Calling all USS Hornet CV-8 fans

[John W.]

I went back and looked at the drydock photo of HORNET with the sailors cleaning and painting the port side under the forward 5" mounts. Looks as though the boottop is in alignment with the top of the armor belt. However, when comparing the height of the botttoping with the height of the 'average' sailors nearby, the boottopping looks to be no more than 4' high - probably a bit less.
Mike? Mike? Where are you?

I looked at the photos I posted above and decided there wasn't enough resolution. Below are two of them in greater resolution.

[Michael Vorrasi]

Looks great John. I have been studying the 11/19/41 dry dock photos and the men on scaffolds along the hull. I'd say at least four feet but might be less than six. There is about a foot or two along the bottom of the stripe that is crud covered, so you have to sort of figure where the bottom edge really is. Tough call because some of the sailors might be taller than the others, but it seems to be the height of a man's torso less his head. How's that for scientific wild ass guestimating! If we want to be precise though, see the foot markers at the bow in this blow up of Hornet approaching the wharf for her commissioning. She is light and riding high. Is that five or is that six foot markers in the black? I think five for sure. Six if that light band is crud along the bottom or five if it is her red skirts showing. Remember when you wrap around the stern the stripe will widen because of the flare of the hull. It is the vertical rise that must match, so the boot topping stripes along the steeper angles will widen to compensate. I lean towards a slightly meatier strip just for better visual impact in 1/350, otherwise it comes off looking like an anemic little pinstripe. If 6 feet, it would be 0.20" if 5 feet it is 0.17", and if 4 feet it is 0.137". I could be comfy with five.
Have you seen Paul Budzik's hull? I'm thinking about his method. I have a BWN resin kit, but I dread grinding all that resin. Paul's bread & butter method looks a lot more user friendly. http://paulbudzik.com/current-projects/ ... ratch.html

[John W.]

Mike -
Thanks for the reply as usual. I'd have to say five feet max because the bottom of the band may be hull red in the at-sea photo. I agree 4' would look pretty wuss in 1/350. As you say, the ship was light in the photo - no 5" mounts, no 1.1", and probably a lot of other stuff - including full tanks, aircraft, ammo, munitions, ice cream. Was she headed out for sea trials? I forget the story behind the photo. Anyway, I think I concluded about what you did - shoulder-high is the approximate height.

Yes, I have been following Paul's progress and have been in some correspondence with him. I think I'm the cause for the plate diagrams. Anyhow, his way of doing the hull is the ONLY way I would attempt another YORKTOWN class model. I would also use the same kind of hull truing fixture that can be seen in my earlier postings to ensure the hull is 'square' and 'fair'. One option to consider would be to use plastic sheet instead of wood as well since I believe his layers are 1/8" thick and I think plastic is available in sheets of that thickness. (I'm not much of a woodworker, unlike Paul) What I am finding, and I suspect Paul is as well, is that you aren't close to 'done' when you finally get the hull done. I am fabricating everything - never my original intent. The bilge keels took some work, for example. So did the prop shafts and struts. Don't forget the portholes which must be added to the new blank hull. I used FLYHAWK indi-freaking-vidual portholes because I didn't think drilling holes looked right. I look at where I'm at now and can't help but think this is where I should be just two weeks after opening the kit box - if it were correct - not over ten years later.
Still, despite my whining, I think it would be worth attempting if you accept it make take quite a while as you will probably need to walk away from it from time to time for sanity sake. Rest assured that if you do go ahead, I would hope I could return the favor and be as helpful to you in the construction as you've been to me in the research. Trust me that you will learn stuff you never thought you would want to learn - and I mean that in every way you can think of.

[pbudzik]

Good page for reference when making the call...
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/painting_ ... 3.htm#HULL

You hull is looking great John.
Paul

[John W.]

I just happened to be looking for the position of some of the ladders on the fore and aft decks at the focs'l level and noticed something I hadn't seen before. Here's part of page 33 from the MS HORNET plans.

The captions sometimes take a magnifier to read, as in this case. For some reason, during the earlier discussion on the leadsman's platforms I had looked at this drawing but missed the small details such as this caption. Clearly from this plan, the small platforms are hinged to the deck with horizontal hinges and when not required they lay flat on the deck. When needed, they are flipped over on the hinge into position and life lines are attached. It looks as though the hinge is about two feet (or so) in from the deck edge which also provides some support for the remainder of the platform which cantelevers out over the ship's side. The rope over the pulley in the overhead beam is used to lift the end up to hinge the platform back into the stowed position.
Also, many pages back I talked about the columns supporting the flight deck crossbeams and they show up here (as well as in other locations). Note the support beams which hold up the flight deck girders - they look like four 'plus signs'. On the ship's centerline, half way between each port and starboard pair it is possible to see a circle which represents the column of which I speak. The caption pointing to these columns on a different drawing says they are 6" columns. They show clearly in several oblique photos of the ships, several of which are on the previous page of this thread. (Look closely - you'll see them clearly.) I guess the designers were a bit skittish about the ability of the cross beams to support the flight deck without some additional support in the middle of the span.

[Michael Vorrasi]

Duh! I never even thought to look in the plan book for the leadsman's platforms. The columns show especially well in the early CV-5 shot in the bow photo series one page back in the thread. They look like the lally columns you see in some residential basements.

[Hippy Ed]

Duh! I never even thought to look in the plan book for the leadsman's platforms. The columns show especially well in the early CV-5 shot in the bow photo series one page back in the thread. They look like the lally columns you see in some residential basements.

[John W.]

Duh! I never even thought to look in the plan book for the leadsman's platforms. The columns show especially well in the early CV-5 shot in the bow photo series one page back in the thread. They look like the lally columns you see in some residential basements.

My thoughts exactly WRT those columns - very residential. Actually, when you start looking at the plans, there are right many of them. There are something like eight that are visible (or might be visible from the right angle) supporting the aft boat deck under the flight deck overhang. As I've said from the beginning when someone whose initials are MV put me onto the MS plans: "The good news is that I have some great plans. The bad news is that I've got some great plans." One of the guys in my ship modeling club says that once you finish a model (What does he mean by that?) you should burn the plans so no one can point out where you were wrong or nit pick you. Makes a lot of sense to me . .

Anyone know how large in diameter the two columns supporting the two forward 20 mm guns are? Using the swabby measurement technique (I assume an average man's shoulders are about 20 - 22" wide) they appear to be about 40 - 44" in diameter. The Trump columns are 47" but have a flare on top - presumably to 'model' the gusset supports that show in photos. I've gotten into all this trouble because I look at a picture and think "I can do that." With all the P/E shapes out there now (such as those perforated triangular gussets) for components, not just precut railings and radars, I'm finding I usually CAN do it. Not sure whether to shake the hands of the P/E producers or curse them out. It's like those really great plans . . .

[Michael Vorrasi]

Duh! I never even thought to look in the plan book for the leadsman's platforms. The columns show especially well in the early CV-5 shot in the bow photo series one page back in the thread. They look like the lally columns you see in some residential basements.

My thoughts exactly WRT those columns - very residential. Actually, when you start looking at the plans, there are right many of them. There are something like eight that are visible (or might be visible from the right angle) supporting the aft boat deck under the flight deck overhang. As I've said from the beginning when someone whose initials are MV put me onto the MS plans: "The good news is that I have some great plans. The bad news is that I've got some great plans." One of the guys in my ship modeling club says that once you finish a model (What does he mean by that?) you should burn the plans so no one can point out where you were wrong or nit pick you. Makes a lot of sense to me . .

Anyone know how large in diameter the two columns supporting the two forward 20 mm guns are? Using the swabby measurement technique (I assume an average man's shoulders are about 20 - 22" wide) they appear to be about 40 - 44" in diameter. The Trump columns are 47" but have a flare on top - presumably to 'model' the gusset supports that show in photos. I've gotten into all this trouble because I look at a picture and think "I can do that." With all the P/E shapes out there now (such as those perforated triangular gussets) for components, not just precut railings and radars, I'm finding I usually CAN do it. Not sure whether to shake the hands of the P/E producers or curse them out. It's like those really great plans . . .

I've never found any plan that has that 20mm bow tub. Dimensions will have to be the SWAG method. (Scientific wild ass guess!) It could probably be eyeballed reasonably close based on known dimensions of surrounding structure.

[John W.]

Mike -
In all the years (decades, actually) that I worked for the Navy, the 'S' in SWAG never stood for 'scientific'. I keep asking this little questions because I've learned to assume only after I've eliminated all other factual info.
I've started to lay down some paint, so I am finally beginning to feel as though I am getting somewhere. I'll post some more photos when I've completed painting the hull and some of the deck structure I've already fabricated. In the meantime, expect more pesky questions . . .

[pbudzik]

What are these lines?



Paul

[rtwpsom2]

Arrestor cables. They are slackened and moved over to grooves in the deck to make it easier to move aircraft around the deck.

[pbudzik]

Rob,

Shouldn't the arrestor cables be attached to these?



Paul

[rtwpsom2]

No the thing you are pointing out in green is a barrier stanchion. It is erected vertically and has a cable barrier that physically catches the plane in an emergency, but it damages the aircraft. The round thing on the end of the cables marked in red is a pulley that leads to the arresting system that is normally used to stop aircraft without damaging them.

Oddly enough, the Yorktown class had 22 sets of arresting cables and 10 barrier sets. Current carriers use 4 arresting cables and one barrier.

[Hippy Ed]

No the thing you are pointing out in green is a barrier stanchion. It is erected vertically and has a cable barrier that physically catches the plane in an emergency, but it damages the aircraft. The round thing on the end of the cables marked in red is a pulley that leads to the arresting system that is normally used to stop aircraft without damaging them.

Oddly enough, the Yorktown class had 22 sets of arresting cables and 10 barrier sets. Current carriers use 4 arresting cables and one barrier.

Ahh yeah.... Interesting facts

[pbudzik]

Thanks Rob

[John W.]

Actually, both the red and green arrows point to parts of the same safety barrier. The unmarked sheave (looks like a pulley) immediately to the right of the two red arrows is a separate arrester wire. Here's a picture of the barrier in the 'up' position. Its purpose is to snag the main mounts of an aircracft that doesn't catch the arrester wires, or may have a damaged or broken tail hook.

Prop Barrier.jpg (12.76 KiB) Viewed 2456 times

While the barrier usually protects the aircraft forward of it, the same cannot be said of the aircraft that must use the barrier.
The large number of arrester wires and barriers is because the YORKTOWNs (and the ESSEXs) were designed to recover aircraft over the stern and the bow. The latter case would occur if bomb damage rendered the aft part of the flight deck unusable, in which case the ship would steam astern to effect the landings. There is a navsource picture of YORKTOWN (CV-5) doing just that during trials. Below is YORKTOWN (CV-10) recovering an aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

For your entertainment I have also attached a photo of HORNET (CV-12, that is) launching an F6F from her hangar deck cat.

Those were interesting times - lots of different ideas were tried.

[pbudzik]

Thanks John,
The first photo really clears that up.

Paul

[ShangHist]

The large number of arrester wires and barriers is because the YORKTOWNs (and the ESSEXs) were designed to recover aircraft over the stern and the bow. The latter case would occur if bomb damage rendered the aft part of the flight deck unusable, in which case the ship would steam astern to effect the landings. There is a navsource picture of YORKTOWN (CV-5) doing just that during trials. Below is YORKTOWN (CV-10) recovering an aircraft over the bow while steaming astern.

YKTN landing plane over bow.jpg

For your entertainment I have also attached a photo of HORNET (CV-12, that is) launching an F6F from her hangar deck cat.

F6F_Hangar_cat_USS_Hornet_CV-12_NAN2-54.jpg

Those were interesting times - lots of different ideas were tried.

John...Good explanation of the barrier system. In addition to flight deck bomb damage, the main reason for arresting gear near the bow and the "astern steaming" capability was to be able to recover scout plane(s) without having to re-spot the flight deck forward for recovery aft. Once long range radar became reliable and trustworthy, the need to launch long range scout planes was no longer necessary, thus the hangar deck catapult and bow arresting cables were no longer needed.

[John W.]

ShangHist -
Quite right. The hangar deck cat was a way of doing away with the so-called flying off deck that several Brit and Japanese carriers featured in the 20s and 30s. If I recall Friedman's discussion of the YORKTOWN class design history, the two level flight deck was initially considered, but the hangar deck cat installation and the double ended flight deck were used to avoid the need (and avoid the associated ugliness, thankfully) to have the two levels of flight deck.
This era of carrier aviation is so interesting to me because they were writing the book with little precedent. Some ideas were good, some not so. But until they were tested in the real world, no one could be sure whether the theory would pan out in practice.

I know I have seen a video clip showing this type of barrier deploying for a recovery, then retracting flat to the deck to allow the successfully trapped aircraft to taxi forward. If I can find the link, I'll post it here.