mount and the island relocated to a platform on the island... and the second mount's blast hood missing. This appears to be an arrangement that was pioneered on CV-16 as she had something similar when she came out of refit in May of '45.

[Adaks]

I don't have the exact lengths with me but the H2 was shorter than the H4Bs. The H4As used on the hangar deck were about the same length as the H2s though, so it's important to distinguish between the H4A and H4B

Meanwhile I have found a good photo of USS Essex that confirms your answer.



H2 is shorter then H4B, comparing with position of bow elevator.

Thanks

[Devin]

Oh, that's a nice photo! Have those in Atlanta seen this?

-Devin

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Tracy,
thanks for the info about the blast hoods .

I have a serious doubt about the way in which Trumpeter chose to render the additional 2 sponsons located aft stbd side (for CV13, but also for CV10).
If one mounts the Trumpeter parts OOB the 2 added sponsons are at a noticeably higher level than the hangar deck level.

From this OOB build it seems like AA crew had to climb a fairly high (more than one foot) "step" in order to get from the deck area around the added clipping rooms to the sponsons.

I have no photos or plan of the area but this solution does not look logical to me .
I would have rather expected the flooring of the added sponsons to be at the same level than hangar deck.
In your expert opinion are Trumpeter parts correct in this respect ?
Besides the same solution was chosen for the 40 mm tubs at extreme bow and stern, I have a little doubt for them too.

A little progress report on my builds.
Besides repairing the damages I had made to hull flanks to get decently shaped elevator supports (BTW it was worth it they look much better after the treatment), I spent a few days in drilling/filing rough holes for the gallery archways.
For the squared openings I am plugging inside short segments of square Evergreen tubing.
That procedure results in neat openings with nice square angles (that I am incapable to obtain by filing alone).
The disadvantage is that the hole is noticeably smaller than in scale dimensions of the openings.
Larger evergreen tubing would not fit, unfortunately.

For arch shaped passages I have opened the rough holes all the way down.
By so doing I will be able to put small strips of thin sheet styrene inside, plugging them in such a way that the strips will bend to form the upper arch and nice sraight flanks (again to put a remedy on my limited filing skills).
of course I had holed the gallery bulwark in the positions given by the Warship perspective book.
The same book has a nice side pic of Ticonderoga before commisioning, with the 20 mm gallery aft of the lateral elevator in good sight.
To me it looks like at least CV14 had a few more openings that is provided for in the diagram.. May be taht varied a little from ship to ship ?
Or may be beetween short vs. long hulled ships ?

The modelling community needs your book more than ever...

In the hangars I will limit myself to the suggestion/examples you already gave us.
I just already added a little touch.
The inboard structers below the island (exhaust pipes and nearby structures) are moulded too "short" by Trumpeter.
If one puts the flight deck on top, and then looks inside the hangar, one would see a noticeable gap there, on top of those structures.

Unacceptable since we know in reality those structure raised from below uninterrupted.
Of course in the real ship, we also know a gallery deck level was there.
My ideal would be to replicate that deck level underside, but I am afraid that is beyond my skills, documents and modelling time.

So just to quickly reduce the visual impact of the problem I raised the inner contour of those structures by adding little square evergreen strips all along.
I had 1 mm strips at hand, but unfortunately that size stops a little short too.
2 mms will be too much. 1,5 should be perfect.

Tracy, I noticed on the ACB site the little sponson you added to your CV13 build, (the one where the hangar cat has to be removed).

I would like to do the same to my CV13 (BTW, for CV14, from the book I have, she seems to have had a much smaller foldable platform there, with a few short supporting "stiffeners" outboard...) .
If I am not spoiling too much your book, could you please let me know the exact measures you used for the styrene piece you added ?
I roughly figured them out from the pic you posted there, but exact measures (especially thickness) would be so much better.
Thanks in advance.

Ciao Tracy, ciao all

Yours
Luca

[Tracy White]

From this OOB build it seems like AA crew had to climb a fairly high (more than one foot) "step" in order to get from the deck area around the added clipping rooms to the sponsons.

You're correct that this isn't correct but it was the easiest way to do the add-ons. The instruction sheet also shows two holes in this area that are used to align one of these mounts on the CV-9 kit but doesn't say anything about NOT using them so it confuses a lot of people. Trumpeter missed two 20mms that were added in the area of those holes too.

To me it looks like at least CV14 had a few more openings that is provided for in the diagram.. May be taht varied a little from ship to ship ? Or may be beetween short vs. long hulled ships ?

Roller doors were pretty standard, although the long hulls had FEWER ones port side forward where the hangar cat came out on the short hulls. You can see the difference in this photo:

The Trumpeter Tico (and probably Hancock) kits have this new piece.

The inboard structers below the island (exhaust pipes and nearby structures) are moulded too "short" by Trumpeter.
If one puts the flight deck on top, and then looks inside the hangar, one would see a noticeable gap there, on top of those structures.

They're actually the correct height; what is missing is the structrure UNDER the flight deck that filled this space; mainly air crew ready rooms
and other offices. The "problem" I'm finding with this is that the inside of the ships changed as much as the outside, only there's much less photo documentation of this!

So I will be able to offer at best a combination of many ships and time periods.. not perfect but better than anything else we've had.

I would like to do the same to my CV13 (BTW, for CV14, from the book I have, she seems to have had a much smaller foldable platform there, with a few short supporting "stiffeners" outboard...) .

I don't have exact measurements at this point but I'll try and get some to you soon. I made that based off of CV-13 plans I bought from Floating Drydock and reduced down... cut the deck and then just sorta made everything else look right. I haven't gone back yet and figured out the measurements for the pieces.

[Werner]

Tracy, wouldn't the two Anatomy of the ship books help? The gallery deck layout would at least tell us where the full overhead has been taken away to make gallery deck space.

[Jose Chaica]

... two Anatomy of the ship books...

Are there 2 AOS books on the Essex class carrier ??????? I only know the one on INTREPID. Which is the other one ???

.

[Werner]

It's called "The Essex Class Carriers" ISBN 0-87021-021-1 and covers WW.II, SCB-27 and SCB-125.

Some of the plans:

Essex 8/43
Randolph late '44
Lexington May '45
Kearsarge 7/54 - SCB 27A
Antietam 1954 w/prototype angled deck
Intrepid 1969/70 SCB-27C/125
Oriskany 1975 SCB 125A

Alst TA-30 & T80 tractors in plan and perspective plus the usual assortment of fittings and so on.

I also have plan books for Intrepid published for the 1976 celebrations when she was open (I think at Philadelphia), Lexington in her final rig published at NAS Pensacola, Yorktown and a few more I forget at the moment.

All told, I think there are about 25 Essex publications in my library, most of which have plans. Many have unique photos.

I'm sure it is tiny compared to Tracy's haul, though.

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Tracy,

so I will have to pop those 2 added sponsons off again.

I guess is taking me longer to undo errors/inaccuracies (in areas I had taken for granted,shame on me) than actually building the models.

Anyway, correcting that error should not be too difficult.
I am planning to cut off the excess part (the area that overlaps the hangar deck OOB).
Just lowering the sponsons would not work , since one would get the external spray shields too low.
What I am planning of doing is to stuff bondo metal putty inside the sponsons (to give strength to the flooring, just in case); redrill the positioning holes deep enough in the putty, sand down the flooring (most of the 1 mm needed) and for the other bit just mount the sponson a little lower.
A little sanding of the sponson underside and of spray shields edges on top should give the whole thing a nice effect.

Now I am almost certain the sponsons at extreme bow and stern suffer the same problem.

One could take a similar approach to the stern sponson too, (it takes a little more stomach there ).

At the bow I am very skeptical.

When I first built OOB the CV10 I tought that the piece that represents the single tub structure at the bow for short hulled ships was raised by Trumpeter on purpose and not for ease of casting/building.
I tought may be real ships had this area raised to let some chains slide under it.

Then I saw the different rendition for the dual tub on the CV14 kit.

No space to slide anything under there. Just a piece that seems to have been added on top for ease of casting/building.
Now that would be difficult to correct .

BTW Tracy, I hope the inaccuracies we are talking about are among the 80 groups you discovered already, are not they ?

If there are even more, I'll definitely pause the building and wait for your book.

After all I have a Trumpeter North Carolina to build.
Better start a thread first and ask for competent advice beforehand, tough. I could discover some 80 plus inaccuracies also there

May be I should begin building the Iowa + Missouri diorama instead.
Or the Nimitz, or the CV6 + CV8.

Now you can all understand why I never seem to be able to finish a project for good. Am I getting just plain crazy ?


Ciao and grazie mille.

Yours

Luca

[Luca Bevilacqua]

Hi Tracy, hi all guys

Tracy wrote

Trumpeter missed two 20mms that were added in the area of those holes too

Tracy, are you talking about the Cv9 Essex alone ?

What about my 2 babies ?

CV13 box art (1945) shows a dual tub just around there and I seem to remember to having read (from you ? ) that in fact CV13 had those 2 as well.
But were they still there in 1945 ?
If so with the added 40 mms and clipping rooms it would have made for a very crowded area.

The few pic I have for Cv14 do not seem to show those 2 20 mms.

If those 20 mms were there (for any of my ships) I guess I could put to work some (spare ?) tubs Trumpeter provided me with.
If I remember correctly the CV13 instructions have the modeller to not put the 2 dual 20 mm tubs at stern hanging below the flight deck (as instead is the case for Tico), even if the deck piece (same of CV10) as the insert moulded.
If those are really not necessary (you may have guessed I am not trusting Trumpeter any more) for the CV13 in 1945, I could use them (after some surgery) to add the missing tub in the before mentioned area.

Ciao and as usual thanks for everything
Yours
Luca

BTW Tracy I did not made myself clear enough, I was referring to (may be) missing archways not roller doors, in the diagram provided in teh Warship perspective book.
My error was useful tough, the shot you posted is great and shows some tubing and detail the Trumpeter part lacks.

Just one curiosity at this point was the Tom's resin model any better in this respect ?
Guys thanks to you (Tracy first of course) this is getting seriously funny.

Ciao again

[Tracy White]

Meanwhile I have found a good photo of USS Essex that confirms your answer.

Just so everyone knows of it that photo is from the USS Essex Association Website. Worth visiting!

I'm sure it is tiny compared to Tracy's haul, though.

I actually wouldn't be too sure about that. I've got the AOTS Intrepid book, the Essex Class Carriers by Raven, Friedman's US Aircraft Carriers, Arnold's Warship Perspectives: Essex Class Carriers in WWII, and Classic Warship's CV-14 Ticonderoga book. That's it for specialized books. I've got others that happen to show shots of Essex class carriers but they're the generalized WWII or "WWII in color" books.

I do, however, have about 40 gigs of scanned in documentation on my computer from Seattle NARA and College Park. Not all of it is on Essex class carriers, maybe at best half. But these are things like departure reports that list work that was done... boring but good for detail once you compile all the data. Ron Smith has sent me a bunch of scanned in pictures that I paid him to scan in for me; mostly Record Group 80-G and 19.

Back to your comment about the books showing overheads. I looked and they're of SOME help but not much. There are plans for CV-16 /45 in the Raven book and Intrepid in the AOTS book (undated, but generally in her "as comissioned" fit). While the Lex drawings have areas marked off in the overhead for drop tank storage, I don't have any official description of HOW this was done late war. I've got photos from mid-war on her documenting drop tanks (posted earlier in this thread but was this changed when the new areas were added or was this additional space?

The documentation about work performed is often vague about things done inside the hangar bay; "added lockers as outlined by XYZ letter" (which is missing) and stuff like that. You can see that a lot of work was done to change the hangar bays but often not enough to speak authoritively about what a modeler should do.

Just one curiosity at this point was the Tom's resin model any better in this respect?

What do you think the Trumpeter kit was based on? You'll note a Tom's logo on the side of the Trumpeter box!

Tracy, are you talking about the Cv9 Essex alone ? What about my 2 babies?

No, I'm not referring specifically to Essex herself. I've been trying to find a good clear shot of these guns but nothing so far yet that gives enough detail.

Tony: Good luck! I forgot to mention that mine had a little mismatch between the top and bottom hull. Chopping one of the forward braces fixed it.

[Tracy White]

OK, common knowledge for the Essex class in WWII that the long hulls started out with a short deck but that it was extended to the original length on Tico and Randolph before they hit the pacific. Hancock was the only one to go to war with the short deck.

What if I said that there was a MIDDLE deck length?

I was working on some papers concerning Ticonderoga's January 21, 1945 dual Kamikaze hit and subsequent rebuild at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. I'll have her damage report posted at some point but I'm busy enough that it's slow going... I just finished the shipyard's 18 page report and have yet to start on the ship's 10 page report. But I digress....

CV12/C-L9-3/(70-4) was a letter dated Feb 14, 1945 concerning requested alterations to be carried out during repair. The very first item listed is "Extend flight deck 7' aft, as authorized by CNO Conf ltr Op-23-V-DC serial 0455423(SC) CV/S1-1 of 28 July 1944."

I should say that these serial numbers and file codes are something one has to become familiar with if doing serious research....

OK, so I don't have the departure reports for Tico for this "availability period." (as they called overhaul) I do have pictures taken afterwards however. I've also got the Classic Warships Ticonderoga book. It has two photos on page 27 of Tico after the Kamikaze hits... clearly visible are the two corner Mk 51 directors which were moved up to the corners of the flight decks when these ships had them lengthened (Randolph had them as well as the other regular decked long hulls).

ALSO clearly visible are the rear 20mm galleries that are hanging from the rear of the flight deck. These were only on the first two ships (Essex and Yorktown) and were removed before either went to war because they vibrated excessively. But when they shortened the decks they decided to add them back, so Hancock and Tico had them with the short deck.

The fact that I can see a regular forward deck and the short deck galleries in that photo, with the request to lengthen the aft deck, makes me pretty confident that Tico had a THIRD configuration with a medium length deck. Important detail for builders of the Ticonderoga. Good news is that this is completely compatible with the parts Nautilus has. They're next on my list to notify.

[ddp]

check this link http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm ... SS%20Boxer

[Tracy White]

check this link http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm ... SS%20Boxer

Why?

By the way guys, I picked up the 700th Ticonderoga today. 350th Hancock was at the shop as well but I can't afford her at this point.

Also, I added links to all of the essex class models in the gallery on my first post on the first page of this thread

[Timmy C]

Yay! I'm famous!!!


*Goes to check out what happned between 20 and 31*

*Finds out there's CV-21* Tracy you missed one!!!

*Finds out they didn't start a new number roll for CVLs*

[Tracy White]

Ah, but CV-21 didn't fight in WWII!

I should have annotated it better, but that list is merely the WWII models. Missing are the later versions, which are mainly done in odd scales.

[Timmy C]

Curses, foiled again!

[Tracy White]

Naw, you got me, I Didn't include it, regardless of the reason.