"LIFE" captured some shots of Hornet at Norfolk in August '41. The second picture made it into the September LIFE Magazine. https://books.google.com/books?id=l0wEA ... &q&f=false
This was before she was handed over to the Navy by the builders and before she was painted into MS-12. She is wearing a solid dark color on her hull. Just curious if she was wearing 5-D during this time and during her "builder's trials"? 5-S was just authorized as a color to replace 5-D at the end of July but it was not available quite yet. http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... tCamo.html
AFAIK, Atlantic Fleet carriers were experimenting with Measure 4 (Black System) during this time although photos are pretty rare. Sometime around August/September they changed to Measure 12. I think it's unlikely Hornet went on builder's trials with Measure 4 if it is indeed that scheme.
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne
Martin -
As far as primer paint color is concerned, I know I had a discussion with Tracy some time back. He found records from the Norfolk Navy Yard (in Portsmouth!) that showed it was Zinc Chromate, but he could not identify if it was ZC Green or Yellow. It is kind of a dusky shade in the under construction pictures like the ones posted just above. But the side shots of HORNET at sea for the Raid show a light color where the 5 N was scuffed away - lighter than eith 5 N or 5 O anyway.
On page 30 of this CASF I raised the issue and showed some color pictures of BUCHANAN in Ms 12 that showed a real light - almost white - under color on the transom, as well as some yellow spots where paint was flaking off. I speculated that the ZC Yellow might have been bleached white by sea water (chlorine in water) but just guessing. It's possible the discussion ended up in the paint and camo section because I couldn't find it in this CASF just now. And of course I guess the ZC could have been overcoated in a light grey. We'd have to find shipyard painting records for that time. Still, look at Wiper's BUCHANAN book if you have it. There are even what appear to be red lead touchup splotches on the hull too. A number of colors that surprised me when I took up the magnifier and looked at the color photos. Didn't see any ZC Green on that particular ship.
John
Added later: I found the discussion on primer paint on HORNET's hull to which I refer above para one. In the "Camo and Coatings" folder below there is a thread I started on April 4, 2013 titled "USN early 1940s primer paints" that goes into more detail without a definitive conclusion. There are pictures in Wiper's "YORKTOWN CLASS" book that show HORNET fitting out next to the pier and seemingly in the same dusky dark or medium gray color (B&W photo, though) as above pictures. That might make me lean toward a Chromate Green color. Maybe. But my words of caution: for a number of years I drove across the James River Bridge to work most mornings and there was usually one or more NIMITZ or FORD class carriers tied up parallel to the shore at NNSB&DD (Ingalls now) nearly perpendicular to my line of sight as I was approaching the Newport News shore. In other words, the whole length of the ship was visible. Depending on the clouds, sun angle, and mist at that time on that day, the actual haze grey on the ship appeared to be 5 N, or 5 O, or 5 H, or 5 L. And I do mean the purple-blue 5N. Same ship, different day and different color. The "dusky" color in B&W could have been from the sun angle and/or cloud cover. And those photos in Wiper's book were taken long before any camo was applied, so it wasn't 5 S.
Anyway, FWIW . . .
John
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
That picture looks like the deck spot for the Raid launch.
Can someone help me on this: I think I remember that one of HORNET's design changes was to allow for the forward-fit of Quad 40mm Bofors to replace the 1.1" quads and so the forward two quad tubs were spaced further forward, #3 quad tub was lowered to the flight deck level, and #4 was lowered to the gallery deck. In the latter two cases, this lowered the CG. So the question is: if true, did the HORNET get built with the actual quad Bofors tubs, or the smaller quad 1.1" tubs. And what size was the tub for the Mk 44 director for each quad 1.1" for HORNET?
Thanks (Dick?)
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
Hornet's 1.1 arrangement was modified from the original Yorktown config to allow for the quad 40MM. However, the size of the installed tubs does not appear to have been intended to allow a direct substitution of quad 40MM for quad 1.1's. I am not even sure that the precise size of the quad 40MM mount was known at the time Hornet's tubs were fitted. But it was the anticipated size of the mount, rather than topweight, that lead to the repositioning of the #3 mount from the top of the clipping room to the gallery deck further aft. A tub large enough to accommodate a quad 40MM would have interfered with the operation of the large crane, so it was moved. When Enterprise upgraded to 40MM, her #3 quad was relocated as well. But in the big 1943 refit, a twin 40MM, with the same footprint as a quad 1.1, was fitted atop the clipping room. Sorry, but I don't have the dimensions of the tubs for the MK-44's.
Dick -
Thanks for the reply. I was pretty sure you'd say the tubs installed on HORNET were not the quad Bofors' size because the blueprints show a smaller diameter for the 1.1" - by more than the thickness of the drawing pen - when compared to Bofors tubs I have laying around. Was hoping I could use the clip racks inside the Bofors tubs in the 1.1" tubs for detail effect. Some pictures showing 1.1" clip racks may be more like a shelf than a perforated rack, one ammo clip per hole. Any thoughts?
Am really getting into the weeds I know, but am making enough progress where I have the biggest things done or figured out, and the smallest ones remain. I am smooshing several manufacturer's products together to get to HORNET, and they do not all agree on size and fit requiring some crafting at every turn. (If only Merit would do HORNET. $#1^!!, but I have heard directly from a Merit source why they probably never will.) For the record: hull carved from BWN resin (tried several other ways to get accurate hull first, spending lots of time trying to save time), A lot of the Merit YORKTOWN kit (found Trump kit totally unusable for my purposes), Model Monkey island w/o catwalks, P/E from Pontos, Infini, various 3D printed AA weapons, lots of scratch-changing of parts.
Endeavoring to persevere.
John
Some people make you happy, then they leave.
Others make you happy when they leave. (apologies to Oscar Wilde if he ever said anything similar, of which there is some doubt . . .)
The primary purpose of this structure was not as a hose support. It was one of 10 "outriggers" that were designed into the Yorktown class - 4 to starboard and 6 to port. The actual purpose was to support the tail wheel of an aircraft. The outrigger would be positioned perpendicular to the deck, the tail wheel would be attached to a slide on the outrigger and then the aircraft would be pushed back until the tailwheel reached the end of the outrigger. This increased the deck-spot capacity of the flightdeck and allowed some "ready" aircraft to be stowed out of the way of the remainder of the deck load. The numbers of outriggers were reduced as the 20MM fit was increased and eventually, all were removed from Enterprise. Yorktown and Hornet still had a few when they were lost.
Silly question time; are there any drawings out there that clearly show where all the associated island rigging goes? I'm looking specifically for USS Hornet data, but any info from the class would also be good. Thanks a bunch,
Kevin
30 years ago I started off with nothing, and I've still got most of it!
