Calling all Essex-class (WWII configuration) fans

[Cadman]

The source is Dale Haskins and the photos can be found right here in the UNREP with the USS Laws and USS Boxer.

[Tracy White]

While studying other Essex class photos, it appears that I may have closed the wrong roller door near the starboard aft Bofors tubs. Doh. Instead of closing off the fore-most door of the three short doors, I should have closed off the aft-most door. Tracy, please confirm. If so, well, that'll give me something new to fix.

Best answer I can give you right now is "probably." Nothing Definate but I'll look through her departure records this weekend and see what I can find.

For sure, a photo I have of her before the Puget Sound work, when she had the quad 40s in this position but not as far out as after her overhaul, shows daylight through the forward two of these doors and what is either a closed door or flat bulkhead inboard of the mount. Typically a smallish structure was built here that served as a clipping room for the mounts in this area, but a photo I have of her post refit doesn't appear to show one; it could be because of the angle, or it could be because one is not there. ALso doesn't answer whether there was a roller door in this area.

The funny/annoying thing is that I have photos of the aft starboard area side early on, the later-war photos all seem to be from the port side....

[Jose Chaica]

(EDITED)

Hello

A couple of questions on late-war (June 1945) CV-10 Yorktown:

A) Did she ever had an SK-2 antenna fitted (replaced the SK, while at Ulithi, in May)???
B) Did (and how many and where) she ever had twin 20mm Oerlikons fitted ???

These questions arised while I was reading Osprey�s "US Navy Aircraft Carriers 1942�45 WWII-built ships ".
I had the felling that she never had received the SK-2 antenna. The twin Oerlikons its, at least to me, a long lasting doubt...

Thanks for your help.

.

[ar]

A small correction if I may.
None of the ships were ever fitted with SK-1. They only carried SK or SK-2.
SK-1 was a land based version of SK used by the Marines. Named SK-1M.

Hello

A couple of questions on late-war (June 1945) CV-10 Yorktown:

A) Did she ever had an SK-2 antenna fitted (replaced the SK-1, while at Ulithi, in May)???
B) Did (and how many and where) she ever had twin 20mm Oerlikons fitted ???

These questions arised while I was reading Osprey�s "US Navy Aircraft Carriers 1942�45 WWII-built ships ".
I had the felling that she never had received the SK-2 antenna. The twin Oerlikons its, at least to me, a long lasting doubt...

Thanks for your help.

.

[Tracy White]

She had the SK radar at the end of the September-October '44 overhaul... only incidental work was done on the radar at that time from what I have scanned in.

[ModelMonkey]

It appears from photographs of Yorktown taken at Ulithi and afterwards the SK mast was raised in height at Ulithi, the radar antenna itself being removed temporarily to facilitate the heightening of the mast. I can point to two photographs, one taken before the refit at Ulithi and one photo taken during showing the different mast heights. PM me if you'd like me to send you some scans.

Just speculating, but a change in mast height may have been done to reduce some interference being experienced or to improve the range somewhat, more probably the former however. Radar technology was young and evolving very quickly so it is likely that constant "tweaking" was probably being done while the ships were in service.

[Jose Chaica]

I just came across a picture in Clark Reynold�s book "Fighting Lady - The new Yorktown in the Pacific War", in one of the last pages, that (supposedly) shows Yorktown at Tokyo Bay. In that picture, we can clearly see that she has the SK radar fitted, and not the -2.

.

[Adaks]

It appears from photographs of Yorktown taken at Ulithi and afterwards the SK mast was raised in height at Ulithi, the radar antenna itself being removed temporarily to facilitate the heightening of the mast.

I believe that this interesting photo was taken during raising the SK mast:



I think it�s the end of 1944 or beginning of 1945.

[ModelMonkey]

Great photo, Adaks!

Tracy, I was looking at photos of the two aft, starboard hangar deck-level quad Bofors mount tubs and I am having trouble determining if the tubs' decks were really flush with the hangar deck or slightly raised above it as per the Trumpy 1/350 kit. Thoughts?

[Tracy White]

I have a hard time believing they were anything but flush... for the amount of work they did to attach them, I don't see why they would have left them a foot or two higher....

[ModelMonkey]

I have a hard time believing they were anything but flush... for the amount of work they did to attach them, I don't see why they would have left them a foot or two higher....

I agree, I think the elevated positions of the Trumpy kit aren't correct. The following two photos indicate that the tub decks might actually be slightly lower than the hangar deck. It's either that or the deck-edge waterway plate is making the hangar deck edge look taller than it really was.

Click on thumbnail to see larger image



If we assume that the paint line matches the hangar deck edge, look very closely at the aft Bofors tubs and decide for yourself if they appear lower:

[Tracy White]

Some comments:

2. The three flight deck parts are not the same thickness so lining them up to hide the joints for a smooth flight deck
surface is tricky. I found that removing locator strips on the parts' undersides aids in the fit of the flight deck to the
hull's bulkheads.

And how! I found that flipping the parts upside-down made aligning them deck-side easier; there was no step between the parts, although care must be taken to not get so much glue down that it seeps between the deck and the surface it's resting on.

Or perhaps Yorktown only had
nine arrestor cables rigged but mechanisms for 21. I'll defer to Tracy for confirmation.

The forward arresting gear was removed during the Sept-October overhaul, but I have no records as to whether or not the cables were in place before then, or more to the point, how late in her service they were used.

7. The flight deck parts' undersides are not detailed at all. There are no kit parts to replicate the hangar deck
overhead which looked like this on Hornet (view is forward toward bow with elevator well in the distance):

::Snip::

Thanks to the recent find of photos of Hornet in mothballs, here's what the forward elevator well looked like on
Hornet, much busier than depicted by the kit.

I would not use the mothball photos as reference shots for a WWII Essex. Hornet was significantly changed after the war, and this included her hangar area. The elevator well and elevator structure are significantly different. Bulkhead walls in this area should probably be deck blue, to fit in with the deck above. Observe this photograph of Lexington's aft elevator well:



Note the dark bulkheads underneath the elevator itself but white ones in the distance and in the pit. Not too, that the elevator's underside structure is different than Hornet's post-war mothballed one, which would have been reworked for heavier aircraft as these ships were.

There are not a lot of good photos of the hangar bays... there are a few, but nothing comprehensive. What is there is enough to know that this area was different from ship to ship just like the exterior, and changed throughout the war, just like the exterior.

[ModelMonkey]

Although appearing in previous posts, these WWII-period photos may help those who are detailing the elevator wells
and hangar deck overhead.

Click on thumbnails to see larger image

Much of the area immediately below the flight deck (but above the hangar deck space) was occupied by compartments,
shops, offices, etc. In these areas, the hangar deck overhead lay very low and is conspicuous when looking into the
hangar deck through hangar deck openings. This photo shows to good effect just how low the overhead lay where
there were gallery deck compartments. Notice that the hangar deck overhead in the area near the midships elevator
is nearly even with the opening.



Notice the structural framing of the bulkheads, various piping, and paint demarcation line in this photo of the aft
elevator cutout:



Notice the overhead details just aft the of the elevator. In areas like this where there were no gallery deck
compartments (and thus no low overhead), the large transverse flight deck supporting structural members are
exposed and the overhead between them is much higher. As an example of just how tall these transverse members
were, there is a photo of Yorktown showing SBD Dauntlesses being suspended from the overhead fitting neatly
between the members. Also note that these transverse structural members were good places to store aircraft
parts.

[ModelMonkey]

Thanks for the compliments!

In answer to your questions, the vertical straps you mention are called butt straps. They reinforced the joints
between metal plates forming the hull's shell. Photos indicate that the shell plates of the upper hull of the Essex
class ships that served during World War II were riveted and butt strapped to each other rather than welded. It
appears that the rest of the hull (lower hull and ends) was welded thus no butt straps there. Tracy may be able
to tell us if ships of the class finished later were all welded.

To replicate the butt straps, I used Evergreen .010" x .060" (0.25mm x 1.5mm) styrene strips since they had the
right width. Even at just .010" thick, they are a bit too thick, however, so I thinned them down further using a
sanding stick after I had glued them to the hull.

To identify where they go, you just have to carefully study photos of the ships. The butt straps on the hull below the
hangar deck level are evenly spaced. The butt straps along the sides of the hangar deck are not evenly spaced.
Finding photos of the starboard side was easier than the port side. Tracy had some great close-up photos of
Lexington receiving her angled flight deck modifications (with the original plating detail not yet covered up) and
Franklin at Puget Sound, 27 Jan 1945, together with Dale Haskins' photos posted of Boxer earlier in the thread
were the most helpful.

Hope this helps!

[ModelMonkey]

My Yorktown hull has been painted and I'm very happy with the results.

Regarding the use of Gator masks for Trumpy's Essex class kits, the Gator masks did save considerable time but
they were somewhat inaccurate overall specifically for Yorktown 1945 when compared to photos, especially the port
side, extreme bow and stern. I suspect they were produced as a generic Ms33 10a and were probably intended by
the manufacturer to be adapted for specific ships at specific times. But don't be discouraged for I am very satisfied
with the result. I was able to complete one side of the hull (all colors, mask and paint) in about three hours, drying
time between colors included. So starboard side was done Monday night between 9pm and midnight and port last
night. Tonight is touch up night.

What worked well for me was to lay an individual mask on the hull then check against photos of the real ship and
adjust position/nip/tuck/tape where necessary. Fortunately, the masks were very easily adaptable using a #11 Xacto
or some Tamiya tape. Most individual masks were slightly out of shape and too small so Tamiya tape was needed
more than the Xacto knife, which turned out to be an advantage. Since I had enlarged many of the individual masks
using Tamily tape, there were only a few areas of mask edge where edge lift became a problem.

The vinyl adhered well for airbrushing purposes but the adhesive was noticeably weaker than Tamiya tape thus the
edges tended to lift off after several minutes so rub down all edges just before airbrushing.

The Gator mask sheet I used includes flight deck stripes and large numerals but I have not yet completed the flight
deck nor painted it using the masks so I can't yet comment on the flight deck masks.

Although the masks weren't a perfect match for Yorktown 1945, but once adjusted, the results are very good
and IMHO they were worth the money.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

Thanks again for the kind compliments!

In answer to a question about Ms. 33-10a colors asked via private message, the colors I used are 5-L (Light Gray),
5-O (Ocean Gray) and 5-N (Navy Blue) per the Navy spec.
See: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 170025.jpg.

However, the ship may have actually been painted in 5-P (Pale Gray), 5-H (Haze Gray) and 5-N (Navy Blue).
Keith Hufnagel chose P-H-N for his superb and inspirational build of Yorktown as she appeared in 1944 with
Air Group 3 aboard (my build is 1945 with Air Group 9 aboard). There are slight differences in the 1944 and
1945 patterns.
See: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Compare these inspirational Yorktown builds:
USS Yorktown CV-10 by Andy Elwood: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Yorktown by Kelly Quirk: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Yorktown CV-10 by Hanchang Kuo: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Yorktown CV-10 by Howard Davis IV: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

Also compare the various camouflage schemes of these fine builds:
USS Essex CV-9 by Douglas Conrady: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Essex CV-9 by Michael Taylor: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Essex CV-9 by Alex Lee: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Intrepid CV-11 by Len Roberto: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Intrepid CV-11 by Steve Booher: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Hornet CV-12 by Rick Bellanger: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Hornet CV-12 by Walt Plucinski: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Franklin CV-13 by Simon Bird: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Franklin CV-13 by by Bob Harris: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Franklin CV-13 by Umberto Rossi: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Lexington CV-16 by Jim Fosdick: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Bunker Hill CV-17 by by James Nicol: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html
USS Bunker Hill CV-17 by Pierre Marchal: http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

[Tracy White]

Since Air Group 9 came aboard about the same time as her bomb strike (March 18 45') and her apparent next modification was not until April 45', did you intend to show her Camo pattern bomb blackened ,weather-worn, and covered with rust and primer scalds or with a fresh paint job and the April refit?

According to my notes, "The Fighting Lady" has CV-10 painting into MS 21 around March 1st, 1945. I'm not near the book so I don't know if it lists CVG-9 coming aboard at the same time, but if memory serves they took over most of CVG-3's aircraft. The types are certainly similar.

Retraction/ correction, she was repainted in fresh dazzle at that point... she painted into Ms 21 on May 14, 1945.

Pages 243 and 297.

[Tracy White]

According to my notes, "The Fighting Lady" has CV-10 painting into MS 21 around March 1st, 1945.

Retraction/ correction, she was repainted in fresh dazzle at that point... she painted into Ms 21 on May 14, 1945.

Pages 243 and 297.

[Guest]

According to my notes, "The Fighting Lady" has CV-10 painting into MS 21 around March 1st, 1945.

Retraction/ correction, she was repainted in fresh dazzle at that point... she painted into Ms 21 on May 14, 1945.

Pages 243 and 297.

At Ulithi athol.

[jackyoung]

Hi everyone,

Here come some quastions. My next mission is building a CV-10 for my friends' TG58.1 program. So, who can give me some information about the 20mm and mk51 configration of CV-10 during Turkey Shoot? Thank you all very much!

Jack