Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Capt652]

I'm running out of pictures.... Starboard side of the forward Mk 37 gun director, the underside of the tripod platform is visible.

[Anonymous]

Capt652, I sure enjoy seeing all your pictures! Thanks so much for sharing them with us.

Martin, I'll have some hangar deck pictures up this weekend. I've been studying my butt off for a professional examination to be taken on the 20th. Once I get that exam behind me I'll put on more steam for building.

This thread has been a huge help in building USS Yorktown.

Here are some USS Essex "glamour shots" for Jamie:

[Jamie Alguire]

Hey guys:
Great looking pics there! Great to see the interest in these carriers!
I am doing up the Trumpeter 1/350 CV-9 Essex post-April 44 refit, in the snazzy camo scheme. What changes need to be made to this kit? I already have a good bridge plan for the extended flag bridge and a good camo reference, but I know there were additional quad 40mm etc. what are some good references that would show these changes?
Thanks,
Jamie

[Adaks]

I am doing up the Trumpeter 1/350 CV-9 Essex post-April 44 refit, in the snazzy camo scheme. What changes need to be made to this kit? I already have a good bridge plan for the extended flag bridge and a good camo reference, but I know there were additional quad 40mm etc. what are some good references that would show these changes?

First, you should check this site. You will find proper configuration of 40 mm quads for Essex after her April of 1944 refit. But do not believe in everything. When she started wearing camo, she still had only one starboard cat (old type H2). So if you have Trumpy 1/350 USS Essex kit, you have flight deck with the correct number of catapults, but cat is too long for CV-9. If you belong to the rivet counters you will have to shorten it down. You will also need extensive surgery to the island and the port sponson (two new 40 mm quads). Probably the easiest way to build CV-9 is using two kits: USS Franklin (port sponson and island) and USS Essex (rest), but it would be expensive. Check also Navsource page and USS Essex Association Website for some nice photos.
You can also wait for Tracy�s book on the Essex class, without no doubts it will be great source of information to build this ship right.

[Tracy White]

Leave off the Mk 51 director tower and tub immediately after the #2 twin 5" turret as welll... check out Navsource Photo NS020942 to see what I mean. Essex also had a sun/weather shield of some sort built up on the forward flag level platform... you can see it in pictures but I don't have any close-up detail shots. Looks like it might be canvas over frame but I could be wrong...

[Capt652]

Scoreboard... the end of the war tally, sorry it's overexposed.

[ModelMonkey]

USS Hornet CV-12 pics for Jamie:
Edited by Tracy: in the interest of keeping this monster from getting completely unmanageable I'm going to remove the pictures and post links to the page they were found on instead

USS Hornet @ the Navy Historical Center
Also see Navsource's CV-12 page

[Tracy White]

I was waiting for others to comment on the GMM/WEM PE first but I'll throw in. They're similar in quality; both top notch and you can't go wrong with either.

Now, the GMM set might have an advantage depending on what you are planning on doing with your kit's catwalks. The Trumpeter kit really over-simplified them, and while the PE sets HELP they are both missing crucial details. The bulkheads in this area had numerous openings cut into them... not hatches, just open airways. Some were meant to be used to pass ammo from clipping through, and others were simple access ports from the ship's interior. In those areas there was usually a two-step stairway DOWN cut into the catwalk, and NONE of the PE sets represent this. How do you feel about chopping little notches into perforated brass sheet to represent these mini stairwells?

I'm planning on rebuilding this area from scratch in styrene, so the GMM set has an advantage in that I don't need to pay extra for catwalks I'm not going to use.

[ModelMonkey]

I agree with Tracy. The catwalks are going to be a headache to get to look accurate no matter which PE set you choose.

Having said that, I am a big fan of both WEM and GMM and you can't go wrong with either. I chose GMM's sets for my Yorktown and am very, very happy with them. The detail and quality is superb. I chose WEM's set for my King George V class HMS Duke of York and am thrilled with it, especially since it contains parts unique to each ship of the class.

WEM PE sets are made from thinner brass sheets than those made by GMM so WEM's finer parts appear more scale. But being made of thinner brass they are much more fragile and require greater care when installing. WEM is also slightly more expensive than GMM. Both manufacturers ship quickly and both accept PayPal which has advantages over using a credit card across the internet.

PE sets are almost required if one truly wants to build a very accurate ship model these days. If you go to a model show the ship models that win awards are those that are festooned with brass photo-etch.

Most plastic kits are very weak in detail on vertical surfaces. Even with PE sets, to really achieve great accuracy, the model shipbuilder finds him- or herself doing some scratch-building. Have you ever found yourself opening a model airplane kit box and thinking, "Wow, this will look fantastic right OOB"? I bet you rarely, if ever, say that with a plastic ship kit (sigh). I can build a great-looking 1/48 scale P-47 in a month. A good ship will take me six months or longer and I find myself getting distracted by a desire to work on other models in that long time.

Lack of vertical surface detail has been my chief complaint with Tamiya ship kits although the shape of the major components and parts fit is very good. Trumpeter does a better job in detailing vertical surfaces. You find separate parts for vertical surfaces such as bridge faces, etc. My chief complaint with Trumpeter kits is parts fit (USS Yorktown) and hull shape (USS Hornet's supertanker hull - yikes!). Even Trumpeter's Essex class kit's have some minor hull shape problems, especially at the stern.

We modelers recognize it's easier for a model manufacturer to make a mold that achieves greater detail in 1/32 scale than 1/700. Still, it bugs me how much work, additional aftermarket items (and therefore expense), and scratchbuilding it takes to build a great looking ship model compared to building an aircraft kit from the same manufacturer.

But I'm very happy folks like GMM, WEM and Toms are there for us to feed our need.

[Jamie Alguire]

Thanks Tracy & Steve, I see the GMM set is slightly less expensive, but also includes the boat cranes. The WEM set includes more floater baskets...tough choice. Both will result in much superb-ness!
Cutting into the perforated catwalks may be too much for me...maybe I'll add some guncrews to hide them? (The L'Aresenal ones are GREAT)

Take care
Jamie

[Tracy White]

Jaw Dropping

[jgrease]

So let me ask you guys the same questions that everyone else asks. Let me start with the cards I have been dealt:

-Trumpy's 1/350 Essex kit #5602, which I believe is the 1943 version of that ship
-Tom's Modelworks PE set for Essex carriers
-Squadron's "Essex Carriers In Action"

That's what I got, and I really don't want to spend more on this build. My garage is loading up on projects and I haven't found a display case to put all this stuff yet, so I want to work with what I have. I would place my skill level at medium, and I have a fairly well-stocked workbench. I have scanned the 40 pages of posts and have familiarized myself somewhat. So here's my questions to the esteemed panel here:

1. What are my options for picking a ship from this class? I believe this is a "short-hull" carrier so I am assuming I have a choice from those, bearing in mind I'd prefer not to have major scratchbuilding to do. I'd like to enjoy this build.
2. So how about that Tom's Modelworks set? I like GMM, but due to circumstances I wound up with the Tom's set instead. Any input?

So please feel free to shepard me to the carrier i can build with the least modification that will keep my interest going. I have no problem painting one of the dazzle schemes if need be. I guess I'd prefer to let you guys choose which ship I model. Please post your two cents for me. Thanks in advance.

[Jim Russell]

Toms is a nice PE set, built 3 ships with them.

You have plenty of ship options (leave off the 20mm gallery on aft end of flight deck for all ships);

Meas 21 1943 Essex & Lexington (no hangar cats for both, no FD cats for Essex), Yorktown, Bunker Hill, and Intrepid.

Dazzle 1944 Wasp & Hornet. Yorktown May to Sept 1944.

You will have to research radar fit but the ships listed above had only two basic options.

Jim

[Tracy White]

You can do a couple more ships if you include shake downs. The aft 20mm galleries Jim mentioned vibrated too much and were relocated to the sides... but both Essex & Yorktown made cruises with them and it also affected their catwalks in this area... they were originally fit for the galleries and then not changed, unlike the later ships, which didn't have them (except the long hulls, but that's a different matter) and thus had unbroken catwalks in this area.

[jgrease]

You have plenty of ship options (leave off the 20mm gallery on aft end of flight deck for all ships);
Jim

When you say leave off the gallery, are we talking about the two galleries hanging from the rear of the flight deck facing aft? On the Essex kit they are parts G41, and there are two, each with two 20mm guns. I have read all 41 pages and I'm getting a little punchy, so bear with me.

[Tracy White]

Yes, the two galleries on the aft end of the flight deck were only carrier on the first three Essex class, and only for a short time, and then on a couple of the long hulls. The reason was thus: because the structure stuck as far as it did and was over the screws, where there was a lot of vibration, the galleries themselves vibrated so badly as to make accurate fire extremely difficult. The galleries were moved forward to the sides of the galleries where the structure was a little more rigid and there was less vibration.

However, this location was desirable in many regards and so when the first long-hulls slipped into the water, they had those galleries added back because they early long hulls had the flight deck shortened and the shorter stern flight deck was more rigid and did not vibrate. Look at Ticonderoga; when she had the short flight deck, she had the galleries; when her flight deck was extended to the stern, she had them relocated.

Short Flight Deck Photo

compared to:

[jackyoung]

It's said that Franklin's 32/6A has deck blue 21. Who can tell me what's the difference between Deck Blue 20B and 21?

Thanks.

Jack

[jgrease]

Tracy - can I pick your brain some more? Without resorting to more purchasing, if I did Essex in a dazzle scheme would it be inaccurate for the aircraft on board to have just the stars in the circles (in other words not stars and white bars)? I'm at the limits of my purchases already without buying more flight deck numbers and new decals for the planes. What say you?

[Tracy White]

Unfortunately, if you're referring to CV-9 herself, the accuracy police are going to have to rule against you; when she went into Dazzle in early 1944 the specs were calling for the stars & bars, and all of the planes from this point forward that I can see on the CV-9 Navsource Page (start here) have stars & bars. Perhaps you can find someone under the Trading Post who has a spare set or two.

[ModelMonkey]

So I assembled the lower and upper hulls last night. What a train wreck! As others have said, the fit between these parts is terrible. After gluing them, I puttied and sanded this morning. The old "putty, sand, repeat" is very true for this kit. Anyone have advice for the torpedo belt area? The overlap in this area seemed worse than other parts of the hull.

For the torpedo belt area, when I applied the tried and true process of "putty, sand, repeat" the seam opened up on me from the pressure of sanding. So add two more steps to the process so that it goes: "putty, sand, cuss, glue, repeat".

I think assembling any two major parts of this kit is much like the four phases of grieving:
1. shock - (the parts don't fit!)
2. denial - (I can't believe it)
3. anger - (@!#$&^*)
4. acceptance - (well, I suppose I can fix that with some putty)

And not to be too depressing, if you think the hull halves was a exercise in misalignment, wait until you try the hangar deck parts.