The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1020 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 51  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: History Channel Heads Up
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:18 pm 
On February 29 at 10:00 PM, the History Channel will begin airing a ten part series on the USS ENTERPRISE CV-6 and the actions she took part in during World War II. The producers had the complete cooperation of the CV-6 Association, and many who sailed in her were interviewed. Hope you'll all tune in. :wave_1:

Details here: http://www.cv6.org/onboard/display_message.asp?mid=4000


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:35 am
Posts: 218
I'll have to set my DVR! I can't wait for this to become available on DVD...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:28 am
Posts: 379
Location: Peoria AZ
In December of 2005 I posted on page 1 my intent to do a 1944 Enterprise. It is now almost March 2008 and am finally done with the ship (still no planes). A little history of the build is in the "picture post" area. Here are some pictures.

Jim


Attachments:
MVC-150F.JPG
MVC-150F.JPG [ 119.89 KiB | Viewed 11489 times ]
MVC-149F.JPG
MVC-149F.JPG [ 126.29 KiB | Viewed 11516 times ]
MVC-147F.JPG
MVC-147F.JPG [ 92.37 KiB | Viewed 11482 times ]

_________________
jim

aux viewtopic.php?f=59&t=40896

CV-3 viewtopic.php?t=39515&p=263120#p263120

CV-6 viewtopic.php?t=33201&p=201342#p201342
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
She's awesome, Jim!

Great job! :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:

I hope the BWN model sitting in my stash turns out half as well....I already know they hull won't! :big_grin:

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:17 am 
I have read of resin island that can change the trumpter Hornet kiot to the Enterprise can any one help in the location of this thanks


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
medic,

I think you're referring to the Nautilus Models coversion kit:

http://nautilusmodels.com/enterprise.htm

They also have wood flight decks to convert Hornet's to Yorktown/Enterprise.

Bob


Last edited by Elvis965 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:12 am 
Thanks Bob this is what I was looking for :thumbs_up_1:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 50
Location: New Zealand
I have some questions regarding CV-6 post her 1943 refit. Was CV-6 fitted with perforated catwalks similar to those found on CV-8 Hornet? And, if the answer is yes, does the Tom Walkowiak CV-6 plans available from Floating Drydock show the extent of these catwalks?

Were the 20mm Oerlikon cast base mounts replaced with the lighter weight tripod base mounts as part of her 1943 and /or any refit?

Any info or comments will be appreciated. :thumbs_up_1:
Cheers,
Terry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:42 am 
Don't know about the catwalks, but the 20mm were cast mountings, until her final refit, post-Kamikaze in 1945, when she received the lightweight pedestals with twin 20mm mountings.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 50
Location: New Zealand
I have a YMW 1/350 Enterprise CV-6 (post 1943 refit) and I'm in the process of reading up and looking for visual reference material. Something that immediately came to my attention looking at all the pictures and comparing them against the kit parts and USS Hornet aftermarket parts is the catwalks. Both WEM and GMM do perforated catwalks for the Trumpy 1/350 USS Hornet, which got me wondering if Enterprise had the same feature? No perforated catwalks are included with the YMW kit, which I'm assuming to be correct unless that is, someone here has evidence to the contrary? I've scoured my reference books by Norman Friedman, Steve Wiper and Steve Ewing and could find no indication of any perforated catwalks. The few photos of the 20mm galleries in her early fit indicate some solid catwalks and that's about it.
:huh:

Does anybody out there in MWS land have evidence that supports what was fitted?... or should I say feel free to "poke holes in" this topic? :wink:

:anyone: :help_1: :please:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:46 am
Posts: 2467
Location: Hoboken, NJ
There's a photo somewhere of Yorktown's catwalks bent up after the torpedo hits at Midway and they are perforated. If Hornet and Yorktown both had perforated catwalks, Enterprise surely did as well. In fact, I can think of no reason catwalks on all carriers would not be perforated, it was a weight saving measure and all carriers would benefit from it.

I have the Blue Water Navy CV-5 kit and when I build it I'll scrounge up perforated catwalks from somewhere.

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 am 
When 20mm guns were mounted in March-April, 1942, the catwalks under and around them were solid; each mount weighed about 1,850 lbs., so I think you can see why. However, I do recall seeing photos of the catwalks in other areas where they remained perforated. Makes sense, as not only would weight be saved, but drainage would also be facilitated. A fairly detailed photo of the 20mm guns and catwalks can be found here: http://www.cv6.org/noumea/default.asp?u ... March+1942

Hope that helps!


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
On the Essex class, the catwalks were a mixture; the galleries the mounts were in were solid, but the catwalks were perforated. In some case the galleries even had a sort of "no-skid" matting around the guns as well. I'm pretty sure the Yorktown class was the same way; gun galleries (at the gallery level) had solid decks, whereas the catwalks were perforated. I've been able to see the difference before on ships by looking at the shadow cast on the ship BELOW. The perforated catwalks have a different, lighter shadow.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 50
Location: New Zealand
Thanks for the feedback above guys. All good stuff. I tend to agree with your thinking Devin. If they were on the Yorktown and Hornet, it's a better than fair bet that they would be on Enterprise and as Rich points out mounted to solid decks because of the weight of the early mounts around gun gallery areas. This is also consistent with the GMM Gold Plus Hornet Extra Details set.

Funny you mention looking at the shadows Tracy, because I just noticed a few photos yesterday that were in shadow under catwalks, that I intend to return to and study further this weekend. I find with all research on subjects that you see new and different things on images the longer you become familiar with the subject. Years ago I spent what seems like half a lifetime studying lots of photos from different races of a McLaren MP4/6 to super detail a kit I built. The car displayed some remarkable differences over the year it raced, and it surprised me, when a year into the build I could make sense of things in the same photo that weren't even on my radar when I started the build. In the case of research familiarity does not breed contempt, but rather a much better understanding".
:thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10570
Location: EG48
Terry wrote:
The car displayed some remarkable differences over the year it raced, and it surprised me, when a year into the build I could make sense of things in the same photo that weren't even on my radar when I started the build. In the case of research familiarity does not breed contempt, but rather a much better understanding".


That, in a nutshell, is one reason I love to research the ships I build; I find it brings me closer to the ship and her crew, almost as if I'm getting to know her as I build her, and I feel it makes the model a better tribute to the sailors that brought her to life.

On the other hand, it's scary some times when I can look at pictures and rattle off details no one else knows about, or look at a model and find my eyes drawn to the detail errors or omissions faster than the overall affect.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: cv6 post 43 refit
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:48 am
Posts: 48
Location: earth usa
Help I am looking to make cv6 post 43 refit can tell me were to fine pics or plans to so refit
thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: cv6 post 43 refit
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:28 am
Posts: 379
Location: Peoria AZ
The Floating Drydock, icon on the front page of this site has good plans (1/96 and 1/192) of CV-6 dated 12/44.

Jim

_________________
jim

aux viewtopic.php?f=59&t=40896

CV-3 viewtopic.php?t=39515&p=263120#p263120

CV-6 viewtopic.php?t=33201&p=201342#p201342


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
The Yorktown Class has long been saddled with an original sin...well not really a sin, but a mistake, that has plagued these ships since the late 1930's. The old actual OA length bugaboo. Was it 809 feet 9 inches or was it 824 feet 9 inches? It was actually the latter, 824 feet 9 inches OVERALL, AS BUILT, for all three. I will lay this goof to rest decisively, for all time, right now.

Okay, where did the goof begin? DANFS seems to be the main culprit for this dis-information, followed by many authors quoting the erroneous figures, followed by notable web sites, like CV-6.org, all repeating the basic error. Some sites do get it right. The Floating Drydock's Hornet Battle Damage book gets it right, as do their plans, Webb Warship's plans, The Maryland Silver Co. massive plans and blueprint books get it right, and guess what, the original USN builders plans, you guessed it, got it right!! Imagine that, builders plans that have the real length figures, right on them. Who'da thunk it.

Here is how I think this dirty yellow snowball got started downhill. DANFS puts supposedly "as-completed" figures in its listings. Unfortunately, in the case of all three Yorktowns, they put "as originally designed" not "as completed" figures in the listings. It all has to do with that rear flight deck overhang, which extends past the fantail on the hull by fifteen feet to the edge of the ramp. That overhang was not a part of the original contract design laid out in 1934. It was a later amendment, made during early construction stages.

The aviation community lobbied for the flight decks to be extended to overhang the forpeak and the fantail. BuShips said no on the bow, fearing flight deck damage in heavy seas. (Hornet's namesake CV-12 and Bennington, CV-20 would later prove the wisdom of that position). Fear of damage in shipping water over the bow seems also to have driven the bevelled corner shape of CV-5 and CV-6 flight decks. The earliest design drawings had squared flight deck ends, but well short of the hull dimensions. Based on experience with CV5 & 6 in service, BuShips gave in a little when CV-8 was building, and allowed the forward edge to be widened and squared off, as the aviation community felt the narrowing at the bow in CV5 & 6 increased the pucker factor when a pilot might drift off centerline on takeoff. Also, as all three had H-2 cats, this allowed a for planes with a much wider landing gear track to use cat launches on Hornet, where wide track gear planes might have their outboard main wheel run off the deck edge before clearing the cat track. This wider front ramp might also explain why she was the natural selction to launch Doolittle's B-25's, aside from availability. Ever look at the main gear white deck stripe on the Tokyo raid launch photos? That line would be right on the edge of the deck before the ramp was reached had CV-5 or 6 been used. The forepeak on all three ships extends 8 feet, 9 inches beyond the edge of the forward flight deck ramp. (Keep that figure in your head, 8'9").

CV5/6 bow plan:
Image

And CV-8 bow plan:
Image

BuShips DID however, concede to the extended deck overhang at the stern. CV-5 and CV-6 were both completed with this full overhang in place, as any look at their fitting out photos and shakedown photos reveal. CV-8 had the overhang from the instant it was decided she would be a repeat Yorktown, and not modified in any radical way. Norman Fridman's chapter on the Yorktown class, in his US Aircraft Carriers, An Illustrated Design History, describes the early CV-8 proposals in detail. Friedman also makes mention of the arguments for the overhangs, and how BuShips reserved judgement on the stern overhang in 1934, but he never closes the open question, namely, that the overhang was in fact, eventually included by 1937, and the ships accordingly completed that way.

Here is the original approved design in March 1934. Note the five inch gun on the fantail. Lots of Ranger CV-4 influence here:
Image
The bow also had a five inch originally planed:
Image

And here is a late 1934 updated plan, with the five inch gun deleted, but the deck still ending short of the fantail:
Image

Now, if the deck did not extend over the fantail, or the forepeak, it would be perfectly correct to say the overall length of the ships, and the overall length of the HULL proper, were one and the same. Here are the hull figures on the hull plan, indicating the OA length of the HULL is 809'9", and the length between perpendiculars is 770 feet (often misreported as 761 feet in erroneous sources. 761 was the light load WL length at 21 ft of draft. The design draft was 24 ft, and at design displacement the WL length was 770 feet, which is one and the same as the length between perpendiculars). This plan is longer than my living room, so forgive if this is too small to read clearly:
ImageImageImage

And here we have Yorktown's AS BUILT drawing, showing the real ship as she was finished:
Image
And Hornet's stern:
Image
Image
Now, the piece de resistance!
Here is Hornet's flight deck plan, aft end. The figure is a little smudged, but in the real copy, it is easy to read. This is the full ramp end to ramp end measurement of Hornet's flight deck. The figure is 816 feet, 0 inches:
Image
Now DANFS says Hornet was 809'9" overall. How could a ship that long have a flight deck that was 816 feet?!!!
Remember that 8'9" bow forepeak beyond the edge of the flight deck?
Image
Add that 8'9" forepeak extension to the flight deck length of 816 feet and you get 824 feet 9 inches OVERALL LENGTH. Years ago, I had measured the flight deck on Webb Warships plans for CV-5 and got the exact figure of 816 feet, even though that number was mentioned NOWHERE. Yet, there it is on the corner of Hornet's deck plan.

(Sidebar. DANFS also erroneously lists Hornet as a separate class. This also probably dates from preliminary contract studies, when it had not been settled just what changes CV-8 would have, and it was never updated. All other USN offical documents, and the USN Historical Center web site all list Hornet, correctly, as a member of the Yorktown class. Anybody who has the plans can compare. Almost all her drawings are repeat CV-5/6 ones. Her changes were far less than seen between most Essexes. It is her pilot house and bridgework that make her look much more different than her actual structure underneath indicates.)

One last detail. The figure of 824'9" grew in CV-8 first, in February, 1942, to 827 feet 5 inches when 20mm tubs were added to either corner of her stern flight deck ramp. CV-6 got her first pair of 20mm ramp tubs just like Hornet's, in July 1942. After Eastern Solomons, she had her single tubs doubled up to a pair on each corner. Her length was 827'5" from July 1942. It is erroneously reported that she was lengthened from 809'9" to 827'5" in her Oct 1943 refit. What happened is her official dimensions were re-measured post refit, in view of her extensive changes, and somebody in WW2's vast beauracracy looked at original design figures from 1934, instead of her actual "as built" figures from 1938, and wrongly recorded that the ship grew 18 feet. Whoever did this will never be known, but I'm sure that scenario is how this goof came to be.

For those of you who watched the Battle 360 series on Enterprise, I was assisting them all the way through, beginning at episode 2. (I'm in the credits!) Anyway, I told the exec producer that the notion that Enterprise was lengthed in October 1943 was an utter falsehood, and laid out much of what you see here. He went with the CV-6.org figures anyway, and the series erroneously stated that Enterprise gained 18 feet in 1943. I told the CV-6.org webmaster in e-mails some years ago that the dimension chart on CV-6.org was all wrong on this. He still would not correct it. I guess official builder's plans, verified by "as completed" photos are not enough to convince him that the flight deck really did extend beyond the fantail by 15 feet.
Go figure!

Cheers,
Mike

PS, Some weeks back, I sent a package to the US Navy Historical Center with recommended corrections to DANFS and their website, with plans and more details than I could include here. We'll see if they act on it. Probably it is like fighting city hall.

_________________
Mike
Image


Last edited by Michael Vorrasi on Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:59 am 
Hello, Mike, Tracy, et. al.,
I concur in your analysis of how the confusion concerning CV-6 length came about, and I agree whith what you've stated (indeed, proven) in your posts. Regarding Joel Shepherd: I think you're being somewhat unkind toward him. Over the last year or so, he has seen his personal responsibilities grow to the extent that he has found it considerably more difficult to devote as much time as he'd like to the CV-6 site. If I were you, I would try to contact him again, as well as contacting Arnold W. Olson, the CV-6 Association Public Affairs Officer (ENTCV6PAO@aol.com), but PLEASE, be nice about it. Thanks! :wave_1:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 11:15 am
Posts: 476
Location: Brooklyn NY USA
Rich Mathsen wrote:
Hello, Mike, Tracy, et. al.,
I concur in your analysis of how the confusion concerning CV-6 length came about, and I agree whith what you've stated (indeed, proven) in your posts. Regarding Joel Shepherd: I think you're being somewhat unkind toward him. Over the last year or so, he has seen his personal responsibilities grow to the extent that he has found it considerably more difficult to devote as much time as he'd like to the CV-6 site. If I were you, I would try to contact him again, as well as contacting Arnold W. Olson, the CV-6 Association Public Affairs Officer (ENTCV6PAO@aol.com), but PLEASE, be nice about it. Thanks! :wave_1:

Hi Rich, no unkindness intended (playful ribbing, perhaps). I had corresponded with Joel was back in 2005 on this in several e-mails, and laid it all out, perhaps not in as much detail. Honestly, he kind of blew me off as being somewhat unconvinced. Same thing happened with the webmaster at Haze Gray & Underway. The problem is that the USN DANFS entry is taken as gospel, and it is wrong, as shown above! I'll try and prevail upon Joel again. Maybe Arnie can intercede. We have have great discussions in the past. BTW, I have sent a large package to the NHC in an effort to have them take a look and fix this long standing DANFS mistake. I'm probably spitting in the wind but we'll see if they do!
Mike

_________________
Mike
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1020 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 51  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group