Calling all USS Hornet CV-8 fans

[Rob D]

I've got what's proven to be a fairly maddening question: what were the deck markings on Hornet during her actions at Midway? I've got enough photos to tell she seemed to have retained the modified Measure 12 that she was given for the Doolittle Raid, but afterwards, she spent about 7 days in port (5 days refitting at Ford Island from 25 April-30 April, and 2 days from 26 May-30 May just prior to Midway). Were the distinctive deck markings she was given for the Doolittle Raid removed during those breaks, or were they still there during Hornet's Midway action?

So far, the internets have proven a poor source for information; the images I can find are either her commissioning photos from LIFE (too early), photos of Doolittle Raid actions (too early), or a series of long, side-on shots during Midway (no images of the deck). This link has a few images of the deck during the Battle of Midway itself (add'l photos on pages 11 and 13), but I'm unable to conclusively make out much from these photos.

Does anyone have an answer, or at least a reference they can point me towards? I'd really like to get this right.

[Michael Vorrasi]

I've got what's proven to be a fairly maddening question: what were the deck markings on Hornet during her actions at Midway? I've got enough photos to tell she seemed to have retained the modified Measure 12 that she was given for the Doolittle Raid, but afterwards, she spent about 7 days in port (5 days refitting at Ford Island from 25 April-30 April, and 2 days from 26 May-30 May just prior to Midway). Were the distinctive deck markings she was given for the Doolittle Raid removed during those breaks, or were they still there during Hornet's Midway action?

So far, the internets have proven a poor source for information; the images I can find are either her commissioning photos from LIFE (too early), photos of Doolittle Raid actions (too early), or a series of long, side-on shots during Midway (no images of the deck). This link has a few images of the deck during the Battle of Midway itself (add'l photos on pages 11 and 13), but I'm unable to conclusively make out much from these photos.

Does anyone have an answer, or at least a reference they can point me towards? I'd really like to get this right.

Hornet's deck was devoid of any markings at Midway. The photos you linked to, as well as the famous takeoff footage of an SBD taking off from Hornet in the color John Ford Midway documentary confirm this. The Torpedo Eight color documentary made for the family members also has footage of the Midway takeoff, and confirms no markings at Midway.

[Jerry Phillips]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aYVko3zJrQ
Link to John Ford's "Torpedo Eight" film....very moving.
Michael is right...CV-8 no flt. deck markings Midway Battle. There are also many photos of Hornet's flt deck during battle to confirm.

Jerry Phillips

[BCBilly]

Just a side note to the Hornet CV-8. I had the pleasure of meeting Ens George Gay many years ago at an airshow at NAS Willow Grove,. he told me that he was standing in the port catwalk and was the third person back from the bow on it.

I see that someone has posted picture # 80-6-411 96 that shows Jimmy Doolittle's plane taking off. In the lower left hand corner is a clear view of that catwalk and the men who were watching the take offs. he said that the othe rmen were from VT -8 also.

Happy New Year all !

[Mike Sills]

Hello to all

Several videos of HORNET can be found at the following web site:

http://www.criticalpast.com/products/se ... USS+HORNET

Well worth checking out!

Mike

[Guest]

Here are pix of my rebuild of the Trumpy 1/350 HORNET island. The work took longer than anticipated. This was because I had to relearn an old modeling lesson: It is easier to scratch build correct parts than to try to fix flawed ones. I had assembled the basic kit parts some time ago. I intended to go back and correct only the most egregious errors, the symmetrical pilot house and the undersized walkway around it. Referring to the Maryland Silver plan book, the kit island is correct in length but slightly too wide. I chose not to correct this and compensated by adjusting the width of my scratch built parts to match. When I tried to blend my blueprint-based parts to the kit, problems arose. While Trumpeter captured the general look of the island, all of the platforms are just a little bit off in shape and position. I found myself replacing more and more of the kit in order to make things fit. This required working around already completed sections, never a good practice. After several days of struggling, I faced reality, removed all of the platforms, and started all over. The second rebuild went quickly and smoothly (I knew what mistakes not to make) and best of all, everything fit. Some of the alterations made to the ship 1/1942 always puzzled me a bit, but when correctly depicted in 3-D, the rationale behind them becomes apparent.

I�m building the ship in her final configuration as of 10/1942. Here�s the list of what I corrected/added :

1) The pilot house is completely wrong. It should be wider than the base of the island and offset to the left of the island centerline. The overhanging left side should angle back to where it meets the island�s side. Mike Vorassi has aptly described the correct plan form as being shaped like the loop on a bobby pin.

2) The walkway around it should be correspondingly wider to port, extending straight back, parallel to the island side.

3) The front face of the flag plot (one level below) should mirror the curve of the pilot house. There is no overhang to port. Instead, the curve is bisected by the straight line of the island�s port side, forming a �corner� on the front/left at this level.

4) The walkway around flag plot was originally symmetrical, and should be centered on the island. The port side was altered 1/1942, being cut back at an angle inward aft so as not to impede the view of the flight deck.

5) Aft of the pilot house, the platform atop the chart house (around the director housing) is too long, too wide, and the front face is incorrectly angled. Immediately aft of it, the platform atop air plot should match in width. Abeam the foremast a semi-circular platform projects on each side, and if the platform over air plot is corrected, these will extend further outboard as they should. Each had a circular platform for a 24� searchlight superimposed, and these should not be centered, but mounted offset outboard.

6) Just aft of these there should be a windbreak for the signal bridge. It extends across the island. The outboard ends extend onto small platforms around the after legs of the tripod mast, curving to meet the forward edge of the signal flag stowage bins.

7) The original �L� shaped pri-fly was rebuilt 1/1942. The aft section (parallel to the island) was cutback at an angle in the same manner as the flag walkway to provide better sight lines. The kit part reflects this. However, the forward section is incorrect. The front face should be perpendicular to the island, and not angled as the kit incorrectly depicts. The entire structure is positioned too far forward. It should be relocated with the aft end beneath the semi-circular platform on that side. Scratch building a new pri-fly from plastic stock proved much simpler than trying to correct the flawed geometry of the kit parts. (Correct size and uniform spacing of the windows is the trickiest part, so here�s the �gouge� for 1/350 scale. Front section windows: .060 wide x .080 high, separated by.030. Aft section windows: .100 wide x .080 high, separated by .040.) A triangular shaped ledge runs just beneath the side windows. The windows terminate where the aft section extends beneath the semi-circular platform. There is a door in the aft bulkhead.

8) The kit correctly depicts the 1/1942 alterations to the starboard side of the navigation bridge, but the shielding should be in sections with railing between them. The aft side of the docking bridge should be open, with just railing. . I replaced the walkways with GMM photo-etch parts, which mirror the kit parts. The starboard walkway should extend further aft, and the small semi-circular platform at its aft end is positioned too far forward. The walkway was lengthened and the platform relocated by cutting off the last segment and splicing in a new section.

9) The 36� searchlight platforms on the sides of the funnel should be further aft and very slightly higher.

10) Unlike her sisters, HORNET did not have the prominent vertical recess at the front of her funnel. This should be plated in, and the aft end of the signal bridge must be reduced to compensate.

11) The aft island platform is incorrectly angled on the port side and the shielding poorly molded.. There is no walkway on the starboard side and the director housing should fair into the side of the platform. The shielded semi-circular platform on the starboard side is undersized, too far aft and should be elevated higher than the platform.

12) Most of the walkway around the funnel top was deleted 7/1942. A small segment on the aft end was retained to facilitate access to equipment on the mainmast. GMM�s photo-etched parts were modified to reflect this.

13) The foretop platforms were partly cut away 1/1942. The kit parts reflect the alterations. They are reasonably accurate in plan form, but less so in profile (molding limitations). The prominent underside support structure is entirely missing. New platforms and their supports were scratch built.

14) HORNET�s island had large loud speakers mounted in several locations. There was a prominent girder structure on the port side of the funnel near its top for a pair of these. The structure is simply described as a �triangular� mounting, but it is quite substantial and geometrically complex. I could find no 3-D plan, and had to deduce its form and dimensions from the plan view of the funnel top in the MS book and by comparing various photos. If anyone has a more definitive reference please let me know so that I can make corrections.

The rest of the modifications consist of detail improvements. All shielding and windbreaks were replaced with .010 styrene. This was also used to fabricate the support structure for all platforms. The funnel uptakes are brass tube. Photo-etch items are mostly from GMM�s HORNET and HORNET PLUS sets. Some platforms, equipment, and photo-etched fittings have not been attached yet, in order to facilitate painting.

More details to go! The 36� searchlight platforms look clunky, and I plan to replace them with PE perforated ones. I�m not wild about the kit�s searchlights; any recommendations for better detailed replacements? Does anyone have plans of the ship�s siren/whistle mountings or other fittings on the stack top? If you purchased the White Ensign Models HORNET: THE SHIP PE set and did not use the parts for the CXAM radar (it wasn�t installed prior to 7/1942) please contact me. I would like to acquire these, as the GMM CXAM parts are rather 2-dimensional.

Happy modeling!
Mike

>Moved by ArizonaBB39<

[macsparty]

Fascinating thread. I'm afraid I won't be able to add much in the way of expertise, but rest assured I learned a lot! I've always had a soft spot for the Hornet, as I had a great uncle aboard her.

Of late I have been pondering tackling the Revell 1/480 kit. I built one many years ago, and I've built about 1 1-2 Tamiya kits. I've considered Trumpeter, but 1/350 seems daunting (and pricy), and I'd like something with a little more to work with than 1/700. So there you go.

I was studying it the other night, and a few things are apparent right off the bat:

1. The island is not even close. It almost looks like the best bet is a scratch build here.
2. Looks like the Gold Medal PE is a priority 1.
3. Aircraft - while I can live with the Revell B-25s, it would be nice to upgrade, and at least have a few F4Fs for the flight deck, and perhaps populate the hangar deck. I see WEM used to make some, but can't find that they still do?
4. Decals - Starfighter looks like the way to go here.
5. Deck - the shape looks wrong, but am I hearing the Nautilus one isn't quite right either? Not sure what to do here...
6. Boxy guns - let's not worry about that yet!

Am I crazy?

[macsparty]

Through the power of Google, I just found Matt Stein Models that lists 1/500 Wildcats, Devastators, Helldivers and Avengers that look pretty good. Certainly they look like they could populate a hangar deck to supplement the B-25s. Has anyone ever had any experience with these? He also lists some 1/550 5 inch guns that also look good. They might be a smidge small, and maybe not 100% accurate for Hornet, but they would �look� a lot better than the Revell boxes.

[Michael Vorrasi]

Fascinating thread. I'm afraid I won't be able to add much in the way of expertise, but rest assured I learned a lot! I've always had a soft spot for the Hornet, as I had a great uncle aboard her.

Of late I have been pondering tackling the Revell 1/480 kit. I built one many years ago, and I've built about 1 1-2 Tamiya kits. I've considered Trumpeter, but 1/350 seems daunting (and pricy), and I'd like something with a little more to work with than 1/700. So there you go.

I was studying it the other night, and a few things are apparent right off the bat:

1. The island is not even close. It almost looks like the best bet is a scratch build here.
2. Looks like the Gold Medal PE is a priority 1.
3. Aircraft - while I can live with the Revell B-25s, it would be nice to upgrade, and at least have a few F4Fs for the flight deck, and perhaps populate the hangar deck. I see WEM used to make some, but can't find that they still do?
4. Decals - Starfighter looks like the way to go here.
5. Deck - the shape looks wrong, but am I hearing the Nautilus one isn't quite right either? Not sure what to do here...
6. Boxy guns - let's not worry about that yet!

Am I crazy?

Building Hornet from Revell's kit is, other than the hull and flight deck (except the bow) largely going to be a scratch building effort. The forward flight deck needs to have 90 degree squared off corners grafted on and re-scribed. The area in front of the island needs some mods due to the spacing of the 1.1 tubs, which are farther apart and farther forward than sisters Yorktown and Enterprise. The island can be reworked with scratched platforms and bridges, but a complete scratch built one is probably a better solution. Remember, this kit is really a model of CV-5 and CV-6 only, at either pre-war, or for CV-6, fall 1942 configuration, depending on which issue you have. Hornet's many changes are not captured. Gold Medal's PE is a must, but be aware that it does not accurately have Hornet's island details down correctly. Go by Mike Sill's photos posted above.
Aircraft are a BIG problem for these kits. The Revell SBD can be fixed up OK, The B-25's are crude though. GM's brass may help them a lot. The best 1/500 aircraft are the ones that were put out by White Ensign, but sadly, no longer readily available. Matt's seem to be the only option, and you can judge them for yourself. I would want more accuracy though. Starfighter decals are excellent for these kits. Guns- well I did say scratch built! That goes for all of them. Remember if scratching on the Revell kit, the TRUE scale of the model is 1/487, not 1/480. Measure the hull only, which was 809.5 feet. Scale it from there and you will see it is actually 1/487. The W/L beam then also measures out accurately at 83 feet on the calipers. Not critical for A/C, but would be for island and other ship parts.

[macsparty]

Mike - thanks for the input. I'll take another look at the flight deck tonight. So aside from the changes necessary to the shape at the front (and the tub locations you mentioned - which I had not been aware of), is the Revell flight deck otherwise up to par? I won't worry about getting a Nautilus deck if I can get away with it.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Greetings CV8 Fans

Although I monitor this site I have never before tried to post a message on it. I hope this works.

Last nite I received via email a photo of fighter pilots taken on the deck of Hornet shortly after Midway, facing aft. On the left side of the photo, just port of the island, is a dark I am guessing black stripe I am guessing about 6 inches wide. To my knowledge this photo has never been seen on the net or published. I have another NARA photo also facing aft taken on the starboard side about 30 yards forward of the island, stripe does not appear visible probably due to what looks like strong sunlight. This photo also taken at Midway I do not think that one has been published either, I got it at NARA. Although I have 300+ CV8 and related photos from NARA, net and ebay downloads and other sources I do not have any photos of the starboard forward side of the deck post Doolittle raid, so I cannot tell you how far forward this stripe goes.

I tried to upload the photo I got last nite no luck. If any Battle of Midway or Santa Cruz builder would like me to email these 2 photos to you, please contact me.

By the way, for anyone who would like to try to duplicate the camo pattern, I have port and starboard photos for you of both the hull and the island.

Keep up the good work.

Fred Branyan
fredb1048@aol.com

[Elvis965]

Just an FYI...

Mike Sills posted the link above to all the little snippets of "Life and Death of the Hornet", but I found the full newsreel on DVD here if anyone is interested.

http://www.navalaviation.com/The-Life-a ... GA/product

Bob

[Michael Vorrasi]

Greetings CV8 Fans

Although I monitor this site I have never before tried to post a message on it. I hope this works.

Last nite I received via email a photo of fighter pilots taken on the deck of Hornet shortly after Midway, facing aft. On the left side of the photo, just port of the island, is a dark I am guessing black stripe I am guessing about 6 inches wide. To my knowledge this photo has never been seen on the net or published. I have another NARA photo also facing aft taken on the starboard side about 30 yards forward of the island, stripe does not appear visible probably due to what looks like strong sunlight. This photo also taken at Midway I do not think that one has been published either, I got it at NARA. Although I have 300+ CV8 and related photos from NARA, net and ebay downloads and other sources I do not have any photos of the starboard forward side of the deck post Doolittle raid, so I cannot tell you how far forward this stripe goes.

I tried to upload the photo I got last nite no luck. If any Battle of Midway or Santa Cruz builder would like me to email these 2 photos to you, please contact me.

By the way, for anyone who would like to try to duplicate the camo pattern, I have port and starboard photos for you of both the hull and the island.

Keep up the good work.

Fred Branyan
fredb1048@aol.com

Hi Fred,

These show a lot better than the set you e-mailed me. The close up crop does indeed show a marking stripe. It might be deck blue paint over blue stain, not black, as it appears too light to be black. It is possible that this is a local marking in way of the island to guide planes forward without hitting the island, so perhaps that is why we have not seen such a marking in general fore and aft shots. The Wildcat behind, and its wingtip's proximity to the island got me thinking that this might be a possible reason. No tires over the marking line or you'll hit the island. Useful for plane handlers moving aircraft off the midship elevator, maybe?

[Bondoman]

I'm enjoying reading this thread, and my 1/350 kit is in the queue. Was there a consensus abt the hull? Is it worth the effort to rebuild? Frankly that doesn't seem too hard if one sticks below the hangar deck with the mod. Has anyone got a replacement hull made up / are they selling limited run pops or castings?

Curious.

[Michael Vorrasi]

I'm enjoying reading this thread, and my 1/350 kit is in the queue. Was there a consensus abt the hull? Is it worth the effort to rebuild? Frankly that doesn't seem too hard if one sticks below the hangar deck with the mod. Has anyone got a replacement hull made up / are they selling limited run pops or castings?

Curious.

Hull consensus - It sucks out loud so bad you need earplugs.
Not worth trying to rebuild it, as it is so far off, you simply can't get there from here. Total replacement is the only real solution.
Nobody, sadly, has a replacement available. See John W's scratch built effort, page 18 in this thread. The only real solution, regardless of method used.

[MartinJQuinn]

The hull is bad, especially below the hangar deck. The shame of it is, it goes together rather well - much better than the CV-9 kit.

I think what you need to decide is how accurate you want it to be and how much effort you want to put into the model. John W is putting in "maximum effort", which is paying off for him. I, on the other hand, have chosen a different route, since I'm building the ship waterline:

I am basically building the kit "out of the box", with the addition of both Gold Medal Model photo-etch sets. I also plan on replacing the AA guns with ones from L'Arsenal. I'm concentrating on building a good "model" of Hornet, albeit at the expense of accuracy. But then, that's just me, as Hornet is my "least favorite" of the three sisters.

In my opinion, there is no right or wrong. It's your model. This is supposed to be fun. If you find enjoyment and satisfaction of going the full measure, then it's worth it to you, and you should choose that path. If you don't, well...it's your model. Build it as you see fit.*

*Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing those who opt to go all out to correct the hull or any other inaccuracy.

[Timmy C]

Another option is to do it as Kostas Katseas did with his Hornet and put her in heavy seas, with the bow plunging into the waves:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

[Bondoman]

Thanks for the advice. I think I want a full hull as that is how my collection is (mostly). If I wanted to ponder that a little more, changing out the hull, are the drawings needed, in the Maryland book, or Floating Drydock? I reckon I could afford to at least get them and then do a reality check.

[Bondoman]

My Floating Drydock drawing arrived today! Faired Lines and Molded Offsets. It looks great on my wall and will make me think about how serious I want to get about this. I'm picking up the kit a week from Saturday- 25% off sale at the LHS. I am really hoping that there will be a little help from Trumpeter, such as the stern from the rudder post back, or the first 20 feet of the bow, or such may be usable. The drawings will tell.

[Phealan]

This may seem like a superfluous question, but why hasnt a resin manufacturer marketed a replacement hull for the Trumpy Hornet?
With all the people that have expressed their disgust at the state of the in box one, you would have to think that there would be enough interest to make a short run finacially viable?
I am amazed at some of the rare ship kits that I could get from the likes of L'Arsenal ect. that are so obscure that I am amazed there are enough customers to warrant the effort. That being said thank god for these companies servicing a small market!
Maybe an indication from posters regarding their willingness to purchase a closer to accurate hull and or how much they would be prepared to spend, might eventually prompt one of these companies to investigate the project?
I for one would be most keen to improve "The Fat Assed Lady".