Of Angled Decks & Hurricane Bows: The SCB-125 ESSEXES
Posted by Matty on November 18, 2006, 17:08:31 Message modified by board administrator November 23, 2008, 11:13:20
Appended below as "replies" are threads dealing with various fits of the many Essex-class carriers over time, and how well the several classic kits depicted (and can be made to more accurately depict) these remarkable ships.
"...that girder piece (you offered) cleaned up really nice - but when I held it up to the Revell stern area - it's way too big...Your piece is larger in height and width, yet it appears VERY accurate proportionately...I am sure you have discussed this online before, but are we dealing with a significant difference in scale between the Renwal and the Revell kits, or is it that Renwal got the whole hull width more correct than did Revell, who kind of ignored this "minor" detail?"
Actually, Kevin, we haven't really discussed this yet - so let's do so right here - and the short answer to your questions is: yes - to both - though it isn't Renwal, but the Lindberg kit, on which I built the fantail correction. Which, BTW - and for anyone(s) needing to get up to speed - looks currently like this:
The Lindberg Essex, like my Boxer build on it, actually depicts a straight-decked Essex, and not an SCB-125 like the Revell kit - however the major fantail features, as visible here, remained essentially unchanged between the two. Of these, the piece Kevin mentioned above duplicates the girder detail at top (enclosing the gallery, on the real thing) immediately under the flight deck overhang (not shown), along with the two pillars below, supporting it. Note, midway up the pillars is located an intermediate deck, creating a "three-level" effect - however the top "level" is not a deck, but an overhang - what would be called a soffit, in building construction (and maybe also aboard ship?).
Three distinct "500-ish" Essex kits depict - or fail to depict (see below) - these features right out of the box, as follows:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At top, the Revell Essex mold - though plagued as ever with its molded-on railings - does depict all the main features, but gets the top (overhang) wrong - depicting it as yet another deck (with yet more railing molded in), and narrower than the one below. That intermediate deck does correctly extend out to the edge of the main deck, below it - but the top overhang should extend out to the edge of the flight deck.
At middle, the Renwal Essex mold depicts only the intermediate deck, ommitting entirely both the girdered overhang and support pillars - in fact, seeming to invite the builder to provide exactly this detailing - even presenting a ledge up under the top, on which to rest the soffit assembly! I have seen enough instances like this with Renwal - and especially Lindberg - to have concluded that this was indeed deliberate: to completely leave off details which the modeler could build better than they, in those early days 50 years ago, could mold in the plastic.
Even so, the Lindberg Essex, at bottom, really pushes it too far - ommitting all fantail structures - which was enough "invitation" for me to build all of it, as shown above.
However, in addition to Revell's errors mentioned above, there are indeed scale differences - and more - which separate these kit fantails, one from another:
Click on Image to Enlarge
The Lindberg hull under my correction (left top and bottom), is nominally 1/525 scale, and is in fact the only one of the three having correct overall proportions. The Revell hull (top right), though narrower due to its smaller (nominal) scale of 1/540 is additionally narrower because its beam is incorrectly small, as we actually measured earlier, appropriate to a scale of 1/622!
Add to the above, the inaccurately-narrow top overhang "soffit" part, and its no wonder my part looks a lot larger. Bottom line, for the Revell Essex: chop out as much center-section of the upgrade as required to close up the support pillars to the right separation - re-attach at a joint made into a central girder - and trim the outboard edges flush with those of the flight deck.
And you're (ironically) right that indeed the match is much better for the Renwal Essex (bottom right), nominally 1/500 scale and with (at least roughly) correct beam for the length (though I haven't measured it out). The Renwal Essex hull's problem is that it's too squat (too low freeboard) as readily seen in the image - but this fault has no impact on the fantail correction, being as it is, entirely above the main deck level.
And that's the lowdown on fantail details - and lack thereof - on the three, "500-ish" Essex class kits. Sorry for the delay in the above reply, Kevin - I hope it was worth it, and gives you (and everybody) some ideas.
In November, 2007, when I visited the USS Yorktown Museum ship at Patriot's Point, SC, I took the opportunity to photograph her extensively. The ship being docked starboard side to the pier (as these ships were specifically designed to do - particularly after additon of the angled flight decks), the best photography, save from a boat on the river, is by far facilitated for the starboard side:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At left is a long-range - and therefore most orthogonal; showing all features closest to their true proportions - photo of the starboard side of the island. I also moved in to take numerous closeups which, through the magic of PhotoShop®, I blended into a seamless mosaic, shown at right (and displayable at high-resolution). Although excellent for resolving small features, relative sizes and angles are highly distorted in this type of mosaic; composed of shots from relatively close-in.
The closer-in the pics, the more severe the distortion - which is exactly the case for the port side of the island:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Here again, small features are clearly recognizeable for what they actually are - however, because one can only back away by the width of the flight deck - again, unless you have a boat to shoot pics from out on the river - the distortion in the mosaic is extreme.
Accordingly, my second least-distorted pics are of the island ends, for which it was possible to back away (about half) the length of the flight deck:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Note the substantial asymmetry of the island components - particularly at the forward end.
Yorktown-II ended her service as a training carrier (ATV), before which she was an ASW carrier (CVS); if specific details of the SCB-125 Essex islands followed any systematic trends, I would guess the above represents either the ATV, or CVS (or both) fits - with much stripped off, of course. For example, radars and radomes are clearly missing.
However, for basic structural components of these islands - plus quite a bit of piping- and railing detail, etc. - these pics will, it is hoped, be useful.
Cheers,
-Matty
No.1 ELEVATOR REFITS
Posted by Matty on November 23, 2008, 11:10:20, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Edited by board administrator June 22, 2014, 0:38:48
--Originally Posted 11/23/08--
The SCB-125 Essex-class modernizations, of all (3) sub-types, included replacement of the No.3 centerline elevator by a starboard-side deck-edge unit - to simultaneously clear the angled landing deck area while allowing it to be greatly strengthened - leaving the No.1 elevator, forward of the island, as the only remaining centerline elevator.
In many - though notably not all - cases, the No.1 elevator was itself also modified:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At left, Essex at some time between 1956 and -57 - i.e., shortly after getting her hurricane bow and angled deck, etc. - exhibits the fit clearly intended by the Revell kit; note her forward elevator is rectangular - a little longer than wide - very close if not exactly as in the kit deck. However, many photos of other ships - such as Intrepid in late 1968, at right - show this elevator having a pointed leading edge; creating a (roughly) pentagonal shape.
Which ships got this No.1 elevator refit? Well Intrepid, above, differed from Essex in that her steam catapults could launch heavier aircraft - so it would make sense that she operated aircraft which were also larger; needing the lengthened, pointed-tipped elevator. (Note all the other elevators were deck-edge types; where a longer plane could be accommodated simply by extending the tail out overboard.) All (10) of Intrepid's ilk, with "Knuckle-Nosed" hurricane bows, had steam catapults - as did those (3) with "Combined Type" hurricane bows - so, logically, all these should have gotten the pentagonal elevator refit - while the remaining (10) Essexes, with the "Standard Type" hurricane bows, should have retained the original elevators:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Indeed it does appear that most if not all "Standard Bow" Essexes retained their original, rectangular elevators - as, at left, these pics of, for example, Essex in late 1967 (top) and Wasp in May, 1970 (bottom) confirm; well into their last years of service. However the converse - that all others got the pentagonal elevators - was definitely not the case. At right, Intrepid in October, 1957 (top) - immediately after getting her hurricane bow, angled deck etc. - does indeed appear to have gotten a pentagonal No.1 elevator refit in her initial modernization. However, as late as the August 23, 1968, Hornet (bottom) - another "Knuckle-Bow" Essex - still retained her rectangular elevator; very similar if not identical to the original.
While the above suggests pentagonal elevators might have been installed on an individual, ship-by-ship basis, the photographic record is even more complex than that:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At left, Lexington in September 1955 (top) - immediately after receiving her "Combined Type" hurrican bow enclosure - clearly retains her original, rectangular elevator. As early as August 16, 1958 (bottom), however, this pic reveals (under close inspection) that she had been refitted with the pentagonal type elevator. In contrast, at right, her "Combined Bow" sister Shangri-La still retained, as late as September 20, 1965 (top), a rectangular No.1 elevator. A pic from 1967 (bottom), however, may indicate the installation of a pentagonal elevator within a year or two following 1965 (this pic would require photogrammetric measurements to be certain, though). In addition, the rectangular elevators here appear very square; they may well have been proportioned somewhat differently than the original on Essex, above - and in the Revell kit deck.
Already it is clear that refitting with pentagonal No.1 elevators were not only individual, ship-by-ship cases, but also cases of when, during the service history of each ship, is in question. The only generalization that appears (possibly) true, is that none of the "Standard Bow" group may ever have gotten any pentagonal-elevator refit. However even this needs to be verified - as does the possibility that some rectangular elevators may have been re-proportioned, to more square layouts.
If anyone(s) has any helpful additional info or sources, please do pipe up!
Cheers,
-Matty
LEXINGTON-II as AVT 16, and ESSEX CVS 9 circa 1959
Posted by Brian Morris (via Matty) on March 29, 2008, 22:19:48, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Message modified by board administrator March 30, 2008, 8:50:46
A new Matty's Models customer, Brian Morris, recently wrote me:
"I was bored to tears last month at 3 in the morning in seoul korea when i started bidding on old revell kits. I won a uss lexington kit. When it arrived the box showed 1970s airplanes with a 1959 ship. Having been a navy ASW aircrewman at brunswick maine in the 60s i used to fly over the essex and randolph quite frequently so i decided to build cvs 9 (USS Essex) as it was in 1960. I found your web site by going through Great Models."
Thanks for looking us up, Brian - and here at ModelFleet we already have several other ex-ASW guys. Not to mention also "SW" guys - "bubble-heads" - the ex-sub jockeys themselves!
Your comments go straight to the fascinating thing about the Essex-class carriers: they served for so long, went through so many different refits and roles - and with so many sisters in the class to begin with - that the variety of deployments and aircraft they encountered were truly legion.
In the specific case of Lexington-II, actually all but one of the aircraft in Revell's final boxing of her - depicting her as a training carrier, AVT 16 - are correct for her period of service from the late '60s right up through the early '90s, when she was (the last Essex to be) retired. The one - glaring - exception is the F-4 Phantom-II, which was just too much (afterburners too hot on the deck, IIRC) for any Essex-class carrier to handle, ever.
Even so however, all but one of the Revell OOB aircraft; the F-4s, S-2 Trackers, T-28 Trojans, F-9 Cougars - all but the UH-1 Huey helicopters - do in fact date all the way back to the late '50s . Which time period, you are correct, is the one for which the Revell kit (most correctly) depicts the actual ship itself. A depiction which is indeed far closer to your Essex CVS 9 than to Lexington-II, which had a significantly different-shaped "Combined" type hurricane bow enclosure.
So IMHO you're definitely on the right track with your build - very much like our own Falk Pletscher's build - to get the very best out of this classic mold.
Of course, even for the Essexes having the "Standard" type hurricane bow including Essex herself, the Revell kit still contains some substantial innaccuracies in the bow area - I'm working on upgrade parts to correct for that, too.
Meantime I know you're going to be pleased with how much better are the Matty's Models S-2 Trackers than the OOB S-2s of the Revell kit. And, as you complete your build, don't forget: Matt Stein Models also offers an AJ Savage, AD-5W Skyraider and AD-1 Skyraider; providing refuelling tankers, early warning aircraft and attack planes, respectively, which are appropriate to this late '50s period as well.
Again, thanks for your interest, your comments and definitely keep in touch about the progress of your build, Brian!
Cheers,
-Matty
USS Yorktown's Last 5" GUN DIRECTOR
Posted by Matty on March 15, 2008, 21:55:57, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Message modified by board administrator March 15, 2008, 22:06:58
Click on Image to Enlarge
Perched atop the bridge levels (right) on the island of the USS Yorktown Musuem Ship at Patriot's Point, SC is a descendant of the original 5" gun director with which she was launched.
Click on Image to Enlarge
Closer inspection reveals it is significantly different from the original-issue, Mk37 unit; now looking much more boxy. The very angular enclosures over the rangefinder "ears" is, I believe, an artifact from mothballing, while the rectangular boxes on the "front" face are in fact identical to those originally installed on the rear side; the director is here turned to face aft. This stowage of the directors facing aft can be seen on many later vessels and is logical protection for increasingly sensitive antennae and plastic "EM windows" against the ravages of wind and weather, coming (most strongly) from ahead.
Click on Image to Enlarge
From this near-perfectly aligned viewpoint forward, the rangefinder is outlined (right), to distinguish it from all the other haze-gray steel. Again, note the enclosures over the side ears are completely featureless and identical on both sides. Again, the rectangular boxes facing forward (and wall handrail as well) are identical to features on the backs of the original Mk37s.
Click on Image to Enlarge
From behind we can confirm the director is indeed turned around, noting a few other, last remaining vestiges of the Mk37: two of the 6 original sighting hatches (the two right-most ones from the lower row), as well as more hand- and footrail as well as the side ladder.
Clearly, this is a significant modification from the original Mk37; externally differeing primarily in the entire width of the top front being built up vertically into a box, which extends a little further forward over the portside positions. Also, the side walls no longer taper forward, but now extend straight forward so that the base of the unit is a true square
If anyone(s) can further identify and/or describe this type of gun director please pipe up, stick your oar in or otherwise sing out!
Cheers,
-Matty
What is REALLY the SCALE of the Revell Angled-Deck Essex?
The analysis I just did of the Revell SCB-125 Essex kit vs the actual USS Yorktown CV-10, whose general dimensions the kit should match exactly, revealed that the kit bow ahead of the forward gun sponson is far (66.2%) too short; the hull length forward needs to be extended by 1.01" - all of it forward of the sponson. Thus, a build accurized per our correction will not wind up in the nominal 1/542 scale (often rounded to 1/540) usually attributed to this kit.
So what scale will a corrected build end up? Well, as usual there are several ways to answer this. A quick measurement of the flight deck (19.6") - calculated against the overall length (LOA), as listed by NavSource (899' for USS Yorktown) - indicates an actual kit scale of exactly 1/550 to begin with, but with our bow correction (+1.01" forward), that scale increases to 1/523.
Now the above is based on length overall, which can be dicey because of minor changes - for example a bridle-catcher here, or a gun tub there, etc. - so that the far better way of pinning down scale based on length is to consider the waterline length. Indeed, Navsource lists the waterline length (WL) for all Essexes as unchanged - from 820' as-built - right through their radical conversions even to the SCB-125 fits. Based on this dimension, the Revell kit starts out at 1/538 scale, but again with our bow correction ends up at 1/510.
Meantime, as I've noted earlier a key consideration for most hull conversions is actually the beam - again, always measured at the waterline - and here the original Revell kit is erring in the other direction; with a waterline beam (1.95") scaling out to 1/622! Now this is for the beam an SCB-125 Essex - 101' in real life - which was significantly wider than the as-built WL beam of 93'. (I think Revell must have used this earlier beam measurement in designing their mold, as this would calculate out to 1/572 scale - which is at least back in the general ballpark with their target of 1/542.)
In any case, the beam of the Revell kit needs to be widened (even before our bow correction) to match the scale based on length. With our bow correction, we are again faced with a choice of target scales: 1/523 based on LOA or 1/510 based on LWL. In this case I recommend splitting the difference - taking the average of the two - which comes out to 1/517 scale. Thus, I calculate and recommend that the keel requires the insertion of a 0.40" spacer plate along the centerline of the (single-piece) hull; leaving the ends attached so they will naturally taper back together. I know this is a lot of plastic to jam in there. I have successfully inserted, on this very kit hull, a 0.30" spreader before - so I know that at least that much can be done. If more than 0.30" proves unfeasible (the other option being to build out the hull sides, as was done in the actual refits), then the resulting scale, based on the beam, will come out to 1/539.
So, there you have it - the scale to which the Revell angled-deck Essex should be corrected is: 1/510 based on LWL; 1/523 based on LOA; or 1/517 based on the beam - take your pick - unless you can't swing the latter and have to settle for a beam of 1/539! Is the above about as clear as mud now?
Oiy!
Cheers,
-Matty
Re: What is REALLY the SCALE of the Revell Angled-Deck Essex?
Interesting. I have a 1/540ish Essex inbound with the angled deck. and find this quite interesting. Thanks, Eddie
YORKTOWN CV-10: Actual BOW PROFILE and Proportions
Posted by Matty on December 25, 2007, 23:48:40, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Message modified by board administrator December 26, 2007, 22:20:16
Up at Patriot's Point, South Carolina last month I had a chance to take my own pictures of the actual bow of the Yorktown-II, as she appears today:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At left, the top photo is one of several general side views I took - but in addition I obtained a dedicated, bow-profile picture (bottom); after pacing back and forth across the grass you see, watching the parallax of all the bow features until it appeared I was absolutely perpendicular to it. I don't think you could get a truer profile picture without a laser alignment rig.
Now people with science backgrounds like me want to compare things like these - to see how much difference there might be - which is what I've done at right; the profile shot on top, and the identical coverage from the other - resized to match and aligned at the bow stem (dashed red-&-white bars) - on the bottom.
Even without registration marks it is immediately clear the difference in appearance is substantial; from just this few yards' offset to the side. All of which proves that tracing Essex bow profiles from random pictures - just like I did for Falk's Essex - can be a very dicey proposition. Which raises the question: just how accurate was that traced profile?
Well, let's just see:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At bottom is the graphic from that earlier work (except flipped horizontally; it was originally done from the port side), in which the traced profile (lavender) is laid over a photo of the Revell SCB-125 Essex kit bow. Again, this pic was scaled to match the Yorktown bow and aligned with it at the stem. The lavender profile now running along the Yorktown's bow is not another tracing but exactly the same profile copied from the earlier work - the match is that good - such that you can't see any significant difference whatever. (Damn, I'm good - and lucky! )
Therefore IMHO this is the definitive hurricane bow profile - we've just confirmed it on Yorktown herself - representing, as she does one of the hydraulic (H-8) catapult-equipped SCB-125 Essexes; a group comprising:
And lastly, three special cases - LEXINGTON CV 16, BON HOMME RICHARD CV 31 and SHANGRI LA CV 38 - got (along with steam catapults) the unique "round-nose, triangle-cheek" type hurricane bow:
And the above accounts for all the Essexes ever fitted with hurricane bows; the remaining 10 never received any type of bow enclosure.
Now regarding the above Revell kit there was an additional question; whether its bow was too short ahead of its forward gun sponsons; whether it was too short overall; or whether the sponson were simply located too far forward. The Patriot Point Yorktown-II pics can deliver the answer which is, in a nutshell, both of the first two only:
Click on Image to Enlarge
At top is again the Patriot Point side view and at bottom my taped-up Revell Essex mold; scaled so that the height of the islands match, and aligned at the island leading edge (left-most red-&-white dashed bar). Proceeding forward, the other dashed bars are: the gun sponson aft bulkhead, its forward bulkhead and the bow stem at the waterline, respectively.
Clearly, the forward section of the kit is too short - but not everywhere by the same proportion. For example, note the mismatch for the gun sponson forward bulkheads (center) increases greatly - more than doubles - by the time you reach the bow stem. If the entire bow were just proportionally too short, this doubling of the mismatch would require a doubling of the distance travelled from the island. In fact the increase in distance has only been (less than) 50%.
And not only is the sponson not located too far forward, but the above mismatchi indicates it shoud actually be moved further forward - such that the kit bow needs a whole lot more length added to it. Meanwhile, note the Revell sponson is itself a little too short - but not by that much - and in any case this is due to an inaccuracy with its aft end:
Click on Image to Enlarge
This is the actual appearance of the gun sponson aft end in question - a full-width, flat bulkhead - as seen on Yorktown. Looking again at the above kit you will see Revell inaccurately terminated the sponson by rounding it back into the hull - whose plastic indeed goes on to make a sharp vertical drop pretty much exactly where this bulkhead should have been w/r/t the rest of the sponson.
I actually have a theory as to how all the above inaccuracies occured. Note from the comparison above that the very end of the kit flight deck overhang aligns almost perfectly with Yorktown's bow stem - a classic sign of confusion between length overall (OA) vs waterline length (WL), forward of the island. I think someone at Revell got these numbers confused, set the forward hull length too short and then - when it was somehow too late to go back and make it right; to mask the error - cast an eye on the aft ends of the forward gun sponsons, and that's where the serious "fudging" began!
In any case, the above permits determination of accurate dimensions to correct the above bow features on the Revell kit:
- Island-to-Overhang (OA; to end of flight deck): 8.51" - Island-to-Stem (WL; to stem): 7.70" - Sponson length (between bulkheads): 1.65" - Sponson-to-Overhang (OA; forward bulkhead to end of flight deck): 2.99" - Sponson-to-Stem (WL; forward bulkhead to stem): 2.19" - Island-to-Sponson (to aft bulkhead): 3.89"
And that's the low-down on the Revell kit bow, and how it stacks up against the real deal; the USS Yorktown, as she looks today.
Cheers,
-Matty
CLIPPER and HURRICANE BOWS
Posted by Phil Fuss (via Matty) on December 24, 2007, 13:36:39, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Message modified by board administrator December 26, 2007, 22:19:22
"I'm waiting for your (Matt Stein Models') completed Essex class (conversion parts to upgrade) with angled deck and hurricane bow. Trumpeter just released Antietam with angled deck. I thought she'd be a good start on Lex in 1960 or Hornet in '63 but shes a 'long' hull and the other two are 'short' hulls, not that 16 feet is that noticeable in 1/700, but I'm hoping that someone will come out with a kit and save me the trouble."
Phil, it sounds like you are getting entangled in the "Essex trap" - a common confusion arising from the multitude of different refits and terminology they used -so let me take my best shot at pulling you out, buddy.
Ironically, the "long hull" which you are leary of in the Trumpeter Antietam kit is about the only thing it actually has going for it in your proposed conversions. But to understand, forget about Antietam for the moment; she was unique - an "exception to the rule" for every other modified Essex, none of which ever looked very much like her, with her experimental angled deck, at all.
Let's back up a little and start "clean" with the origin of the phrase "long-hulled"; it's true it was coined for those Essexes originally built with the longer, "clipper bow" - such as the upgrade part I'm developing for the Lindberg Essex kit. However, of all the Essexes later getting the fully-enclosed "hurricane bow", every one first got a long-hull clipper bow. Here, for example, is your Hornet just after she got hers, in late 1953:
Clearly she has the sweeping, "long-hulled" bow - and note also she's gotten the new, modern-style island, minus the twin-5" turrets - yet still no angled deck. This refit, standard for the great majority of the Essex class, was called "Ship Construction Board (SCB) specification -27.
The later refit, in which she would pick up the enclosed hurricane bow - as well as the angled flight deck - came in 1956, and was called SCB-125.
Lexington was a little different in that she (along with only Shangri-La and Bon Homme Richard) got a single, "straight-through" conversion to SCB-125; receiving her clipper bow and then hurricane bow built immediately on top of it (plus new-style island and angled deck, etc.) - all in one (marathon) drydock period. Lexington's (and Shangri-La's and Bon Homme Richard's) hurricane bow also was shaped somewhat differently - I discussed it a little more in-depth here.
So Phil you could build the SCB-125 hurricane bow on the long-hulled Trumpeter Antietam - but because Antietam was such an oddball you would still be lacking the modern-style island and even the correct, "standard" angled-deck as adopted by the other Essexes.
The prospect for my releasing a comprehensive upgrade - taking you all the way to SCB-125 - is still a long ways off. So, by far the easiest approach, IMHO, would be to fix the main flaws of the Revell angled-deck Essex kit, which we've also discussed here.
I hope any or all of the above is helpful/interesting - if any questions just sing out, Phil. This is some of the stuff I most love to brainstorm about, buddy!
Cheers,
-Matty
Essex Bow Comparison: Revell Mold vs the Real Thing
Posted by Matty on December 2, 2007, 11:57:40, in reply to "Of ESSEX BOWS and ANGLED DECKS" Message modified by board administrator December 24, 2007, 13:40:15
-- Originally posted 4/8/07 --
THANK You, Falk, for directing me to this very rare side profile of Essex:
Click on Image to Enlarge
A near-perfect (orthogonal) profile view, from the port side.
Now my purpose below is not to argue - and you certainly don't need me to tell you how to build this (or any) kit. But the following is something I've wanted to do for a long time, and this picture provides the perfect opportunity - plus I thought you (and everbody) might benefit as well, in one way or another.
So first note this direct comparison of the Revell kit bow vs the same area from the above picture:
Click on Image to Enlarge
These two views are 100% compatible; both are scaled identically, having the same number of pixels from the waterline to the hull "knuckle" - the level of the main deck - and also from there up to the bottom of the flight-deck-edge catwalk.
So if it looks right off the bat like the entire bow on the Revell mold - from the tip back to the gun sponson - is too short, it's because it is.
We'll come back to that below, but our primary interest is of course the shape of the hurricane bow. And if these two look like they have basically the same shape I think it is largely due to confusion in the real-Essex picture, in which she is not only poorly lit/resolved, but she is also sporting a slightly different fit on her bow. Because this picture is showing features of the "FRAM-II" ASW carrier (CVS) modification.
Let me show you what I mean:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Here on the original picture (top) I've outlined the basic profile of the hurricane bow (magenta), which in 1964 remained unchanged, but also traced the FRAM-II additions: a prominent anchor-chain guide (yellow), and here the anchor (green), drawn up and tucked in above it. The features can be more clearly seen on two pics of Wasp (bottom), which got exactly the same refit.
Note also the overall visual effect is to make the hurricane bow "forehead" look like it is more massive and squared-off - when in reality it wasn't. This illusion can only be expected to be greater in blurry pictures, and I suspect this is exactly what happened in your interpretation of the original picture of Essex, Falk.
In any case, we can compare with the Revell mold directly, using alignment and registration marks:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Note the two profiles are aligned (striped bar) at the point where the bow stem plunges through the waterline (registration mark "W").
The registration marks "K" are also aligned vertically, and their heights set at the hull "knuckle" - the level of the main deck. Note that on the real Essex, at the level of the hull knuckle, the bow extends quite a bit further forward of the mark, and is still angled/curving up into the vertical face in that area.
So now recall the apparent shortness of the Revell kit bow:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Here I've simply registered the earlier tracing of the actual bow profile (magenta) over the kit bow, starting at the "W" waterline junction point. Clearly, it indicates that an accurate hurricane bow would need to continue sweeping/extending forward before going vertical; resulting in a smaller vertical face area and longer bow overall.
As a side note, observe that the distance back to the gun sponson is additionally quite a bit too short in the kit vs in the picture of the real Essex (striped bars at right). Whether this is because the kit sponson is placed too far forward, or because the entire kit bow is too short overall, I haven't determined. (Yet.)
So Falk, the above is why I still conclude the Revell kit's hurricane bow is significantly inaccurate. And I definitely didn't want to see anyone confused by the appearance of the FRAM-II modifications in a low-resolution, hard-to-read picture.
I hope you (and everyone) found this interesting and maybe useful.
Cheers,
-Matty
Re: Essex Bow Comparison: Revell Mold vs the Real Thing
Intrepid (left), Ticonderoga and Bon Homme Richard (right), during the late '60s/early '70s; their bows shown from the most similar angles I could find.
Note Intrepid's and Tico's bows were identical; the forward flare of the typical long-hulled Essex ("clipper") bow was carried forward to the length of the flight deck, and then plated vertically - straight up - to connect with the forward edge. The (half-moon shaped) transition is not at all softened, leaving the angular "knuckle" mentioned before.
This, as I understand it, was to allow for easy installation of the more powerful (C-11) steam catapults. However the very first hurricane bow C-11s installations had been done earlier - for Lexington-II, Shangri-La and Bon Homme Richard (right) - involving a different bow shape. Note it has no hard knuckle but a smooth, gradual curve starting (at least) twice as far down - creating a large, rounded triangular bulge for the upper nose.
There is also another difference (partially) visible in these pics; take a close look at the hull sides just under the flight deck forward; where they rise to meet the flight deck. On Tico and Increpid, they begin from a very soft ridge running horizontally at anchor deck level (same as hangar deck level), and fom there flare at a slightly steeper angle to meet the flight deck sides.
However on Bonnie Dick, note the flare of the plating is completely smooth and unbroken - until it reaches the width of the forward flight deck, whereupon it knuckles vertically up to join the flight deck; just like on the noses of the other two. Because the hull widens (while the flight deck actually narrows a little) further from the bow, this hard line plunges to form a (roughly) triangular vertical "cheek" (half obscured under a catwalk here).
OK now to your kits, Bruce - and since Bonnie Dick was converted first, let's start with the Renwal:
Here is my Renwal Shangri-La kit; one of the two accurate boxings (along with their Lexington-II) for this mold. Note the box art (top) depicts the correct "round-nose, triangle-cheek" hurricane bow, and - far more importantly - so does the mold (bottom).
Note for a full-hull mold she looks a bit squat - almost as if already waterlined - but this is a flaw of the kit; its hull bottom is far too shallow. That's why we say it's easiest to build this kit waterlined. But if you want to "go the distance" and correct the hull (as I plan one day to do), we can certainly find out how much height it needs and where/how best to put it in.
So, that's Option #1; build Bon Homme Richard from your Renwal kit. For Option #2 - an accurate Tico and/or Increpid - you could start with this:
The Revell SCB-125 Essex-class kit (here boxed as Wasp-II; top). The boxing of this kit as Shangri-La (among many, many others) is, as you've seen above, incorrect - as may well be also the case for Wasp here (I really didn't check).
In any event, the mold does not exactly match the box art anyway, as you can see at bottom left. The box art depicts a smooth arch for the bow which is not reflected in the mold; it goes vertical too far down on the bow, creating an exaggerated (if smooth) bulge which is not accurate for any Essex refit, AFAIK. For its part, the box art is far more accurate for many early SCB-125s - e.g., Bennington - which never did receive the C-11 steam catapult - including on the cheek the horizontal and fairly hard knuckle line. Note this, too is not faithfully depicted by the mold, which actually has a very soft bulge line along the anchor deck level.
But recall that this type of soft cheek bulge is precisely what you want for your Ticonderoga or Intrepid. And up front, in fact the very flat vertical face will lend itself to your desired "knuckle-nose" conversion very nicely. All you would need to do is trace the knuckle line onto this face and remove and replace the bulge below it with a bow flaring smoothly back down to (about) the waterline.
I don't have an example of exactly this conversion to show you, but I can show you some techniques which can work for this; from a different conversion I did already begin, using this same kit:
Before I was able to snag my Renwal kit above, I had started this conversion of the Revell kit into a (more) accurate depiction of Shangri-La. Note I have begun corrections (white plastic) for the nose, cheeks, forward flight deck and even underwater bow bulb (which I forgot to mention earlier). I also forgot to mention this hull is slightly too narrow, so I also corrected it (center-right). This last is a minor correction, though, and you might well could get away with skipping it, IMHO.
My bow shapes are not yet quite right for Shangri-La - so don't focus too much on that, anyway, as the the things worth noting here are the two techniques in play: filling with solid block and actual "plating" with thin plastic card stock. Note the nose has been replaced entirely with a single plastic block; pre-glued-up from eighteen (1/8") thick plastic slabs. This is a relatively time-consuming, "brute-force" approach (which could be no factor for your recovering troops, Captain); not it permits the advantage of carving/sculpting into virtually any desired shape. Plus, it creates a truly solid support for anything needing subsequently to attach to it (like the forward end of the flight deck, in this case).
For less complex shapes - and when you already have good attachment for most sides - you can use a much more efficient (and elegant) method of gluing on plastic card plating - which you can roll, bend and stress much like the real thing. This method - using 0.035" plasticard - was the one used to construct my side-cheeks (right) here. Likewise, expansion of both the forward flight deck (left) and keel (center-right) was done simply using this plasticard for shims, as needed.
Once obtaining the basic forms, remaining edges/holes/mismatches can be hit with putty, easy-peasy! Even though I now have a Renwal Shangri-La kit, the above conversion was so much fun - and results to date so promising - that for sure I intend (one day) to complete it. Your conversion to Tico or Intrepid would be far, far quicker and easier (especially with us helping you, buddy).
I hope you (all) found something(s) of interest in the above. And if/when you do build any of these kind of conversions, that you will send me your pics/thoughts - which we will tell the world!
At long, LONG last I am taking a shot at the "Knuckle-Nosed" hurricane bow, suitable for (among others) the two Ladies in Question:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Actually I am starting with this, the later (FRAM II) CVS (ASW-carrier) fit - exactly as for Hornet's Apollo 11 recovery, per the latest reboxing of the 540-scale (Revell-DE) mold. It is also the one in which Intrepid ended-up. In addition to separate (articulable) anchor parts (bottom), the bow mid-level itself - with its anchor niche and hawse "tongue" - is modular, optionally replaced with one (not shown) for the smooth stem of the CVA (attack-) and earlier CVS fits.
Likewise for a (third) module, providing below-waterline options:
Click on Image to Enlarge
Again, this will depict the (post-FRAM II) sonar dome option - here still (about 2x) too long, but to be cut down/accurized shortly. The other option (not shown) being of course the (as-launched) standard, below-waterline bulge of the Essexes.
Together, the above options will provide for easy conversion to any of the SCB-125 fits of Intrepid, Ticonderoga, Hancock, Hornet (per the latest re-release), Kearsarge or Oriskany.
Do you already have the new 350-scale one - or one of the Revell 1:540s? (I thought you had given me your last one of those.)
If the latter, let me know and I'll definitely shoot you one of these first hurricane bow corrections (VERY easy to install, this time), as soon as they begin Rolling off The Line...
Damn! Great tips and info!
Posted by Don Murphy on November 21, 2006, 11:15:04, in reply to "Damn! Great tips and info!" Message modified by board administrator December 2, 2007, 11:50:01
--Originally posted 11/19/06--
Just the thing for chopping up those kits and accurizing them!
I've been doing a lot of this thinking and experimentation over the last few years; with any luck, it will soon all "come to a head" with some great builds and aftermarket products for builders to easily repeat these conversions.
Meantime, I'm glad to help - and appreciate the encouragement!