Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[MartinJQuinn]

The flight deck blue was the Norfolk 250N blue stain yes?

No, they switched to a different formula: #21 Flight Deck Stain

[Tracy White]

And for clarification, if you're using Colourcoats, you want #21 Flight Deck Stain, but it just occured to me that I'm not sure which of the two it represents.

[benjamin.marn]

I see, I'll have to check if I have #21 flight deck stain or not. As for whether or not it is the 1945 revised version or not I'll have to email Sovereign Hobbies. Shipcamouflage.com says that the revised #21 flight deck stain was identical to 20-B deck blue when new, and I am making USS Boxer when she was new after all. If the #21 flight deck stain offered by Colourcoats is the 1944 version, I can either use 20-B deck blue, do a 50:50 mix of the 1944 #21 and the 20-B deck blue, or very simply just use the 1944 version of the flight deck stain. One more paint question, Colourcoats offers two antifouling reds for the US navy, one called USN antifouling red which I believe is for modern, or at least post WWII, USN ships, and then there's Norfolk 65A antifouling red. The anti-fouling paint would've been the Norfolk 65A antifouling red, yes?

[SovereignHobbies]

Hi,

according to my Snyder & Short US Navy chips there's only one Flight Deck Stain 21 chip (which Colourcoats US11 is matched to) with a foot note on the card saying:

2. In 1944 Flight Deck Stain 21 was changed to match Revised Deck Blue

[Tracy White]

Thanks James.

Given that, I'd probably go with 20-B for the flight deck but change it a touch to give the wood a different appearance. Given the oil dripping and blowing off the exhausts, rubber from tires and shoes, I'd tend to darken it just a touch as when you look at color pictures of wooden decks they tend to look dark.

Norfolk 65 is essentially called out in the 1943 painting and cementing guide online at ShipCamouflage.com so that's a pretty easy choice.

[benjamin.marn]

Hi,

according to my Snyder & Short US Navy chips there's only one Flight Deck Stain 21 chip (which Colourcoats US11 is matched to) with a foot note on the card saying:

2. In 1944 Flight Deck Stain 21 was changed to match Revised Deck Blue

So the flight deck will just be revised 20-B deck blue then, thanks for the info!

[benjamin.marn]

Okay so it turns out I actually do have one more paint question. What were ceiling surfaces painted? specifically I am talking about where the flight deck overhangs the bow and stern but the interior of the hangar would be good to know as well. I still haven't decided if I am portraying Boxer with hangar doors opened or closed yet, on the one hand they appear to have been usually open but on the other hand depicting them open means filling many many more ejector pin marks, at least on the trumpeter Hancock and Ticonderoga kits, which I understand is the only 1/350 long hull Essex's available.

[Tracy White]

Overheads at that point would have been the same as vertical surfaces. Earlier in the war, Dazzle schemes would have called for white as part of counter-shading, but this was canceled by February of 1945 (Second page, 4 (A).

Also, overheads in the hangar (along with bulkheads) would have been white. Bulkheads around the elevators would have been the same as vertical surfaces with a six-foot band around the top so that they could do engine run ups in the dark.

[benjamin.marn]

Okay so next question, what would you all say is the best 1/350 photo etch set for my Boxer model? In particular I'd like to get the things like the correct type of radar, FCS directors, etc that Boxer had as commissioned but knowing what the best all around set would be just as nice to know. Thanks to everyone who has been answering all of my questions, by the way.

[Tracy White]

It depends on how much you want to put in to it and what results you want. Boxer was a long hull, but had her flight deck "restored" to the original length versus the first three had a mixture of shorter deck configurations. Trumpeter repackaged their CV-14 Ticonderoga and CV-19 Hancock kits with the same parts (maybe a couple of small radar details; can't remember for sure) but they're both short flight decks (Tico had a couple of different configurations during the war) and have some incorrect details for any instance of an Essex class.

Your "best" bet may be a Pontos set, but I'd need to look over parts and configurations to determine which set you would want. There are also sets by Gold Medal Models, Tom's modelworks, and White Ensign but before I out any more work in to it (busy work week) I'd like to get a sense for what you are looking for. "Money's no object," "best value," etc.. Trumpeter's calwalks are a little plain and incorrect - do you want to detail them out or just choose a little extra railing set?

[benjamin.marn]

It depends on how much you want to put in to it and what results you want. Boxer was a long hull, but had her flight deck "restored" to the original length versus the first three had a mixture of shorter deck configurations. Trumpeter repackaged their CV-14 Ticonderoga and CV-19 Hancock kits with the same parts (maybe a couple of small radar details; can't remember for sure) but they're both short flight decks (Tico had a couple of different configurations during the war) and have some incorrect details for any instance of an Essex class.

Your "best" bet may be a Pontos set, but I'd need to look over parts and configurations to determine which set you would want. There are also sets by Gold Medal Models, Tom's modelworks, and White Ensign but before I out any more work in to it (busy work week) I'd like to get a sense for what you are looking for. "Money's no object," "best value," etc.. Trumpeter's calwalks are a little plain and incorrect - do you want to detail them out or just choose a little extra railing set?

As I mentioned previously, my grandfather served aboard Boxer from 1945 to 1949. He passed before I was born (I'm 23) so this model is being built for my father as much as it is being built for myself, so money's not a problem as I am going all out with it. When you say Boxer's flight deck was "restored", do you mean it was longer than Hancocks as commissioned, and if so, by how much? The Hancock set is the one I going to be using for Boxer. I am actually working on making Hancock first, then I will buy a second kit in order to make Boxer, and learn from any mistakes I've made on Hancock. I want it to be the best model possible. As for the Hancock model, I am simply looking for railing, and maybe the radar and the FCS director antenna.

[Dick J]

The original Essex design had a more vertical bow. By the time she commissioned, a single quad 40MM mount had been added there. Another was extended from the stern on a small sponson. After 10 of these "short hull" ships had been started, there was a desire to increase the number of 40MM mounts, so the bow was extended (making the "long hull") and widened to allow 2 quad 40MM there. A new. larger sponson was designed for the stern to allow 2 quad 40MM there. To increase the arcs of fire for these new mounts, the forward flightdeck was shortened by 11 feet and the after end by 7 feet. Additionally, there was a "notch" cut out of the forward end of the port side flightdeck overhang (just aft of the forward 5" gun sponson) to allow for a third MK-37 director. The director would have interfered with flight ops, and so no ships were completed with it, instead adding 2 more quad 40MM on the sponson. Hancock and Ticonderoga both commissioned that way, but the air departments on the ships hated the flightdeck changes. Hancock deployed that way, but Tico had the notch filled back in and the forward 11 feet of flightdeck restored before leaving the east coast for the war zone. Tico had the after 7 feet of flightdeck added back when she was repaired in 1945. Hancock had some repairs done at Pearl, when the notch was filled in, but the flightdeck was not lengthened. Randolph and Shangri La launched with the shorter flightdeck, but both commissioned with the full-length deck. I can't say if they had the notch when launched, but neither had it upon completion. All subsequent Essex's had the full flight deck.

Dragon mistakenly put a shorter flightdeck on their Randolph kit, but it was only shorter at the forward end. They also made the forward deck of their Antietam kit shorter. I also think the Boxer deck was short. So the shortened decks in their kits are not correct for any ships of the class, and were often included on the wrong ships of the class. Tracy and I both tried working with Dragon to fix this, but (obviously) we got nowhere.

[benjamin.marn]

The original Essex design had a more vertical bow. By the time she commissioned, a single quad 40MM mount had been added there. Another was extended from the stern on a small sponson. After 10 of these "short hull" ships had been started, there was a desire to increase the number of 40MM mounts, so the bow was extended (making the "long hull") and widened to allow 2 quad 40MM there. A new. larger sponson was designed for the stern to allow 2 quad 40MM there. To increase the arcs of fire for these new mounts, the forward flightdeck was shortened by 11 feet and the after end by 7 feet. Additionally, there was a "notch" cut out of the forward end of the port side flightdeck overhang (just aft of the forward 5" gun sponson) to allow for a third MK-37 director. The director would have interfered with flight ops, and so no ships were completed with it, instead adding 2 more quad 40MM on the sponson. Hancock and Ticonderoga both commissioned that way, but the air departments on the ships hated the flightdeck changes. Hancock deployed that way, but Tico had the notch filled back in and the forward 11 feet of flightdeck restored before leaving the east coast for the war zone. Tico had the after 7 feet of flightdeck added back when she was repaired in 1945. Hancock had some repairs done at Pearl, when the notch was filled in, but the flightdeck was not lengthened. Randolph and Shangri La launched with the shorter flightdeck, but both commissioned with the full-length deck. I can't say if they had the notch when launched, but neither had it upon completion. All subsequent Essex's had the full flight deck.

Dragon mistakenly put a shorter flightdeck on their Randolph kit, but it was only shorter at the forward end. They also made the forward deck of their Antietam kit shorter. I also think the Boxer deck was short. So the shortened decks in their kits are not correct for any ships of the class, and were often included on the wrong ships of the class. Tracy and I both tried working with Dragon to fix this, but (obviously) we got nowhere.

Do any of the trumpeter short hull kits have the full length deck? If not, doing some math, that means I would need to add a little more than 3/8 inches (or 9.6mm) to the bow end of the flight deck and a little less than 15/64ths (or 6.1mm) to the aft end. I have access to a CNC machine and a Bridgeport milling machine, so if the Yorktown Franklin or Essex kits don't have it then I think what I might do is mill a 1/8 inch slot to cut the ends of the flight deck pieces off, then using styrene sheet, add the necessary length plus 1/8 to fill it in. I can build these "lengthening inserts" as we might call them by either building them up using evergreen styrene sheets or CNC'ing it from a solid piece of styrene. I can get a custom wood deck with the extended length from Scaledecks.

[Dick J]

All of the short hull kits should have the full length flightdeck. However, there is something else you would need to watch out for. As commissioned, the earliest Essex's had only 8 quad 40MM mounts. As a result, the two in the port-side sponsons (with the 5" single guns) were slightly higher than the adjacent 5" guns. This required the flightdeck to be notched so the mounts could rotate freely. This also allowed those 40MM to fire "cross-deck". As the number of 40MM mounts increased, the need for cross-deck firing diminished, so the mounts were lowered to the same level as the 5" guns, and the notches eliminated. (Making the air department happier.) Boxer completed with the lower mounts and the un-notched flightdeck. So any kit you chose for the donner deck would need to be one of the late-war ones without the notches. Not working in 1/350 myself, I can't say exactly which kits have the required features.

[Tracy White]

OK, I had to consult some documents and photos to make sure I was speaking accurately and precisely for Hancock.

Each of the three initial long hulls had a different flight deck configuration at any given time and it's impossible to have one kit that is accurate for all of them. Trumpeter's CV-19 kit is depicted in dazzle on the box art, but the flight deck is incorrect for that period Hancock went in for a quick repair and overhaul in late April 1945 through early June and the flight deck is actually spot-on for the period after that. Of course, then the problem is that the kit doesn't give you the extra quad 40mms and other details you would need to do a later-fit Essex.

I don't *personally* think it's that difficult to do the modifications necessary to alter the flight deck and catwalks, to be accurate for her first war cruise in Dazzle, but it is extra work and nukes your chances or working with a pre-measured photo-etch railing set. You basically want to find photos like this one on her [URL=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/19.htm]Navsource page or this one on her sister ship Ticonderoga's page to come up with an idea of the cuts in to the port flight deck edge you would need to make. The Floating Drydock has plans of CV-14 in their TFW series but I don't know if it includes the notches or not.

[benjamin.marn]

OK, I had to consult some documents and photos to make sure I was speaking accurately and precisely for Hancock.

Each of the three initial long hulls had a different flight deck configuration at any given time and it's impossible to have one kit that is accurate for all of them. Trumpeter's CV-19 kit is depicted in dazzle on the box art, but the flight deck is incorrect for that period Hancock went in for a quick repair and overhaul in late April 1945 through early June and the flight deck is actually spot-on for the period after that. Of course, then the problem is that the kit doesn't give you the extra quad 40mms and other details you would need to do a later-fit Essex.

I don't *personally* think it's that difficult to do the modifications necessary to alter the flight deck and catwalks, to be accurate for her first war cruise in Dazzle, but it is extra work and nukes your chances or working with a pre-measured photo-etch railing set. You basically want to find photos like this one on her [URL=https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/19.htm]Navsource page or this one on her sister ship Ticonderoga's page to come up with an idea of the cuts in to the port flight deck edge you would need to make. The Floating Drydock has plans of CV-14 in their TFW series but I don't know if it includes the notches or not.

She would've had the revised Measure 22 camouflage in 1945 yes? I was originally planning on doing her in her 1944 dazzle scheme, but I glued on aft port outboard 40mm sponsons which are in the directions. Realizing the mistake that I made I decided to glue on the rest of the outboard sponsons and make her in her 1945 configuration. This model doesn't need to be particularly exact, by the way. I'm not particularly emotionally attached to Hancock like I am to Boxer, and this build is a trial run for making Boxer herself. Just generally accurate will do.

[Tracy White]

She would've had the revised Measure 22 camouflage in 1945 yes?

Actually, according to the last page of this document, she was ordered into the 1945 neutral Measure 12, which was defined as:

Apply a horizontal band of #7 Navy Gray (5-N) for the entire length of the hull from the boottopping to the height of the main deck at its lowest point (on carriers to the height of the hangar deck). Above this level apply #17 Ocean Gray (5-O) to vertical surfaces including superstructure, stacks, and masts. In the absence of boottopping, extend lower band from light load line. Apply Deck Gray (20) to decks and all other horizontal surfaces exposed to the weather.

Of course, we've already had the discussion about the flight deck surface.....

If you're doing post-June, one other change you might want to use as an excuse to practice for Boxer is to replace the aft two radio towers with four whip antennas. They're smaller and harder to see and I don't know of any good ones for Hancock online, but it was a fairly standardized design so any that you find (such as this one on Ticonderoga) should be a good start.

[benjamin.marn]

If Boxer had them, then I will do the whip antenna on Hancock. Do you have any drawings/info on the spacing between them? I assume the outermost two are attached where the cage antenna (is that what they're called?) were formerly attached, but I'd like to know where the two in between them should be placed. If you're able to find any info, I'd also be interested in finding out how tall they are. What you all think I should make them from, something stiff and hard to break like steel or brass wire, or something flexible like stretched sprue?

[benjamin.marn]

Another question, because I was originally planning on depicting this ship in her 1944 configuration without her outboard 40mm guns, I didn't drill and cut out the guide slots for the 3 outboard starboard side 40mm gun tubs underneath the island. Thus, I need measurements to make sure I put them in the correct spot. Can anyone help me with these 3 measurements illustrated below by either measuring your model or referencing drawings (and converting them to 1/350, obviously)? For measurement A I am using the edge of the hangar door as a reference point, but the others I just need the distance in between. You can use either imperial or metric, whichever is more accurate.

[ModelMonkey]

If Boxer had them, then I will do the whip antenna on Hancock. Do you have any drawings/info on the spacing between them? I assume the outermost two are attached where the cage antenna (is that what they're called?) were formerly attached, but I'd like to know where the two in between them should be placed. If you're able to find any info, I'd also be interested in finding out how tall they are. What you all think I should make them from, something stiff and hard to break like steel or brass wire, or something flexible like stretched sprue?

Hope this helps show a whip antenna in detail.

The photo shows how the antenna was suspended on swivels from two parallel girders extending outwards from the hull just below the catwalk. Note the very conspicuous counterweight.

This photo is of USS Bunker Hill CV-17 taken shortly after she was struck by two kamikazes in quick succession, setting the vessel on fire. Notice the burned out TBF Avenger on deck.