Calling all USS Hornet CV-8 fans

[Bondoman]

Little-ball wins games. Great information once again everyone. I get a lot of pleasure reading along.

[Michael Vorrasi]

John, I'm hopefully about to make your job easy. First, she was completed with far fewer hull portholes that CV5 or CV6, so don't go by Yorktown plans as they have many many more portholes. There was only a row along the deck just below the hangar deck, and along the foc'sle above hangar level. All of Hornet's portholes below hangar deck level, save a few amidships, were covered with plates and welded closed before she sailed for the war zone. The remaining ones below hangar deck level were covered over in her July 1942 availability at PHNY, after it was noted how far Yorktown listed and still stayed afloat. (I believe that Yorktown and Enterprise also had this done, in stages, as well. Part of wartime preparations to improve watertight integrity). As for portholes themselves, I think a somewhat glossy charcoal gray color works best if open (I'm thinking a sharp lead pencil works well here better than paint), if closed, the color of the surrounding camo. The windows were swung in and metal plates then swung out to close the opening. They were not glass exposed on the exterior when closed.


Here you can see the abbreviated row of portholes initially left in place, mostly amidships, below hangar level in early 1942. Also note the island portholes, some open, some closed. The closed ones show only the metal porthole covers in matching camo color to surrounding area, and they have a star like frame work of stiffeners on them:

Mike -
Thanks - as usual. I am using the Maryland Silver HORNET plans which show clearly the reduced number of portholes on the as-built HORNET. The photos of HORNET in the drydock as she is being finished clearly show the welded-in flush metal plates used to plug the p/h holes in the shell plating. Obviously the CV5 plans were used for the hull plates and plugs were welded in later to remove the offending holes leaving the reduced number in the single row under the hangar deck as you note..
I'm pretty sure that the p/h shown in the hull below the hangar deck level in those plans remained uncovered (with externally welded-on plates that is) until July as you state. Tell me if I'm wrong as I'm proceeding on that assumption for the Doolittle Raid HORNET. I also note that all the photos I've seen of those p/h show almost no 'eyebrow' above the p/h. It appears there is a 1/3 circle of metal 'brow' welded to the actual p/h outer ring itself. since it is so hard to see, I intend not to bother with it when I attach p/h to the hull. I know of no P/E that has the 'brow' as an integral part of the p/h outer ring - all have the brow several (scale) inches above the outer ring. Likewise, I do not intend to try to duplicate the reinforcements on the outside of the p/h cover (which is still inside the window glass anyway). You can call me a wuss or short ball hitter if you wish, but that's my plan.
John

Hi John,
Yes the photo series of 2/28/42, from which that island shot comes, depicts the ship as she left Norfolk. She saw no changes in configuration until her post-Midway refit and alterations.So for a Tokyo raid model, the row of portholes one deck down from hangar deck should be there. I think when it was seen how far Yorktown listed, nearly to her hangar deck, it was realized that these portholes also had to go as possible threats to W/T integrity in a battle damage situation. I didn't see any eyebrows either, so maybe she used a toned-down style as you say, with just a thin weather molding like a car's drip rail. I would leave it off as too small to capture in 1/350. Also, no glass shows on the closed portholes. The cover and the glass were hinged inward on opposite sides. The window was swung inside the compartment and the metal cover was swung out and dogged into place, so ship's paint here is fine - don't glaze it over.

[John W.]

Mike -
Thanks for the details. I always thought the glass was permanent and the metal plate was hinged inside and closed and dogged from the inside to cover the glass. Every day I try to learn something new. You did it for me today. Thanks. Any pictures?

[John W.]

I did a little bit of searching and came up with this picture after quite a bit of looking. This must be what you describe, Mike.

PortHole.jpg (26.93 KiB) Viewed 2619 times

As I said, this design is new to me. But it makes sense why they would weld a cover plate over it from the outside - that way it would be impossible for any hull penetration to be left open (or, of course, the glass broken out by splinters if the deadlight were not in place).

[Michael Vorrasi]

I did a little bit of searching and came up with this picture after quite a bit of looking. This must be what you describe, Mike.

PortHole.jpg

As I said, this design is new to me. But it makes sense why they would weld a cover plate over it from the outside - that way it would be impossible for any hull penetration to be left open (or, of course, the glass broken out by splinters if the deadlight were not in place).

Exactly what I was trying to describe!

[Bondoman]

I did a little bit of searching and came up with this picture after quite a bit of looking. This must be what you describe, Mike.

PortHole.jpg

As I said, this design is new to me. But it makes sense why they would weld a cover plate over it from the outside - that way it would be impossible for any hull penetration to be left open (or, of course, the glass broken out by splinters if the deadlight were not in place).

Exactly what I was trying to describe!

Perfect illustration. Years ago I had a friend who was involved in "sidewalk astronomy"; people who built telescopes from common materials. There were a lot of glass porthole lenses available for next to nothing at Alameda, and these guys would polish them to make mirrors for reflector telescopes.

[amiers]

Need some help with the waterline on the 1/350 Hornet. is the join between the upper and lower hull the top of the waterline or the middle? also how wide should the water line be(mm)?

[apfelzra]

After several months of construction, interrupted by shoulder surgery in July, I have just posted on Modelwarships.com my build of the Trumpeter 1:350 USS Hornet in her final (October 1942) configuration. My thanks go out to Fred Branyan and the many contributors to this forum for their help in making this build as accurate as I could (my limited reshaping of the hull notwithstanding). --

Robert Apfelzweig

[Angeliccypher]

I know I am getting overly picky about, so bare with me.

I may have missed this in previous posts so if I did, please pardon my oversight.

I am doing the Midway build in diorama. I plan to have the plans spotted for the initial launch, with one F4F having just taken off and another heading down the runway. The hanger will be opened due to warming the engines of planes yet to be spotted.

So here is what I know; The initial load out was 27 F4F, 35 SBD (between VS-8 and VB-8), and 15 TBD. Mitscher's report stats that the the 0755 launch was 10 F4F, all 35 SBD, and all 15 TBD. He also states that the Hornet had a CAP already launched. Parshall and Tully had found that the initial spot only had "half" the TBD on deck, the rest were in the hanger until the first cleared.

So the order line up is going to be the F4F, then the SBD, followed by the TBD as per Mitscher's report.

The parts I do not know are, how many of the remaining seventeen F4F where on CAP versus in the hanger? Which launched first, VS-8 or VB-8? Unless I cut a TBD in two pieces, I am not sure how to get half of fifteen on the deck <sarcasm>, so how many were in the hanger on the initial? And finally can anyone direct me to what squadron markings were used? I may be using the wrong term here. The ones I am looking for are the "8 F 5" markings on the side of the planes. Were there any other squadron markings used, besides the navy defaults?

Thanks for indulging me in this.

[MartinJQuinn]

The TBDs were in two sections. One of 7 planes and one of 8. George Gay was the first plane off, Waldron was the last. I think that Gay's section was in the hangar and brought up on deck and launched ahead of Waldron's section, which was sitting at the back of the flight deck. I could be wrong (I frequently am), and goofed on my CV-8 build - I put Waldron's section in the hangar deck.

Would have to check The First Team by Lundstrom to check about the F4Fs...

[Jerry Phillips]

Hornet Air Group, June 1942:

VS-8.....white fuselage codes, aft of fuselage star.....ex: "S-1"

VB-8......black fuselage codes, aft of fuselage star......ex: "B-1"

VF-8.....black fuselage codes, fwd of fuselage star.......ex: "F1" (no "tack" between the F and no#)

VT-8.....black fuselage codes, fwd or aft of fuselage star.....ex: "T-2"......photos show that T-5 had its codes fwd of star, while T-3, T-16 had their codes aft of star. On 04 June 1942, there was no T-1 in VT-8 (normally the CO's aircraft). Instead Cdr Waldron flew T-16 that day.

I did not include any info regarding nose/wing numerals (in 1/350 scale?).

I have no idea as to exact launch sequence that morning, except that Waldron's T-16 was the last aircraft of strike group to launch. If you flip back a few pages, there is a link to John Ford's film "Torpedo 8", which shows this actual event.

HTH,
Jerry Phillips

[Jerry Phillips]

....on further research, Hornet's launch sequence, 04 June 1942:

0700....VF-8 launches 8 F4F-4's for the CAP. Immediately after, VF-8 launches 10 F4F-4's for the strike escort. Spotted next were 34 SBD-3's. First off were 15 VS-8 SBD-3, then CHAG's SBD-3 and his wingman in a VB-8 SBD-3. These first 17 SBD-3's were armed with 500lb bombs. Next off (spotted with VS-8 earlier) came 17 VB-8 SBD-3's, each armed with 1000lb bombs. As the last SBD's were being launched the first of VT-8's 15 TBD-1's were being spotted. They were spotted/launched in 2 groups, as they needed all the flight deck they could get with their torpedo loads (and green pilots). VT-8's skipper, Cdr Waldron was the last one off the deck at 0754. VT-8 sidenote: the MkXIII torpedoes had a wooden box like structure installed over the torpedoes fins/prop, in an attempt to correct the weapons known deficiencies (VT-6 did the same). This launch sequence was later criticized, as the short-ranged F4F-4's were launched first (all 10 F4F-4's were lost to fuel starvation). The plan was for a "running rendezvous" with the 4 squadrons, which was impossible with the relative speed differences between TBD-1's and SBD-3's (VT-8 should have been launched before the SBD-3's). Hornet's Air Department's inexperience showed that day as the launch also took too long. This info came from "A Glorious Page In Our History".....if you have a copy....Get one!!

Jerry Phillips

[Angeliccypher]

As usual, you guys are awesome! Thank you!

Jerry, where did you get the information about the launch sequence? I am also left with a couple of questions.

Mitscher said they launched 35 SBD. You said 34. So one was left in the hanger? More to the point how many SBD3 were actually on board, in the hanger or otherwise? How many of those where VS-8 and VB-8 (if I am understanding you correctly, VS-8 launched 15 craft, while VB-8 launched 19 per what was on the deck, not who was actually flying)? The information on the bomb load out is great!

VF-8 only launched 10, and had 8 on cap so that left 9 in the hanger right? I am guessing that we have no idea what numbers were in the attack versus the hanger or on CAP?

VS and VB where completely sequential from 1-* for the craft on board right? I know launch sequence may not adhere to the order though. Any information on their spotting order?

Other than the 9 F4F and Gay's group of 7 TDB, was there anything else in the hanger at the time? Spares maybe?

Hornet's Air Department's inexperience showed that day as the launch also took too long.
Jerry Phillips

They were the greenest team in the fleet. By the time of her demise though, she was one of the most efficient. Especially at directing fighter CAP via the ships radar. Unfortunately during Santa Cruz, the incredibly green team of CV-6 was doing this, and poorly at that. So Hornet did not receive a lot of glory for what she did, but after Midway she ended up being one of the best run carriers till her sinking. You just don't hear too much about anything between Midway and Santa Cruz.

[Jerry Phillips]

The above launch sequence info came from "A Glorious Page In Our History", Cressman, Ewing, Tillman, et.al., mostly from pg.86.

To further muddy the waters, here is info from Lundstroms "First Team" book, pgs. 330-332:

Hornet Air Group, 04Jun42, total aircraft aboard:
CHAG........flew a VB-8 SBD-3
VF-8.........27 F4F-4
VB-8.........19 SBD-3
VS-8.........16 SBD-3
VT-8.........15 TBD-1

All were operational, except 1 VS-8 SBD-3

According to Lundstrom, Hornets initial deckload was, spotted well before dawn, 20 F4F-4's (10, 8 plus 2 spares for the CAP, 10 for strike escort), 34 SBD-3's, and at the stern, 6 TBD-1's. The launch commenced at 0700. Verified aircraft no#'s for the strike escort were: F18, F5, F9, F19, F13....other 5 unknown. According to this book, AFTER the last SBD's took off, the remaining 9 TBD's were brought up from the hanger deck, and VT-8 launched TOGETHER, and all were airborne by 0742. At 0754, one of VF-8's CAP F4F's made a deferred forced landing, and a spare F4F was launched to restore the CAP to 8 F4F's.

Obviously, the 2 sources I listed dont jive 100% in the details. Which is correct? I would personally lean towards Lundstrom.

FWIW,
Jerry Phillips

[Angeliccypher]

I think that gives me a good set of ideas for the air wing and what is going where when I build her.

Looking for a further opinion on what after market parts to get for her. Here is what I have landed on so far:

From White Ensign:
-hanger (PE 3541)
-airwing (PE 3526)
-F4F photo etch (PE 3530)
-SBD3 photo etch (PE3531)
-TBD1 photo etch (PE3546)
-cat walks (PE3546)

From Tom's Model works:
-USS hornet CV8 photo etch set (3532)

From Master:
-20mm (SM-350-050) (I understand that she was equipped with 30 of these mounts)

From L'Arsenal:
-5" mounts (AC 350 21)
-1.1" mounts (AC 350 37)

Things I have not found yet:
-500lbs bombs
-1000lbs bombs
-torpedos
-personnel.....I don't like the photo etch ones

I am going to modify the hull to make that correct as well, and I am also going to go back through the forums again to figure out what else needs to be corrected to make the Trumpeter 1/350 kit look right.

All I have to say about this kit is that it is sad the amount of modification and after market parts are needed to make it look better than the old Revel kit I built in the early '80s. Why can't Dragon make one of these for us?

[Dick J]

I am going to modify the hull to make that correct as well, and I am also going to go back through the forums again to figure out what else needs to be corrected to make the Trumpeter 1/350 kit look right.

I wish you luck on that one. The hull needs major reworking!!

All I have to say about this kit is that it is sad the amount of modification and after market parts are needed to make it look better than the old Revel kit I built in the early '80s. Why can't Dragon make one of these for us?

The last question is one we are all asking. We have no meaningful answer.

[FRED BRANYAN]

I think that gives me a good set of ideas for the air wing and what is going where when I build her.

Looking for a further opinion on what after market parts to get for her. Here is what I have landed on so far:

From White Ensign:
-hanger (PE 3541)
-airwing (PE 3526)
-F4F photo etch (PE 3530)
-SBD3 photo etch (PE3531)
-TBD1 photo etch (PE3546)
-cat walks (PE3546)

From Tom's Model works:
-USS hornet CV8 photo etch set (3532)



From Master:
-20mm (SM-350-050) (I understand that she was equipped with 30 of these mounts)

From L'Arsenal:
-5" mounts (AC 350 21)
-1.1" mounts (AC 350 37)

Things I have not found yet:
-500lbs bombs
-1000lbs bombs
-torpedos
-personnel.....I don't like the photo etch ones

I am going to modify the hull to make that correct as well, and I am also going to go back through the forums again to figure out what else needs to be corrected to make the Trumpeter 1/350 kit look right.

All I have to say about this kit is that it is sad the amount of modification and after market parts are needed to make it look better than the old Revel kit I built in the early '80s. Why can't Dragon make one of these for us?

Angelic

I have photos of all types of CV8 planes at Midway. VS 8 planes had wing numbers if you are up to that in 1/350, the other squadrons did not. If you want the photos just rattle my cage at fredb1048@aol.com. Good luck on this worthy project.

Fred Branyan

[Angeliccypher]

email sent:) Thank you!

[robertmelvin]

Angelic, I hope when you start this project you'll grace us with a WIP thread. I've got Hornet in my stash and have slowly accumulated all the PE I need for her. Still need to get some of the after market weapons sets though. I'm also planning on doing her in her Midway configuration. As for the notorious hull, given my equally notoriously bad scratch building skills, I'm just gonna live with it.

Bob

[Angeliccypher]

There will definatly be a WIP thread. I like being able to show what I am doing and slways looking for feed back whether it is good, bad or merely a suggestion on how I can do it better next time. I am not any good at scratch building either, but I am going to do everything I can to get her right.

Thank you to everyone who has replied so far to my inane questions.

I do not want to revel the source yet, but I think I found someone that is willing to do the plane ordnance in 1/350 for me. it will be brass turned, but I will have to do the propellers and fins for the torpedos and bombs myself. not sure how to do that yet. But I have a few rudementary ideas running through the cavern between the ears.