Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Captain Morgan » Wed Dec 10, 2025 12:52 pm

JTninja wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 11:55 pm TLDR - Flyhawk appears to be under scaled :doh_1:

For this test, I've compared a number of Yorktown class waterline hulls. I've taken the numbers we have for the actual ship, and using the metric system, used my Tamiya hull to check my measurements against those of other members. As others have reported, they have found the Tamiya kits to be at a 1/719 scale. Measuring several difference areas using the cutting mat shown in the images below, I too found results in the 1/714-1/721 range. I measured the length at the waterline, max length of the hull, max length of the flight deck, length of flight deck w/o the ramps, and the overall length of the ship. Now that I have a method in measuring the approximation sizing of the Tamiya hull, I then measured the other hulls and the Flyhawk hull.

For comparison, here's are the 1/700 hulls we're measuring:
Tamiya Enterprise (width modified, but length as it came)
Flyhawk Enterprise
Trumpeter Yorktown (new tool)
Academy Enterprise
Tom's Modelworks Hornet (Resin, "replacement" hull for Trumpeter kit)
MENG Enterprise (Snap kit)
Trumpeter Hornet (older tooling, infamously known for its tanker hull)

Notes on measuring:
- Tom's Modelworks hull was advertised as a replacement for the Trumpeter Hornet kit, but it wasn't actually designed for the kit, but adapted for it. It wasn't a perfect fit, but its works with some modification, and makes for a great improvement. Instructions were provided on modifying the plastic kit to fit the resin hull.
- For overall length, only MENG, Tamiya, and Trumpeter Hornet could be measured accurately, as the hulls were built up enough for the flight deck to fit correctly. For the rest, rubber bands were use to hold the flight deck and hull together, placing the forward and aft elevators in roughly the correct position.

Here are the measurements, based in Centimeters, with comparison of the size of the actual Yorktown hull scaled to 1/700.
Image

Based on my measurements, I estimate the Flyhawk kit to be around 1/715 scale. You can visually see how it compares in size to the Tamiya kit, which as stated above, its known to be under scale. Trumpeter and MENG seems to average very close to 1/700, with Academy just slightly smaller.


Some pictures to show the difference in sizing and shaping :

Here for the overall hull length, the bows are lined up at the 0cm line. Note that each hull has the same assigned number from the above table
Image

Shaping of the upper hull to the waterline. You can see the improvement of more recent toolings since Tamiya and Trumpeters first offering
Image

Comparison of the kits with full hulls with reasonable shaping. No idea why keel of the Flyhawk kit is so flat, that seems like an error. MENG's lower hull seems closest to the old Revell 1/480-487 hull, but I still think it thickens up too far forward. While not perfect, I think all 3 do a reasonable job of depicting a Yorktown class hull.
Image

Comparison of flight decks
Image

So regarding the new Flyhawk kit
Pros:
- Detail. While some might be inaccurate, the level of detail is incredible. Something you might expect from a 1/200 kit, not 1/700. The individual parts are quite detailed, and the number of things made as individual parts instead of part of a larger piece is very nice.
- Aircraft are probably the best you'll see outside of 3D printing.

Cons:
- Underscale
- Hull plating
- Hull shape is close, but it's still not perfect.
- Few aircraft. Standard comes with 3 each of F4F, SBD, TBD. Deluxe gives you a total of 6 each.


Despite its apparent issues, I look forward to building it.
Thank you for the comparison this helps because I’m tired of underscale models from companies who obviously don’t care about the builders. I’ll keep my Trumpetor with all the upgrades I did.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Brocky » Thu Oct 30, 2025 9:25 pm

Hi All,
I have another off the wall (bulkhead) question.

Did the Enterprise stop using the boat booms during the war?

I discovered that there is an open access port for the stern boat boom on both of the Yorktown and Enterprise. I can tell from the plans that this port is above the stern boat boom. Yet in all the pictures I have found of the Enterprise at anchor in port during 1942 to 1945 she doesn’t seem to be using the booms. Her ships boats are tied up to the hull at various point with what appear to be rope ladders hanging down the hull from the main deck edge.

TIA and cheers,
Mark B.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Brocky » Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:16 pm

Hi guys.
Forgive my asking if this has been asked and answered else where, but does anybody know what the Outside Diameter, Pitch and Wire Diameter for the Yorktown Class anchor chains were?

Thanks.
Mark B.

Hi guys,
I was able to get a good read on the anchor chains from the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park website. They have a great visual tour set up and you can make all sorts of measurements with it.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by TZoli » Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:19 am

Thank you

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Dick J » Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:03 am

The 8 5" locations are obvious, as are the 4 quad 1.1's in their original locations. The 32 20MM were as follows: 2 on bow bandstand, 5 each in the catwalks port and starboard ahead of the island, 5 in the port catwalk aft, 5 in the starboard aft catwalk (2 bracketing the top of the hangar level boat crane and a group of 3 further forward), 2 on the fantail (later to be cut into the after flightdeck round down) and 8 outboard of the island. She still had the 4 .50's, 1 at each corner of the flightdeck, and possibly a few still mounted high on the island, but those are less certain.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by TZoli » Fri Oct 03, 2025 6:15 am

Do we know what was the light AA gun layout of Enterprise by the time of Midway?
I have numbers from one source but I do not know how accurate that is and do not know the disposition of them.
4x4 1,1" and 32x 20mm Oerlikons. At least I know 24 of the Oerlikons positions:
2 at the nose, 1-1 at the aft part of the flight deck, both sides, behind the 5" gun galleries, and four 5 gun galleries.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by TZoli » Wed May 28, 2025 2:22 am

MartinJQuinn wrote:Here you go...I found these at NARA II
img134.jpg
img135.jpg
Thank you!

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by TZoli » Wed May 28, 2025 2:20 am

SeanF wrote:Fascinating mount! But yeah... kind of surprised they'd even try that arrangement, given the difficulty in loading that middle gun is pretty blatantly obvious. Did they learn nothing from the 1.1" quad? And this thing is even more awkward to reach over! Maybe if you staggered the middle gun forward and loaded it from below? (Still doesn't sound like a good idea to me!)
Maybe a split quad mount, like the Bofors, could work... but at that point the utility of the man-handled pedestal-mounted Oerlikon is really getting lost.

- Sean F.
What about a vertical one like the British 0,5" MG Mark III or the Polsten mount?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_5-62_mk3.php
http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showt ... p?p=291017

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by SeanF » Tue May 27, 2025 7:21 pm

Fascinating mount! But yeah... kind of surprised they'd even try that arrangement, given the difficulty in loading that middle gun is pretty blatantly obvious. Did they learn nothing from the 1.1" quad? And this thing is even more awkward to reach over! Maybe if you staggered the middle gun forward and loaded it from below? (Still doesn't sound like a good idea to me!)
Maybe a split quad mount, like the Bofors, could work... but at that point the utility of the man-handled pedestal-mounted Oerlikon is really getting lost.

- Sean F.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by MartinJQuinn » Tue May 27, 2025 5:10 pm

Here you go...I found these at NARA II
img134.jpg
img135.jpg

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by TZoli » Tue May 27, 2025 2:14 pm

Does anybody seen photos of USS Enterprise in 1943 testing the Triple 20mm Oerlikon Mark 23 mounting?
Or sketches, drawings or Photos of this mounting?

From Naval Weapons site:
Triple Mount 4d: Mark 23 (not in service)

^The USN Mark 23 triple mount was designed at Pearl Harbor. 50 units were ordered, but testing aboard USS Enterprise CV-6 during 1943 showed that the center gun was difficult to load and the order was cancelled in May 1944.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Brocky » Mon May 19, 2025 8:02 pm

Thanks Timmy C.
I was afraid of that. Oh well more things to make. Sometimes I feel like it's a never ending project.. Sort of like building a real ship. Maybe I ought to get a Gantt Chart program and map out a build project...

Thanks again for the help
Mark B.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Timmy C » Mon May 19, 2025 2:00 pm

Keep in mind that degaussing only helps reduce the chance of setting off magnetically-fuzed mines - it does nothing against traditional contact-fuzed mines that are set off when you physically bump into them. For this, paravanes and associated mechanical minesweeping gear is still required, so just because a ship has degaussing gear, doesn't meant they can get rid of their mechanical sweeping gear.

Re: Quick Question about Parvanes - Please move to CV-6 Thre

by FFG-7 » Sun May 18, 2025 10:41 pm

2 paravanes standing up against the forward bulkhead, 1 at each end on the forecastle deck.

Quick Question about Parvanes - Please move to CV-6 Thread

by Brocky » Sun May 18, 2025 10:27 pm

I'm working on a model of the Enterprise during Nov 1942 to March 1943. I am wondering if she carried Paravanes since she had a cable degaussing system.

I had thought that if the ship had an electromagnetic degaussing system then it wouldn't carry the paravanes, but after poking around on the Inet, I found that the US Navy used paravanes all the way through to the 1970s. So I'm not sure if I should include them or not.

Any clarification or help will be appreciated.

TIA and have a great day
Mark B.

Moderators, can you please move this to the USS Enterprise CV-6 thread. My apologies for posting this here, I thought I was at the tail end of the proper thread.

Re: 1/350 USS Enterprise CV-6

by cfrobel » Sun May 11, 2025 8:58 pm

Yes, thank you. I had a few threads open while researching and now realize I posted this in the wrong thread. I did not mean to hijack the build thread.

Re: 1/350 USS Enterprise CV-6

by FFG-7 » Sun May 11, 2025 8:38 pm

I presume you are talking about this red circled area?
Attachments
Sheet 9 - Main Deck - M.jpg

Re: 1/350 USS Enterprise CV-6

by cfrobel » Sun May 11, 2025 7:56 pm

Posted in the wrong thread.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Tracy White » Sun May 11, 2025 6:24 pm

There are 26 rolls of CV-5 / 6 class plans on microfilm and I went through some of them 10-15 years ago. I can tell you which rolls those plans are not on, but not which they are on (didn't go through them all and there's no index roll). If no one else has the docking plan this may be your best bet.

Re: Calling all USS Enterprise CV-6 fans

by Blue Devil » Sun May 11, 2025 11:05 am

It's my understanding that individual ships, or at least ship classes, had specific plans for the placement of blocks, etc. to support the ship when it was dry docked. I thought that it might be interestng to reproduce that as a base for my Big E model, assuming I ever actually finish it (I know, long shot there). Minus the buttresses, anyway.

To do it right, of course, I'd need to know what that plan looked like. Does anyone have a diagram of what the plan was for the Enterprise/Yorktown Class?

Thanks!

Michael

Top