IOWA battleship to aircraft carrier conversion.

[seadude]

Can an Admin move this thread to the Warships & Ships subforum within the Current and Finished Projects forum, please?

Anyway.........long time, no see, folks. How's it going? Decided to dig this project out of mothballs and put it back into drydock to do some more work on it and hopefully get it finished for some model contests next Spring.

Full album
https://www.flickr.com/photos/72147279@N06/albums/72157675970938062

Approximate sizes of 1/350 scale Iowa class battleship (Top), Iowa battleship/carrier conversion (Middle), and ESSEX class aircraft carrier (Bottom).




Scratchbuilt the port bow 5"/38 gun platform. It's not perfect, but it's the best I could do. Still needs a little bit of light sanding where the putty is as soon as I am able to buy more sanding sticks. Next to work on will be the port aft 5"/38 gun platform which will probably have a similar configuration.

[PR19_Kit]

An awesome job there. 

What's surprising to me is how large an Essex was compared to an Iowa. Somehow I always thought of an Essex as a relatively small ship, but it seems not.

[seadude]

I'm trying to figure out if I should put any sort of armament at the bow in front of the flight deck. I'm really hesitant on doing this as I feel it would interfere with flight operations. I removed the side by side 40mm gun tubs that my modeling friend had originally placed at the bow as I felt they didn't look good in that area. (See pictures on Page 1 of this thread.)

[dumaniac]

impressive work - well done

[seadude]

Still deciding if I want a 40mm gun and tub in front of the flight deck.  Sorry about the blurriness in any pics. One thing I am uncertain on is adding the 20mm bow shield to the bow of the model. There won't be any 20mm guns added there. Keep it or ditch it?

In one of the pics, the 40mm gun on the left is from a TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS Missouri battleship kit. The 40mm gun on the right is from a Trumpeter 1/350 scale USS Franklin CV-13 Essex class carrier kit. The TAMIYA gun is slightly less detailed, but does have the gun shield. The Franklin 40mm gun is more detailed, but doesn't have a gun shield. Tough choice on which to use.

[Old Wombat]

Hi, seadude!


That raised bow would concern me as a pilot, even without the gun shields in place, as many aircraft dip as they go over the end of the deck on take-off, so I'd lose the 20mm gun shields.

Not sure I like the 40mm's there, either. To me, a quad or twin either side of the flight deck would be better, having a much greater field of fire. Where it is now an aircraft could fly low into the bow with almost no way for the gunners to fire on them, as the bow is in the way. With the guns on either side of the deck, that pilot would be facing a cross-fire from up to 8 x 40mm guns

As for which 40mm's, if you want the better detail I'd go with the Franklin guns, as the shields should be fairly easy to scratch from thin styrene card.


Really like what you're doing, btw!

[seadude]

Added a 20mm gun bow shield from a TAMIYA USS Missouri kit to see how it looks and if it might be too big/tall in that area to use.


The 40mm gun on the left is from a TAMIYA 1/350 scale USS Missouri battleship kit. The 40mm gun on the right is from a Trumpeter 1/350 scale USS Franklin CV-13 Essex class carrier kit. The TAMIYA gun is slightly less detailed, but does have the gun shield. The Franklin 40mm gun is more detailed, but doesn't have a gun shield. Tough choice on which to use.


Decided to ditch using a 20mm gun shield part from a TAMIYA USS Missouri kit at the bow as it was too big/high. Instead, I scratchbuilt a new shield piece which is slightly smaller from plastic strip.


Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not. Sorry about the pic being blurry. Side view to gauge height of the 20mm gun shield on the bow in relation to height of the 40mm gun tub and the flight deck.


Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not.



This is the port aft side of the Iowa carrier model as my modeling friend had built it long ago. As you can see, it is very plain and lacks any detail.


This is the port aft side of the carrier model where my modeling friend who originally started this model long ago had made an opening to the hangar bay. The lighter grey panel is a bulkhead part from a Trumpeter USS Franklin Essex carrier kit that I added to give more detail to the side of the ship.


I built and painted a small plane to put in the hangar deck so that opening wouldn't look so plain. I added another bulkhead piece from an Essex carrier kit that had open roller doors to that area as I felt this would add more detail to the port aft side of the ship.

[kitnut617]

Side view to determine about using scratchbuilt 20mm gun shield at the bow or not. Sorry about the pic being blurry. Side view to gauge height of the 20mm gun shield on the bow in relation to height of the 40mm gun tub and the flight deck.

I'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought

[seadude]

I'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought

Raising the deck is not an option as it is thoroughly built/glued on. I'm not very informative on flight deck operations, but since my Iowa carrier conversion is similar in layout to an Essex class carrier, then didn't aircraft on an Essex take off using a starboard and/or port catapults on the flight deck? The aircraft would be taking off closer to the "sides" of the flight deck, not "down the center".

[sandiego89]

I'm not into ships, but after seeing photos of WWII aircraft taking off from carriers of the time, many of them seemed to drop off the deck end before gaining height. With those images in mind, it would seem to me that the deck needs to be raised up if you want to continue with your line of thought

Raising the deck is not an option as it is thoroughly built/glued on. I'm not very informative on flight deck operations, but since my Iowa carrier conversion is similar in layout to an Essex class carrier, then didn't aircraft on an Essex take off using a starboard and/or port catapults on the flight deck? The aircraft would be taking off closer to the "sides" of the flight deck, not "down the center".

Many flight deck take-offs on the the Essex class were done with just a straight deck run, no catapult. Many WWII carrier aircraft could take off without catapult assist, and this was much quicker in getting the airwing off the decks. Catapults would be used for heavier aircraft and with crowded decks, when there was not sufficient deck space for long deck runs. 

So with a deck take off, they would be taking off directly over the centerline and bow. Best leave the profile low.

I would also worry about storm damage with the current configuration. Even the Iowa's would take green water over the bows in heavy seas, and the forward parts of the flight deck look awfully exposed. The Essex hull had a bit of a flare to deflect and reduce sea spray, but the Iowa bow is nearl vertical.

Great build however, love the idea! 

[seadude]

Even if I were to remove the scratchbuilt bow shield and the 40mm tub, the bow of the ship is still high enough to get in the way of flight deck operations somewhat. Imagine no shield and gun there and an aircraft is taking off down the center of the deck, but has an "unforseen problem". It'll still crash into the bow/anchor area. Either way with or without the bow shield/gun tub, the effects would still be the same somewhat.

[Old Wombat]

If you look at your side-by-side image & the image of USS Intrepid (below - it also shows you the bow gun lay-out), seadude, you'll see that the Essex's flight decks carry over the bow, thereby eliminating the "crashing into the foredeck" issue.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier

If you can, I'd recommend you copy that, making the Iowa flight deck longer (no need to alter anything else, unless you want to flare out the bow).



Edit: I noticed that the rise or the Iowa's bow eliminates the possibility of the 40mm's on the centre-line of an extended deck, unless you seriously mod the bow, so maybe put two 40mm mounts on the bow, one either side & work them into the "flare"?

[seadude]

If you can, I'd recommend you copy that, making the Iowa flight deck longer (no need to alter anything else, unless you want to flare out the bow).

Go back to Page 1 of this thread and view the official US Navy schematic of the Iowa carrier proposal. That is what I am trying to emulate. Notice the bow area.

Edit: I noticed that the rise or the Iowa's bow eliminates the possibility of the 40mm's on the centre-line of an extended deck, unless you seriously mod the bow, so maybe put two 40mm mounts on the bow, one either side & work them into the "flare"?

Notice the side by side 40mm tubs at the bow in these two below pics. This is what my friend originally had at the bow before I removed it as I didn't like the look of it.

[rickshaw]

I'd recommend either extending the flight deck over the bows or altering the bows and cutting them shorter.  Experience would tend to indicate that early carrier borne aircraft tended to be a little underpowered and once off the deck, they would lower themselves towards the ocean in front of the ship (and hence the bows of the carrier).  I wouldn't worry too much about a bows on attack from Kamikazes.   The ship was too narrow to make that approach accurate enough to hit and sink the carrier.

[seadude]

I don't think extending the flight deck to the end of the bow is an option either. Can you imagine how much overhang there'd be on either side and the amount of structural supporting needed to support that?    Sorry, but I don't like that idea.

How is me adding a 40mm mount in front of the flight deck any worse than what was at the front of the Independence class CVL's in WWII? Look at these pics of the position and height of the 40mm mount (and Mk.51) in relation to the flight deck on Independence CVL's.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022517.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022612.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022845.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022914a.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022914b.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022908.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022211.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/022513.jpg