Calling all USS Lexington CV-2 fans

[Dick J]

...The odd shaped part had windows that would fold down and allow spotters to have an unobstructed view. Some models have them this way. The director level was enclosed for the equipment serving the FC radar. Is that what you are talking about?

Just a bit of a clarification. In the 8" director structure, there were two functional areas. The central, upper part is where the actual director was mounted. That was the part with the fold-down sides. They were up for weather protection and down for combat. In the Steve Wiper photo on the previous page, the lump sticking up out of the top is the actual director. Slightly below that level, the spotter area (the part with all the windows) surrounded the director platform. Spotters could move from window to window depending on where he target lay. The director rotated on a fixed point and needed the sides folded out of the way to ensure that the target never got stuck behind one of the posts.

Steve, on your bridge part, I noted that you did portray the projecting area on the front of the upper top. The actual MK-19 directors were mounted on the raised central portion of the top and the projection was at the same level. The rangefinders for the MK-19's were slightly lower in the outboard positions. In 1941, Saratoga had the same projection on the front of her upper top. The projection is visible here:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020355.jpg

[ModelMonkey]

Steve, on your bridge part, I noted that you did portray the projecting area on the front of the upper top. The actual MK-19 directors were mounted on the raised central portion of the top and the projection was at the same level. The rangefinders for the MK-19's were slightly lower in the outboard positions. In 1941, Saratoga had the same projection on the front of her upper top. The projection is visible here:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020355.jpg

Aye, Cap'n. Concur.

Unfortunately, I could not design an accurate representation of the raised central portion aft of the projection and wind screen because the extents of it could not be determined with any degree of accuracy from available plans or photos. It will be up to the modeler to scratch one and decide how big to make it. I did, however, design Saratoga's and Lexington's wind screens differently since they were in fact slightly different, most noticeably at the top, and of a slightly different width. That's a detail many plastic kits miss and another way to distinguish the ships.

Please keep advising! I do update designs as new material comes forth and will gladly make "alternative" features where references are inconclusive.

[Jim21680]

So I'm interested in building a 1/350 Lex in an early configuration, at a time when she still had the sharper flight deck at the bow, along with the 8" gun mounts.
(This could be anywhere from late-20s to mid-30's, I believe).

I'm planning to do this using Trumpeter's Sara, as this seems to solve most of my problems with deck shape and gun mounts. I'd also end up using one of the 3D-printed towers from Model Monkey (not sure which one yet), and probably the gun mounts too....but is there any other glaring difference that I'm missing here?

I am by no means a rivet counter, but I'd like to end up with a model that's at least somewhat accurate.

[Dick J]

The most visible differences between the two, as built, were as follows:
1. Sara had a catwalk on the inboard side of the stack, Lex did not.
2. Lex's searchlights on the outboard side of the stack were about 1 level higher than Sara's.
3. The shape of the bridge face was different, but since that changed over time, you need to select the right time and get photos.
4. The shape of the DF station under the forward edge of the forward 8" gun control station differed between the two.

Lex didn't have the flag deck enlarged until her 1942 refit, Sara had hers done in 1932. But since the kit lacks the enlarged bridge, that isn't an issue. In fact, that is more of a problem for those trying to do a late '30's Sara than for those doing Lex. Sara's DF station was removed when the flag bridge was enlarged.

[marijn van gils]

So I'm interested in building a 1/350 Lex in an early configuration, at a time when she still had the sharper flight deck at the bow, along with the 8" gun mounts.
(This could be anywhere from late-20s to mid-30's, I believe).

For this period, I would very much advise the Squadron At Sea book on Lex by David Doyle, as it has a lot of sharply printed photo�s.



Cheers,

Marijn

[ModelMonkey]

Accurate, 3D-printed USS Lexington CV-2 funnels are available. There are four designs, one for each of the following periods:

1928-1935

1936-1940

1941-March, 1942

May 8, 1942 (Battle of the Coral Sea)

Link: http://www.shapeways.com/shops/Model_Monkey

See also: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=162588

[MartinJQuinn]

I suspect LEX was out of the PHNY by 15 April, if so these drawings and correspondence represent after the fact documentation vice proposed or as yet uncompleted work.
By extension, this line of reasoning supports, in my view, the shape of the 1.1" splinter shields / bulwarks as being curved at the fore or aft ends as the subject drawing shows.

I always like to say that a picture saves a thousand words. This one didn't.

John -

Finally getting to read this, after our discussion at the Nationals. What you say certainly makes a lot of sense. Maybe someday photos will show up for conclusive proof.

[ModelMonkey]

For those interested, a 3D-printed design of the splinter shields as shown in plans entitled "...New Anti-aircraft Battery & Fire Control" drawn by Pearl Harbor Navy Yard approved 18 March 1942 is available in 1/350 and 1/700 scales.

1/350: http://www.shapeways.com/product/T3HE5Q ... d=58239817
1/700: http://www.shapeways.com/product/GMTEYY ... d=58239813

In the PHNY drawings, the splinter shields are labeled as "15# S.T.S. Bulwark".

[John W.]

I suspect LEX was out of the PHNY by 15 April, if so these drawings and correspondence represent after the fact documentation vice proposed or as yet uncompleted work.
By extension, this line of reasoning supports, in my view, the shape of the 1.1" splinter shields / bulwarks as being curved at the fore or aft ends as the subject drawing shows.

I always like to say that a picture saves a thousand words. This one didn't.

John -

Finally getting to read this, after our discussion at the Nationals. What you say certainly makes a lot of sense. Maybe someday photos will show up for conclusive proof.

Good to touch base with you at the Nats, Martin. Congrats on your trophy.
LEX pictures at just the right angle, with just the right lighting would be nice. The engineer in me is happy to go with those plans. I have pretty good firsthand experience with how the USN bureaucracy works (and sometimes doesn't). If anyone can produce a picture of the bulwarks, or even official plans, that show their shape as rectangular in plan view, that would be interesting. I've never seen anything like that. Maybe Mike V. or Dick J. ?
All feedback welcome. As my card says: "Razorsharp analysis while you wait".

[Dick J]

Since the refit photos seem to have disappeared, this well known photo is the only one I have seen that is relatively close-up on one of the bulwarks:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/020237.jpg
As you well know, it doesn't give a good representation of the forward end, or of the bulwark on the flightdeck forward. Everything else is distant "fuzzy photo" interpretation. So I guess we have to go with the plans.

[taskforce48]

I still think they were squared at the end. I arrive at this feeling by the fact that this was supposed to be a quick turnaround, much faster to do some bulwark at 90 degree angle and make a square vs round. Secondly, if you blow the picture up that DickJ posted, you will notice ready service 1.1 mags hanging inside of the shield on its forward end. If those drawings are accurate, I feel that you would be able to decern the curve by the way those clips are hanging. They look straight to me.

Just my $.02 worth,

Matt

[ModelMonkey]

For those who want to model the splinter shielding "bulwarks" with straight ends, the Model Monkey 1942 CV-2 island comes that way and includes bulwarks for aft-end of the funnel.

If the modeler chooses to leave the doors open, interior barbette bulkhead and scuttle detail is visible. This is true of all Model Monkey CV-2 and CV-3 islands.

USS Lexington 1942.port.png (197.85 KiB) Viewed 3924 times

Available Separately:
- USS Lexington CV-2 island, 1936-1941
- USS Lexington CV-2 island, 8 May 1942 (Battle of the Coral Sea)
- USS Lexington CV-2 alternative splinter shielding with rounded ends for the island's 1.1-inch "Chicago Piano" mounts (Battle of the Coral Sea)
- USS Lexington CV-2 funnel, 1928-1935
- USS Lexington CV-2 funnel, 1936-1940
- USS Lexington CV-2 funnel, 1941-March,1942
- USS Lexington CV-2 funnel, 8 May 1942 (Battle of the Coral Sea)
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1931-1932
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1933-1935
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1936-1940
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1941 (widened flight deck)
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1942 (Battles of the Eastern Solomons and Guadalcanal)
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1943 (Raids on Bouganville, Rabaul, and the Gilbert & Marshall Islands Campaign)
- USS Saratoga CV-3 island, 1944-1945 (Battle for Okinawa)
- USS Saratoga CV-3 funnel, 1928-1940
- USS Saratoga CV-3 funnel, 1941-March 1942
- USS Saratoga CV-3 funnel, 1944-1945
- set of four 8"/55 cal. turrets, accurate and highly detailed
- set of four 5"/38 Mk.32 twin mounts (for Saratoga, 1942-1945)

[John W.]

I still think they were squared at the end. I arrive at this feeling by the fact that this was supposed to be a quick turnaround, much faster to do some bulwark at 90 degree angle and make a square vs round. Secondly, if you blow the picture up that DickJ posted, you will notice ready service 1.1 mags hanging inside of the shield on its forward end. If those drawings are accurate, I feel that you would be able to decern the curve by the way those clips are hanging. They look straight to me.

Just my $.02 worth,

Matt

Matt -
Look back a ways on this thread - about page 20 or so - and you'll see that I made the same argument for the rectangular shape of the bulwarks as a consequence of the need for speed of fabrication while LEX was at PHNY. I think that is no longer a sustainable point now that I have gone through a lot of the documentation Tracy has provided as well as that info in addition which is printed in Steve Wiper's WP-33.

The original correspondence setting out the scope of the work to be done was in a letter dated 19 March 1942, well before LEX detached on station to return to PH. Changes were made to that original configuration, but still before LEX was even in sight. I recall reading in one of the documents that fabrication of the bulwarks had begun or was to be done before LEX's arrival. Simply put, anything that could be fabricated in advance already was, and well before LEX came alongside the pier. This would include the bulwarks as well as the Flag Bridge mods to be done. One message makes it clear the necessary cribbing and barges / cranes for the 8" turret removal were in place before LEX tied up. If I know anything about how the Navy works, there would have even have been some ship riders who would have CODed aboard LEX long before she entered the channel just to be sure the ship matched the plans where the work was to be performed. As I submitted above, that was the purpose of the "Clipper" package of 17 April - to have up to date plans ready for LEX's next availability, even if it weren't at PH. Suppose, like SARA, she took a torpedo outbound from Pearl in April '42 and was sent direct to Bremerton?
So no step would have been missed to ensure LEX was not delayed. There's even a note that says the Yard could not move the 1.1" mount just forward of the stack to aft of the stack due to insufficient time. The Yard would not have a group of workers just standing around waiting to figure out what to do when LEX showed up. Pretty much everyone knew what to do long before that point.
And the photos. When I look at the Starboard side view of LEX, down by the bow at Coral Sea, I see what looks like a curved forward edge of the bulwark for the upper pair of 1.1" mounts. When I look at the view looking forward along the port side of the upper 1.1" bulwark (that shows the ammo clips) I can convince myself the forward edge does look consistent with a curved forward edge even though the camera is at close to the height of the bulwark, making it difficult to see a curved forward edge. Note that in the plan Steve posted (doesn't show in Steve Larsen's cropped picture above), the forward curved edge of the upper bulwark extends forward beyond the platform that held the #2 8" turret with gussets to support the forward end's overhang. When I look at the shot along the port side of the upper bulwark, I can also convince myself that it appears the platform ends aft of the front of the (curving) bulwark.
Different eyes will see the photos differently in some areas. Pending any newly discovered photos, I think the plans are the best source as far as I am concerned. That's how I intend to build my LEX. (Whenever I finish the other models just ahead of it in the queue - which should have happened five years ago.)

[MartinJQuinn]

Blowing up this picture would probably yield some clues as to the shape of the bulwark.

[John W.]

Blowing up this picture would probably yield some clues as to the shape of the bulwark.

Yes, I think it does. This is the photo to which I was referring just above. Steve Wiper has kindly blown it up - sorry, poor word choice, enlarged it - onto pages 50 and 51 in WP-33.

OK, before you go telling me I'm seeing what I want to see, let me make two comments about the picture. The picture was taken from a cruiser sitting lower in the water than LEX. Judging by some of the visible details such as the undersides of some of the platforms / gun tubs, I would say the camera was at a height below the flight deck. I would guess it was even with the bottoms of the 5"/25 tubs. That would mean the upper pair of 1.1" quads (#3 and #4) forward of the island would be above the camera height and that the angle of a line drawn from the camera would angle upward to the bulwarks from the bulwarks' underside. A horizontal line from the camera would intersect LEX at the bottom of the 5"/25 tubs.
Comment two: this picture was taken after LEX was hit by two torpedoes on the port side which created a list to port of seven degrees according to after action reports. This would roll the ship away from the camera an additional small amount adding a small amount to the previously mentioned camera angles. To be fair, those same reports state LEX was later counterflooded. Whether this picture is pre- or post-counterflooding would be conjectural on my part, but my point is that there could be some effect from listing on the angle from the camera's location to the object of interest - the bulwarks for the upper pair of quad 1.1" mounts.
The top edge of that bulwark in the picture is highlighted against a light sky and is a medium dark gray (5-N in color photos) so the contrast is quite good. I see a definite straight upper edge of the upper bulwarks starting aft until about 3/4 of the way forward where it (to my eye) begins to curve downward. The bottom edge appears to do the same in parallel. With a camera positioned significantly below the bulwark, looking upward at an angle, a curved vertical front surface of the bulwark (half round in the plan view in other words) would be consistent with what appears in this photo.
It would be interesting to blow the photo up even more, but I do not have a high res copy.

[anj4de]

Hi...

Has anyboda seen or touched the new 1/700 Meng Lexington yet? It's availabe here via E-Bay but I know nothing about Lexington and it's 40EUR for a snap togther kit! On the other hand...I recently bought some Bandai Star Wars snap kits and they blew me out of the water, they are simply brilliant! So not sure about Lady Lex I'm afraid.

cheers
Uwe

[marijn van gils]

Blowing up this picture would probably yield some clues as to the shape of the bulwark.

Yes, I think it does. This is the photo to which I was referring just above. Steve Wiper has kindly blown it up - sorry, poor word choice, enlarged it - onto pages 50 and 51 in WP-33.

OK, before you go telling me I'm seeing what I want to see, let me make two comments about the picture. The picture was taken from a cruiser sitting lower in the water than LEX. Judging by some of the visible details such as the undersides of some of the platforms / gun tubs, I would say the camera was at a height below the flight deck. I would guess it was even with the bottoms of the 5"/25 tubs. That would mean the upper pair of 1.1" quads (#3 and #4) forward of the island would be above the camera height and that the angle of a line drawn from the camera would angle upward to the bulwarks from the bulwarks' underside. A horizontal line from the camera would intersect LEX at the bottom of the 5"/25 tubs.
Comment two: this picture was taken after LEX was hit by two torpedoes on the port side which created a list to port of seven degrees according to after action reports. This would roll the ship away from the camera an additional small amount adding a small amount to the previously mentioned camera angles. To be fair, those same reports state LEX was later counterflooded. Whether this picture is pre- or post-counterflooding would be conjectural on my part, but my point is that there could be some effect from listing on the angle from the camera's location to the object of interest - the bulwarks for the upper pair of quad 1.1" mounts.
The top edge of that bulwark in the picture is highlighted against a light sky and is a medium dark gray (5-N in color photos) so the contrast is quite good. I see a definite straight upper edge of the upper bulwarks starting aft until about 3/4 of the way forward where it (to my eye) begins to curve downward. The bottom edge appears to do the same in parallel. With a camera positioned significantly below the bulwark, looking upward at an angle, a curved vertical front surface of the bulwark (half round in the plan view in other words) would be consistent with what appears in this photo.
It would be interesting to blow the photo up even more, but I do not have a high res copy.

For the book on my Lex dio, I purchased a high resolution scan of this photo in TIFF-format. I blew it up as much as possible, but the original photo simply doesn't hold any more detail than you can see in the Wiper book.

Personally, I cannot see whether the bullwarks were square or rounded. I also cannot be sure from the close-up showing the forward flight deck. Personally, I don't trust schematic plans like the one published in the Wiper book. These are a very interesting historical document, but they document an intent, not an actual state of the ship at a certain moment in time.

I built my model with square bullwarks, but have at the moment no opinion on the shape of the real ones (and if they were rounded, that wouldn't be the only mistake on my model, at all! ). They might have been rounded, they might have been square. I think we need new photographs to surface...

But in the meantime, this is an interesting discussion!

Marijn

[John W.]

Personally, I don't trust schematic plans like the one published in the Wiper book. These are a very interesting historical document, but they document an intent, not an actual state of the ship at a certain moment in time.


Marijn

Well, again, my point I made a couple of pages back is that the plans in Steve's book are not documentation of an intent, they are documentation of the work completed - right down to the last minute change in the number of 1.1" mounts added or moved in the work. The relevant ones are dated just after LEX sailed on 14 April. The drawing in question is part of a group of documents forwarded to BuShips and CNO (among others) detailing the current state of LEX as she left the PHNY. They are basically for configuration control so that follow-on work can be properly planned and drawings prepared for any subsequent work.

[davidwaples]

Hi...

Has anyboda seen or touched the new 1/700 Meng Lexington yet? It's availabe here via E-Bay but I know nothing about Lexington and it's 40EUR for a snap togther kit! On the other hand...I recently bought some Bandai Star Wars snap kits and they blew me out of the water, they are simply brilliant! So not sure about Lady Lex I'm afraid.

cheers
Uwe

Greetings Uwe,
I think these MENG Models releases are under the radar right now. I think it's a little early. I've only seen postings of these on their Facebook page and their web site. No sprue shots seen yet. MENG is of course very well known for their armor kits. They are of the highest quality. I would expect nothing less from these new ship kits. The CAD drawings look interesting. No mention of things like photo etch so far. I think we'll have to hang on and see what comes of it and how well it will be supported by the aftermarket community.
Dave

[MartinJQuinn]

List of available kits and gallery entries added to Page 1, under the text of the first post.