Calling all USS Yorktown CV-5 fans

[Par429]

But I did see something that perhaps you could check with your sets. All the catwalks (there are some on all four sheets I think) have the perforated holes on them - in fact, the holes show on both sides. And they look smaller than the perforations on other sets by other manufacturers, so that could be the problem. But almost none of them go all the way through the brass sheet on my sets. I can see some that are partially through, so I think they are meant to go all the way through the way all other sets do. I wonder if mine were pulled from the etchant a bit too soon. Curious if yours are that way also. It would seem that if they didn't mean them to go through, they wouldn't have the hole pattern on both sides as that is some fancy etching. I have sent an e-mail to Eduard about this, and I'll pass it along when I hear back.

Hey-
I have some of these sets and they are the same as yours. The holes don't go all the way through. So I guess they are meant to be that way.

Regards,
Phil

[Tracy White]

It could be that they took a gamble and decided to etch both sides so that you at least got the impression that the holes were there - I wonder if they even line up. To be honest, you shouldn't even see those holes in 1/350th scale, let alone have them big enough to see through.

[Devin]

I looked at mine briefly and yes, they're all just indentations on my copies. As Tracy said, to have an actual hole there that wouldn't fill with paint would be way out of scale; they'd have to be large enough for the crew to get their feet caught in them!

[John W.]

I looked at my second set which arrived last night. I am convinced the catwalk holes were intended to be etched through, but that the sheet may not have been submerged in the ectchant quite long enough. On the second set, on the EDU53142, on the Part 2 fret, several long catwalks (parts 77, 79, 67) when placed on a light table show all the holes ALL etched all the way through and as complete circular holes. On the same fret from the first set I received, some of those same parts could be seen with a little bit of perforation over some of the part (maybe 25%) but not etched through on the rest of the part. On fret 1 of the same EDU53142, the results were reversed - the fret from my first set had all the catwalks etched all the way through as complete circular holes, the second set's fret 1 did not, having the same incomplete etching-through. This convinces me the parts were not etched long enough consistently.
I have received an initial response from Eduard saying they are checking into it.
In my opinion, they will get this fixed. When they do, the sets will be a big step forward for this kit. One of the features I really liked is that the safety rails meant for the flight deck edge catwalks have the laced pattern of safety webbing on the back of the three bar rails, and the X pattern is quite fine and looks to be close to scale. I have seen some accessory P/E that is meant to show this effect, but it is too short in height and too thick.
I have no financial connection to Eduard, nor have I received any free product.

Just added this to show the holes in the catwalks are pretty visible even from a distance (when the picture is zoomed). They often show up when there's some sun behind and the sunlight shows the pattern well. As I've pointed out before, some of the decks on the island are the same perforated material, not sheet steel, to save weight and allow drainage.

Look in the lower left foreground in this picture to see that the deck in front of the pilothouse is the perforated steel. MD Silver blueprints confirm.
So that's why I want the P/E to be right, in this cae just as it is intended.

[Haijun watcher]

Hello all,

Since I prefer the 1/700 scale, I rarely build 1/350 warships. However, all the commotion/posting on the "Merit 1/350 Yorktown now ready for pre-order" thread in the main forum got me curious, so I searched for a review outside this site.

I found a review on the Merit Yorktown kit at this source below. Would any of you agree with the conclusions of this source?

CV5Yorktown.com

[robertmelvin]

Since I haven't closely inventoried my Yorktown and Enterprise kits to evaluate all of the parts, I have closely examined the hulls and as far as that aspect of the review goes, I would definitely agree with it. Way, way, way too overdone! From what I have read about this, consultants warned Merit about this issue when the test shots came out, but the molds had already been cut and they refused to spend the extra money to have new, more correct, molds cut for the hulls.

Bob

[Tracy White]

From what I have read about this, consultants warned Merit about this issue when the test shots came out, but the molds had already been cut and they refused to spend the extra money to have new, more correct, molds cut for the hulls.

We actually warned them that the pattern was both wrong and overdone based on what we saw in the CAD before seeing any test shots. However, I believe that the test shot had actually been done at that time.

[robertmelvin]

Well, you did the best you could. As a consultant, if the company you are consulting for does not choose to pay attention to your consultations, there is nothing you can do about it. I am surprised that Merit/Trumpeter did not go the extra mile to get this one right, considering how highly anticipated a 1/350 Yorktown class carrier was. This sounds like a pure accounting department decision. But, still, it is light years ahead of Trumpy's unforgivable Hornet or their almost equally as bad North Carolina. The problem is fixable without the requirement of significant scratch building skills. I am also somewhat concerned by some of the reports I've read about the hangar deck bulkheads not fitting properly, and problems with getting the flight deck properly seated once you do get the bulkheads installed. Can you enlighten us at all about this issue?

Thanks, as always,

Bob

[Tracy White]

I am surprised that Merit/Trumpeter did not go the extra mile to get this one right, considering how highly anticipated a 1/350 Yorktown class carrier was.

It's a little outside the topic of this thread, but it's something for model builders to consider - why should they go the extra mile on a product that is going to sell perfectly well "as is? These ships are important to us, only our dollars are to them, and they get our dollars easily enough.

[robertmelvin]

A good and valid point, Tracy. But, they were obviously responding to something they perceived the market "wanted" when they designed those hulls. I would be surprised if they don't monitor these forums as a kind of cheap market research. If we bit*h loud enough and long enough, maybe some manufacturers will get the message and understand that if they want to continue to get our money, they need to try to get it at least reasonably right. Its not like we are powerless here. We have what motivates these companies - our money. I don't expect miracles (as Rooster Cogburn said in the Coen Bros. version of True Grit "I don't believe in sermons, fairy tales or stories about money"), but if we make our feelings known we may get some movement in the direction we want.

Bob

[Mike C]

It's a little outside the topic of this thread, but it's something for model builders to consider - why should they go the extra mile on a product that is going to sell perfectly well "as is? These ships are important to us, only our dollars are to them, and they get our dollars easily enough.

By the same token, they could have saved money and time on tooling costs if they hadn't included the exaggerated hull plating and the kit would probably have sold better. Even with all their faults, though, it is my understanding that the Yorktown class kits have already exceeded Merit's sales expectations.

[Tracy White]

[ Even with all their faults, though, it is my understanding that the Yorktown class kits have already exceeded Merit's sales expectations.

I hope that to be the case! I haven't been able to get a hint of an impression of a notion from my contact....

[Jinkeez]

You know, it's been more than a year since I registered here and I still haven't really gotten rolling on my build - I keep getting distracted! However, I do still regularly check eBay to see if there's any interesting Yorktown-postmarked naval covers, or other artifacts that might be neat to incorporate into a display base. Usually I don't find much, but I did notice an auction today for a few photos I hadn't seen before that I think might be helpful reference material, since two of them are really great shots of the stern with a lot of detail visible below the flight deck. Unfortunately, they are all larger than 200k so I can't attach them, but if anyone is curious, here is the auction. I hope these help!!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USS-YORKTOWN-CV-5-SET-OF-THREE-BLACK-WHITE-PHOTOS-/381417055283?hash=item58ce3a6433

[Par429]

Hey-
I know that the outriggers have been discussed before, but are there any good pictures that show how they are mounted to the catwalks?

I ask because:
1. The Merit 1/350 Yorktown does not include them and I want to add them since most were still onboard at Midway (as per the previous discussion).
2. In the Eduard PE set (Part 4 Flight Deck), on the catwalk parts for either side of the forward starboard .50 cal gallery there are two extensions with mounting holes and no further explanation. Are these for the outriggers in these locations? There are no other such extensions on any of the other Eduard PE catwalk parts.
3. Were the outriggers mounted on outboard extensions from the catwalks? (Are the Eduard parts accurate?) This doesn't seem to be so on the port side from photos I can find. They seem to be just mounted on the outboard edge of the catwalk. I don't have a good close photo of the starboard side forward area.

Thanks,
Phil

[Tracy White]

Pedestals of sorts, although not round ones like the early 20mm mounts.

Check out this photo on Navsource as well as this one I found at Seattle NARA.

[John W.]

There were, for a short period, actually two basic styles of out riggers. The first type is shown here on ENTERPRISE sometime before MIdway.

This shows the aircraft being parked rather than the details of the pivot support pedestal, but is an interesting photo. Needless to say there is a Chief standing close by to tell the guys pushing on the elevators when to let go. Enthusiasm can sometimes result in unintended consequences.

Here's a picture of the lesser know type of outrigger.

While it probably seemed like a good idea to the inventor after a few beers, one can easily see several drawbacks.. Though this version is shown in test on either WOLVERINE or SABLE, it did not survive the T&E phase and was not fitted to any fleet carriers.

[Elvis965]

Something that's been bugging me about the Merit Yorktown....

This is how their instructions show to install the catwalk around the funnel (snip of a larger picture from the Merit website):

How Merit says to install the funnel catwalk

But this looks odd to me in how high up it sits above the top of the funnel. Here are a few pics from Navsource:

Yorktown 1937:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020546.jpg

Yorktown 1939:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020552.jpg

Yorktown 1942:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020526c.jpg

While the rail appears to be higher in the 39 & 42 pics than as launched, it doesn't appear to me that the catwalk itself sits above the top of the funnel. To me it still appears to be below the top of the funnel, with just the rail extending above.

In the 42 pic, you can even see the loudspeakers appear to be attached to the railing.

Does the Merit catwalk installation need modified? It just doesn't look right to me.

Also another quick question on the funnel. Over in a build review on finescale, the builder mentioned that the notch on the front of the stack should actually be open and not a notch, and you should be able to see the uptake through the opening. Is that correct? He actually opened the notch and added a piece of plastic tube to simulate the uptake.

In the 37 pic above, it does appear that it could be open, but in other pics I've looked at, it doesn't seem to be.

Bob

[Michael Vorrasi]

Something that's been bugging me about the Merit Yorktown....

This is how their instructions show to install the catwalk around the funnel (snip of a larger picture from the Merit website):

Merit Catwalk.jpg

But this looks odd to me in how high up it sits above the top of the funnel. Here are a few pics from Navsource:

Yorktown 1937:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020546.jpg

Yorktown 1939:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020552.jpg

Yorktown 1942:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020526c.jpg

While the rail appears to be higher in the 39 & 42 pics than as launched, it doesn't appear to me that the catwalk itself sits above the top of the funnel. To me it still appears to be below the top of the funnel, with just the rail extending above.

In the 42 pic, you can even see the loudspeakers appear to be attached to the railing.

Does the Merit catwalk installation need modified? It just doesn't look right to me.

Also another quick question on the funnel. Over in a build review on finescale, the builder mentioned that the notch on the front of the stack should actually be open and not a notch, and you should be able to see the uptake through the opening. Is that correct? He actually opened the notch and added a piece of plastic tube to simulate the uptake.

In the 37 pic above, it does appear that it could be open, but in other pics I've looked at, it doesn't seem to be.

Bob

Hi Bob,

The FSM model is not correct regarding the funnel notch. There is a bulkhead at the rear, and the actual funnel tubes are not visible. There are some steam fittings and pipes in that notch for the steam whistles, horns and siren that are mounted over it on the funnel rim. The Builder's Model is 1/48 scale. it does not show the pipes and fittings inside the little notch area, though. This is what it should look like. Please click the link as the photo was too big.

http://cv5yorktown.com/yorkpress/wp-con ... ORK136.jpg

As for the catwalks around the top of the funnel, the Merit sample does not have them correctly installed. The foot boards of the catwalk should sit just below the rim of the funnel housing. It is Navsource, so you have to click the link:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020546.jpg

[TOMLABEL]

Hi Bob! I appreciate you asking these specific questions as I had gotten a bit confused myself in looking at the Merit pics of the funnel catwalk apparatus as well as the "supposed" void area around the uptakes. The 42 pics of the Yorktown with the raised railings compared to earlier period photos just added to my confusion.

TOMLABEL

[TOMLABEL]

Hi Bob,

The FSM model is not correct regarding the funnel notch. There is a bulkhead at the rear, and the actual funnel tubes are not visible. There are some steam fittings and pipes in that notch for the steam whistles, horns and siren that are mounted over it on the funnel rim. The Builder's Model is 1/48 scale. it does not show the pipes and fittings inside the little notch area, though. This is what it should look like. Please click the link as the photo was too big.

http://cv5yorktown.com/yorkpress/wp-con ... ORK136.jpg

As for the catwalks around the top of the funnel, the Merit sample does not have them correctly installed. The foot boards of the catwalk should sit just below the rim of the funnel housing. It is Navsource, so you have to click the link:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020546.jpg

Thanks for the information Mike!!!

I had seen the builder pics before but had no way of ascertaining if it was absolutely correct or not concerning the void space in the funnel area so thanks again! Looking at the Merit kit, this looks like it should be a easy fix - just fill in the lower portion. The builders' pic looks a bit more recessed than the kit depicts, so I will have to decide whether to do some surgery or let the upper section remain as is.

TOMLABEL

Kelley