Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[jgrease]

Thanks for all the input guys. One last question and I will move on with this project. When did the naval planes change from the stars to stars and bars? Do I get to play with the dazzle and keep those planes if I do Hornet as she looked in 1943? If not, I will resolve myself to Ms21 - I like those planes.
And Steve couldn't be more on the money- everytime I sand another seam pops somewhere else on the hull. Talk about a test of will. Putty, sand, curse incoherently for 5 minutes, putty, sand.

[Tracy White]

Not all of this is pertinent to Essex Class ships, but:

From http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/avchr5.htm

1940
DECEMBER 30--The Bureau of Aeronautics directed that fleet aircraft be painted in non-specular colors. Ship-based aircraft were to be light gray all over; patrol planes were to be light gray except for surfaces seen from above which were to be blue gray.

1941

FEBRUARY 26--An extensive modification of aircraft markings added National Star Insignia to both sides of the fuselage or hull and eliminated those on the upper right and lower left wings; discontinued the use of colored tail markings, fuselage bands and cowl markings; made removal of vertical red, white and blue rudder stripes mandatory; and changed the color of all markings, except the National Insignia, to those of least contrast to the background.


SEPTEMBER 13--The Bureau of Aeronautics directed that all fleet aircraft be painted non-specular light gray except for surfaces seen above which were to be blue-gray. In late December, this color scheme was extended to shore based airplanes except trainers.

1942
JANUARY 5--A change in regulations, covering display of National Insignia on aircraft, returned the star to the upper right and lower left wing surfaces and revised rudder striping to 13 red and white horizontal stripes.

APRIL 24--A new specification for color of naval aircraft went into effect. The color of service aircraft remained non-specular light gray with non-specular blue-gray on surfaces visible from above. Advanced trainers were to be finished in glossy aircraft gray with glossy orange yellow on wing and aileron surfaces visible from above while primary trainers were to be finished glossy orange-yellow with gray landing gear.

MAY 15--The design of the National Star Insignia was revised by eliminating the red disc in the center of the star, and use of horizontal red and white rudder striping was discontinued.

1943

FEBRUARY 1--A new specification prescribing color and marking of naval aircraft became effective. A basic camouflage color scheme was provided for use on fleet aircraft which consisted of semigloss sea blue on surfaces viewed from above and non-specular insignia white on surfaces viewed from below. The terminology "basic non-camouflage" and "maximum visibility" were introduced for the color schemes described in April 1942, and used on intermediate and primary trainers.

FEBRUARY 1--Regulations governing display of National Insignia on aircraft were again revised by the order to remove those on the upper right and lower left wing surfaces.

JUNE 28--A change in the design of the National Star Insignia added white rectangles on the left and right sides of the blue circular field to form a horizontal bar, and a red border stripe around the entire design. The following September, Insignia Blue was substituted for the red.

1944

MARCH 6--A new specification for color of naval aircraft went into effect. The basic camouflage scheme, used with fleet aircraft, was modified slightly to provide for use of non-specular sea blue on upper fuselage surfaces; airfoil surfaces visible from above remained semigloss sea blue and other surfaces visible from below, semigloss insignia white. A new basic non-camouflage color scheme, all aluminum, was specified for general use on aircraft not in the combat theater. The maximum visibility color scheme used on primary trainers became glossy orange yellow overall.

22--A new specification for color of fighter aircraft went into effect. It directed that fighters be painted glossy sea blue on all exposed surfaces.

[jgrease]

Typical government stuff - someone somewhere had to prove his usefulness by constantly revising aircraft painting standards. But thank for clearing up that little mystery for me Tracy.
So the boxtop fot the Essex kit has the correct planes for late 1943, but the decals provided are for planes marked in late 1942 or early 1943. This is confusing.

[Tracy White]

I wasn't an Essex expert before the kits came out and I suspect they didn't have access to a good one while doing their R&D, but I think the kits reflect the general confusion that exists out there regarding these ships and their service history details.

[Tracy White]

Christoph Mentzel's CV-15 Randolph hit the gallery! Very well done Chris!

[Jose Chaica]

As I already have all of the "essential" references on the Essex (AoS,Raven,WP, and some more), I would like to know if the following title is worth buying:

Warship International - 1999 - vol.4 - The Essex class

Does anyone have it ?? Is it any good ??? Or is this another "essential" ???
Thanks.

.

[Tracy White]

For the $5 they're selling it for it's definately worth picking up. There's more textual information than pictoral, and it's not really modeling specific, but if you're interested in teh ships in general it's well worth it.

[Jose Chaica]

For the $5 they're selling it for it's definately worth picking up. There's more textual information than pictoral, and it's not really modeling specific, but if you're interested in teh ships in general it's well worth it.

I�m sold....
Thanks...

[jgrease]

Man - I finally got tired of trying to even out the upper and lower hull halves in the torpedo belt. I took some of the paper-thin styrene and cut it to the dimensions of the belts and glued it in place. Much better and I should have done it from the start. This isn't going to be easy, is it?

[Tracy White]

test fit test fit test fit!

Honestly, if you clean your joining edges of any flash before hand it's not 100% bad in the hangar deck area... the worst fit problems I had were because of the fit of the main (Hangar) deck to the hull.. the pieces were a tad too thick which made for some gaps when the bulkheads sat on top. bulkhead-tobulkhead wasn't too bad when I sanded down the edges. Some people have complained of the last piece not fitting in, but I started from the midships area and worked both fore and aft at the same time with no problems... the people that "seam" to have problems started at one corner and worked around the circumference of the ship.

[jgrease]

Gaps gaps gaps - today I worked on the starboard side structures which are below the island. My tube of putty will be empty before I'm done with this one! I opened some of the doors and found after the fact that a couple of the doors didn't line up from the outside part to the inside part (I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere about 20 pages back), so i had to cut the inside pieces to match up the openings. Then after attaching the structures to the hull, more filling was done at the seam between the superstructure and the hull. I'm sure that's a continuation of my earlier fit problems. My own fault as mentioned earlier (cough-Tracy-cough). The man is right - measure and fit then work from the inside out. I am still happy with my progress, although it's not the same smooth build as the Sovremenny was.
Also another question- does anyone have a photo of the paravane rails installed? Model or otherwise? The sketch in Tom's PE set is legible but I am having a hard time picturing it in place.

[Tracy White]

How's this?



Paravane track and boom on CV-19, 1946. Paravanes were stowed forward (right side of the photo) and hauled aft to the boom where they were lowered over the side.

[jgrease]

Are there any photos you don't have of these ships? Thanks Tracy.

[Devin]

How's this?

Paravane track and boom on CV-19, 1946. Paravanes were stowed forward (right side of the photo) and hauled aft to the boom where they were lowered over the side.

I hadn't seen that one before. Nice. I'm assume the overhead bent pipe structures are racks for life rafts?

-Devin

[Tracy White]

Oh, there's plenty I don't have...

And you're correct Devin... those are the racks for the rafts. How'd you like to add all THAT mess in PE?

[MartinJQuinn]

And you're correct Devin... those are the racks for the rafts. How'd you like to add all THAT mess in PE?

There's almost too much detail you can add, if you have serious AMS...

[Tracy White]

Very true... but think of the cost/time ratio... these kits make excellent "funness" investments in terms of how much time you can spent after the initial investments

[Capt652]

Tracy,

Would you happen to know if that paravane track continues under the flight deck and along the port side as well?

Thanks

[jgrease]

I know Tracy will give the right answer - according to Tom's Modelworks it does. It's an included part in his PE set for the Essex-class.

[Tracy White]

I've given plenty of wrong answers before!

That said, I don't know that the rail went completely under the flight deck or what track it would have taken, but I would imagine that it did to facilitate moving Paravanes around. There was a corresponding track on the port side, you can see it in NS021332 on Navsource's CV-13 Franklin page and in NS022027 on their CV-20 Bennington page.