Essex vs Lexington...

EdGrune wrote:

The Nautilus laser-engraved decks are for 1:350 scale.

Well, they must have expanded their line, because this one is for the 700th scale Trumpy Essex.

The Nautilus laser-engraved decks are for 1:350 scale.  

Anyone have any experience with wood decking for carriers from Nautilus? Just scored one in 700th for the Trumoy Essex...

I want one in 350th myself but know of nothing in the pipeline...

Tracy White wrote:

I've seen the claim but I didn't do any research to confirm or refute it. The piece I saw was in a veteran's newletter and had some statistics given to back it up, but I don't know their source. In terms of ship & aircraft destroyed and damaged she was certain a leader. Technically CV-10 was the first to fight by a minute or two (They were on the same operation but Yorktown's bombers went in first) but her overhaul in the fall of  1944 "cost" her. The Navy's top ace was Essex's CAG, if you're looking for interesting historical reasons to build Essex.

Speaking of "Yorktown"...when is a decent model of the original Yorktown gonna come out in 1/700th scale??? IMO, Yorktown is one of the more interesting of the pre-war carriers, along with, of course, Enterprise--which may hold the all-time record in terms of combat experience... 

I've seen the claim but I didn't do any research to confirm or refute it. The piece I saw was in a veteran's newletter and had some statistics given to back it up, but I don't know their source. In terms of ship & aircraft destroyed and damaged she was certain a leader. Technically CV-10 was the first to fight by a minute or two (They were on the same operation but Yorktown's bombers went in first) but her overhaul in the fall of  1944 "cost" her.

The Navy's top ace was Essex's CAG, if you're looking for interesting historical reasons to build Essex.

Wasn't the Essex in more battles than any other Essex-class carrier?

In ship's fit it's second behind the '45 CV-12 Hornet kit. Dimensions may be a bit off if I remember correctly. Certainly the Trumpeter and Dragon offerings have different dimensions here and there with their shapes. They both look like Essex ships however and the Dragon kits have simpler construction. I'd have to look over my CV-16 kit to remember precisely what I wasn't able to get them to change, but I do remember that the notches on the flight deck port side, inboard of the quad 40mms that were next to the open 5" galleries should not be there. I did manage to get them to lower the quad 40mms as was proper for later-fit Essexes, but they decided to not redo the flight deck to remove the notches that were the whole reason the guns were lowered.

Tracy White wrote:

Hangar Cat was not molded on the hangar deck, but there are pieces on the port and starboard side.Essex was rushed out to the Pacific and never had one installed. When she was overhauled in March/April 1944 the Navy expanded the port platform used to mount the catapult flippers (which was installed even though the catapult and flippers themselves weren't) and mounted two quad 40mms there instead. This was a modification that was applied to all the other ships as they came in for overhaul as well. You can see it in photos here and here, but there are some differences; these are both long hulls, which mounted the Mk 51 directors in the tubs between the guns you see. The earlier ships mounted them on the catapults above. Additionally, the long hulls, since they were never planned to have hangar cats, didn't need the large roller doors on the port side necessary for flinging airplanes out of and had smaller and fewer doors in this area; so I wouldn't use those photos for detailing a CV-9 build. I'm not sure why they included the hangar cat in themodel as I wasn't involved in that project, but given the amount of bad and conflicting data out there, it's not a large surprise. One reason I want to put the book I'm working on out is to lay to rest some of the misconceptions. One last detail for you off the top of my head; there is a Mk 51 on a tube of sorts just in front of the island on most of the ships.. directly between the island and the number 2 twin 5" turret. Essex had hers removed when they took out one of the quad 40s; you can see it missing in this picture.

Great info...so in your opinion, is the the Dragon Lexington the most accurate Essex-class, straight out of the box?

Hangar Cat was not molded on the hangar deck, but there are pieces on the port and starboard side.Essex was rushed out to the Pacific and never had one installed. When she was overhauled in March/April 1944 the Navy expanded the port platform used to mount the catapult flippers (which was installed even though the catapult and flippers themselves weren't) and mounted two quad 40mms there instead. This was a modification that was applied to all the other ships as they came in for overhaul as well.

You can see it in photos here and here, but there are some differences; these are both long hulls, which mounted the Mk 51 directors in the tubs between the guns you see. The earlier ships mounted them on the catapults above. Additionally, the long hulls, since they were never planned to have hangar cats, didn't need the large roller doors on the port side necessary for flinging airplanes out of and had smaller and fewer doors in this area; so I wouldn't use those photos for detailing a CV-9 build.

I'm not sure why they included the hangar cat in themodel as I wasn't involved in that project, but given the amount of bad and conflicting data out there, it's not a large surprise. One reason I want to put the book I'm working on out is to lay to rest some of the misconceptions.

One last detail for you off the top of my head; there is a Mk 51 on a tube of sorts just in front of the island on most of the ships.. directly between the island and the number 2 twin 5" turret. Essex had hers removed when they took out one of the quad 40s; you can see it missing in this picture.

Tracy White wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote: Correct...there are tons of good reviews on the Lexington (CV-16) but haven't seen any on the Essex (CV-9)---which is their newest Essex-class release. The CV-9 kit is  of her after her April '44 refit, but they goofed and put a hangar cat in the kit, which Essex never had. They also left out the two quad 40mms that were where the port sponson for the hangar cat would have been had she had one. In terms of accuracy of details I'd say either the CV-16 or CV-12 kits.

Cool...If I get the Essex can I just leave off the hanger cat or is it molded on? Also, can you explain more about the missing 40mm bofors? Where did they go?

Sounds like the Lexington is the most accurate straight out of the box?

Mansteins revenge wrote:

Correct...there are tons of good reviews on the Lexington (CV-16) but haven't seen any on the Essex (CV-9)---which is their newest Essex-class release.

CV-12 Hornet '45 is the most recent kit:
http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRA7085

CV-9 kit:
http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRA7049

The only difference between kits is configuration; they're the same hull. The CV-15 Princeton kit is the long hull with the short flight deck, which Princeton had during her shakedown, but not operationally. Only Hancock went to war with the short flight deck; Tico's first cruise was sort of half & half and was the same length as the short hulls by her second war cruise.

The CV-9 kit is  of her after her April '44 refit, but they goofed and put a hangar cat in the kit, which Essex never had. They also left out the two quad 40mms that were where the port sponson for the hangar cat would have been had she had one. Otherwise it's pretty close. Essex was a bit different than her sisters as she was one of the first to come in for overhaul but then never came back so she got some of the early mods but never the later ones (two flight deck cats, extra quad 40s on the port & starboard side)

In terms of accuracy of details I'd say either the CV-16 or CV-12 kits. The CV-12 kit is actually an early fit, even though it is labelled 1945; Hornet was "stock" until a typhoon collapsed her flight deck in June '45 and she had to return to the US for repair. So it would work forthe "First war cruise" of probably CV-9 through 12 (CV-13 had the island quad 40mm removed and the flag plot extended before hers so is a little different, but I believe the parts for that are in the kit) and CVs 17-18. I pushed for this kit as there was no really good, accurate early Essex class.

If you have a WWII Essex class question feel free to ask me; I'm working on a modeler's book for hte class and coined the phrase "essex-ive."  ;)

Lexington (CV-16) was an early Essex and went to war in 1943. Both are short hulls.

 

A little trivia:

Lexington was Admiral Marc Mitscher's flagship during the Marianas Turkey Shoot and it was from her flag bridge that he gave the order to "Turn on the lights."

Admiral Mitscher onboard Lexington:

I was a crewman on Lex, 1975-1976.

Tracy White wrote:

CV-9 versus CV-16, correct?

Correct...there are tons of good reviews on the Lexington (CV-16) but haven't seen any on the Essex (CV-9)---which is their newest Essex-class release. Just wondering between the two which is the better kit, if there are any qualitative differences (new molds, etc)...I'm guessing that most of the two kits are identical but want to make sure before I order...I do now that both represent the "short-deck" version of the class and the Lex is more of a late-war configuration...

Which Essex are you talking about? As far as I know they've only released one and it was out before the Lex.

CV-9 versus CV-16, correct?

There are some differences due to the differences in fit between the two ships. I was a consultant on the CV-16 release and helped them with some of the island differences, the quad 50s, etc., but I wasn't in direct contact at that point so we didn't get everything changed that needed to be.