Aircraft Carrier FAQs page 3

Topics:

 

 

Carrier Deck Materials and Colors

Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>

Date: Sunday, 25 April 1999, at 7:17 a.m.

 

On the naval aircraft message board there is a discussion of deck materials

and colors. Maybe the ship message board is a better place for it.

If several veterans say that they saw yellow flight decks, wouldn't that

rule out teak as the type of wood? I thought teak was a warm brown.

The other issue with teak is that it would have been terribly expensive

to cover a large flight deck with it. It's fine for a yacht or a limited

section of a naval ship, such as the catapult deck, but was Japan really

in a position to use that wood lavishly?

 

Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors

Posted By: Rob Graham <RGraham111@aol.com>

Date: Wednesday, 28 April 1999, at 8:44 p.m.

In Response To: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors (Tom Hall)

 

I was thinking the same things you just pointed out as I was reading the other posts! I understand teak is now an endangered species and its import to the US is not allowed (my wife said that a couple yrs ago, anyway -- maybe it was under debate?). She said it's a slow growing tree and the wood doesn't warp. Its color is a reddish brown (almost like redwood) as far as I've seen (was it stained?).

In "The Battleship Yamato" by Janusz Skulski (c)1995 (ISBN 0-85177-490-3), the yellow decking was said to be non-skid yellow linoleum. I'd think it would work on an aircraft carrier as well, as the linoleum would resist oil, etc. Old household linoleum had asbestos in it, too, and I wonder if there may have been something similar on the carriers. Is there anyone out there who knows for sure?

Some thoughts from an addled old feeble mind (Iturned 36 today...)

 

Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors

Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk>

Date: Thursday, 29 April 1999, at 12:31 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors (Rob Graham)

 

Teak is endangered now but don't confuse today with 60 years ago - teak was widely used where a strong hard-wearing and attractive material was needed. For example, all the carriages of the London and North-Eastern Railway were built of teak until after WW2 (when metal skins painted with false wood grain were adopted - honestly!) The colour was not a red-brown but a dark yellow-brown/tan shade - there is much discussion in model-railway circles on how best to represent this - so a yellow appearance to carrier decks would not necessarily contradict the use of teak.

 

Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors

Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>

Date: Sunday, 2 May 1999, at 9:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors (Graham Boak)

 

This weekend I went to a store ($$$) that deals in teak furniture. The sales person I spoke to was bemused when I told her why I was interested in teak but was kind enough to answer my questions. The teak I examined was not stained, only given a treatment of clear oil designed to protect the wood. The result did not alter the basic mid-brown color of the wood very much but instead served to emphasize the grain. It did, however, give the wood a semi-gloss luster. The most interesting thing I was told, though, was that teak will darken with exposure to sunlight. The Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu had already seen a number of years of service before 1941, the Shokaku and Ziukaku were only commissioned in 1941. Is it therefore possible that the latter's decks were lighter in color. Another thing to consider is that the Shokaku was refurbished after sutaining damage at the battles of the Coral Sea and Santa Cruz, thus maintaining the deck in the lighter color of new wood.

 

Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <Kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Sunday, 2 May 1999, at 8:06 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Carrier Deck Materials and Colors (Ryan Toews)

 

I found a Japanese Site with some info on IJN battleship deck. According to them, teak was used upto and including the Ise class, and that the Nagato and Yamato classes had to use cypress primarily because of lack of teak. Also the Yamato classes had to use the more readily available cypress to conceal its existance from foreign intelligence. Another reference I have suggest that the Mutsu used teak but the Nagato and the Yamato class used cypress. None of the references I have clearly state which wood was used for the carriers' flight deck.

The point I want to make is that the carriers in question were all constructed AFTER the Nagato class. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that therefore ALL carriers used cypress and not teak for its flight deck?

Just a thought...

 

Structure(?) On Carrier Deck

Posted By: peter <peter@bctv.net>

Date: Wednesday, 21 April 1999, at 10:38 p.m.

 

In watching the National Geographic special, a piece of film shows a line of Japanese carriers from head on going through heavy swells. On the deck of the first carrier, towards the stern, there appears to be a rectangular frame over the flight deck. It doesn't span the entire deck and looks to be about 20 feet or so high. Does this have something to do with the elevators, or is it some form of crash barrier, or what?

 

Re: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck

Posted By: Tony

Date: Monday, 26 April 1999, at 2:48 a.m.

In Response To: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck (peter)

 

Nichimo has this on there box art of one of there 1/500 scale models.In the kit it is an elevator.

 

Re: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck

Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>

Date: Friday, 23 April 1999, at 5:34 a.m.

In Response To: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck (peter)

 

I believe I know the segment of newsreel you mean, although I did not

see the special. Heavy seas with the ships pitching, right?

The wind breaks were usually on the forward portion of the flight

deck and were metal grates. They might have been ten feet tall.

The crash barriers looked like collapsing volleyball nets, usually

about three horizontal cables. Two or three were on the mid-deck.

They were not very tall, either.

What I think you saw were the folding radio antennae. There were

about two on each side and when vertical would have been about 30

feet tall. They Japanese would not have wanted such delicate items

to be clobbered by waves.

Perhaps the crew strung some cable over the flight deck. If so,

am very glad that was not MY job.

 

Re: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck

Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>

Date: Thursday, 22 April 1999, at 5:52 p.m.

In Response To: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck (peter)

 

Peter, I believe it is a crash barrier. In such heavy weather, it's erected to provide some minimal wind break for those having to work topside on the flight deck.

 

Re: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000, at 5:09 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Structure(?) On Carrier Deck (Mike Quan)

 

The structure you saw in the film and the same depicted on the Nichimo 500 scale Akagi kit is to protect cockpit and other 'weather sensitive' areas from deckside maintenance, repair etc.

 

Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@cyberlodge.com>

Date: Thursday, 1 April 1999, at 5:35 p.m.

 

I recently purchased a model of the aircraft carrier Akagi. In one painting I've seen of the Akagi it is shown with a large national insignia on a white background on the forward deck. The instructions, however do not call for this painting. Also, there is a round molding toward the rear of the flight deck. Is that supposed to be a national insignia? Can anyone help?

 

Re: Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>

Date: Friday, 2 April 1999, at 6:11 p.m.

In Response To: Deck colors of Akagi (Jeff McGuire)

 

Navismagazine.com had, in their letters section for last month, (and which apparently changes monthly, a fact I did not realize at the time or I would have paid closer attention) had a question posed concerning national insignia on the Japanese carriers at Midway. According to the response the red insignia was on a large sheet of canvas which could be displayed whenever it was felt necessary to do so. This then accounts for the various seemingly contradictory reports as to the presence of such markings. Sorry I can't offer more details. By the way, the Navismagazine site is well worth a visit.

 

Re: Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Mike Toole <micjt@hotmail.com>

Date: Friday, 23 April 1999, at 6:57 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Deck colors of Akagi (Ryan Toews)

 

I read through Nihon Kiagun (sp) that they markings were removable, painted on canvas to help returning aircraft identify which ship to land on. Japanese ships did not have numbers painted on their decks as US carriers did. (It is embarassing to land on the wrong carrier, much less one of the enemies...) Makes sense to me, I think that would account for the various reportings, markings on, markings off. This report was made by a crewmember of one of the carriers.

 

Re: Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Friday, 2 April 1999, at 11:10 a.m.

In Response To: Deck colors of Akagi (Jeff McGuire)

 

Not just Akagi, but most IJN carrier had a white circular line painted on the deck on or near the rear elevator. My understanding is that the circle was use as a guide for landing the AC on to the deck.

Apparently the Japanese insignia was painted shortly before the Battle of Midway, but there is no clear photo to varify it. There are rather unclear photos of the Hiryu and Soryu photographed from B-17's during the Battle of Midway. You can vaguely make out a white ring on the forward part of the flight deck, but it's difficult to say if it's only a white ring, or if it indeed is the national insignia with a white outline.

Several eyewitnesses suggest there were Hinomarus painted on the IJN carriers at Midway, and I believe them. However, I don't know if they were painted simply as red disks, hinomaru with white outline, or hinomaru with white square or rectangular background, or if they differed from carrier to carrier. Your guess would be as good as anyone elses, unless they can see the Hinomaru painted on the Akagi on the bottom of the ocean! Who knows, now that they found the Yorktown (I thought they found the Akagi too, or was I dreaming. I better get the National Geographic soon), they might be able to find out more things about the Japanese carriers that we didn't even imagine about!

 

Re: Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@cyberlodge.com>

Date: Friday, 2 April 1999, at 2:35 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Deck colors of Akagi (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

The painting I referred to is in the inside cover of Time-Life's CARRIER WAR book. It's very apparent in the painting that the national insignia was painted over a white background, just wasn't sure if it was an accurate depiction. Also on the subject, the kit has what appears to be 3 Judys. Do you know, are they actually Judys and if so did they participate in the battle?

I didn't think they were around at that time.

 

Re: Deck colors of Akagi

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Friday, 2 April 1999, at 7:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Deck colors of Akagi (Jeff McGuire)

 

Akagi did not carry any Judys but two prototype Judys( third and fourth prototypes) were transferred to the carrier Soryu shortly before the Battle of Midway. They were used as reconnaisance aircraft( remember that Judys were first used as recon aircraft before they were used as dive bombers). I was under the impression that they were both lost during the battle, but Maru Mechnic on Judy states that one prototype was lost by accident before the battle, while the other was lost in battle. The following is taken from Maru Mechanic.

On June 5 5:30AM, the Judy(tail code BI-201) took off from the Soryu in search of the US fleet sighted earlier by the cruiser Tone's AC. By 7:00 AM, they arrived at the area reported by Tone's AC, but could not find the US fleet. On their way back, they sighted an US AC, and followed it back to the US carriers 10 minutes later. They radioed their findings to the Japanese fleet, but the message never reached them because of radio malfunction. When they returned to the Japanese fleet at 10:30, the Soryu was bombed and burning fiercely, so they had to land on the Hiryu. The information was provided to Rear Admiral Yamaguchi immediately.

Determined to continue his fight(by then the Japanese had already crippled the Yorktown), Yamaguchi decided to attack the US carriers at dusk with his remaining aircraft, and the sole Judy was to lead the way. However, before they had the chance to take off, the Hiryu was bombed and the Judy was lost along with the carrier.

 

Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@cyberlodge.com>

Date: Saturday, 13 March 1999, at 6:18 a.m.

 

I've got the opportunity to purchase a model of this a/c carrier relatively cheap but would like to know a little about it. Was it one of the new ones Japan was working on at the end of '44 or was it lost w/ Ozawa's fleet at Leyte,or neither?

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Saturday, 13 March 1999, at 12:26 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Jeff McGuire)

 

Taiho is IJN's first carrier to have an armoured flight deck, somewhat analogous to the Royal Navy's Illustrious class. It sacrificed the number of aircraft for its heavily armoured flight deck. It was comissioned three months before the Battle of the Marianas(June 1944). It served as Ozawa's flagship and formed the first carrier squadron along with the Shokaku and Zuikaku.

After launching its aircraft against the American fleet, she was torpedoed by USS Albacore. Only one torpedo struck her, and it didn't seem to affect her. Unfortunately, the shock of the explosion caused the aviation fuel tank to buckle, which caused the fuel to leak. That in turn filled the carrier with highly explosive fumes, which eventually ignited. That resulted in a massive explosion which sank this ship. The carrier Shokaku was also torpedoed and sunk by a US sub, while the carrier Hiyo was torpedoed and sunk by US carrier planes. This battle sealed the fait of the IJN.

You haven't stated which kit you have, but I assume it's the Tamiya kit. It's a beautiful kit, and you can't go wrong by building it straight out of the box.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: S Goh

Date: Sunday, 14 March 1999, at 1:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Perfect Short History!

Can't added much except that the bridge and exhaust funnel is a new slanted combination design first tested on Junyo CVs. Taiho, Shinano (and Katsugi?) CVs has them too. Notice that the other major CVs have funnels and bridge tower in seperated areas

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Sunday, 14 March 1999, at 3:17 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (S Goh)

 

As you mentioned,the funnel and the bridge were combined on the Junyo,Hiyo, Taiho, and Shinano. Katsuragi is an Unryu class, which is a modified Hiryu class, and the bridge and the funnels were separated. Also, Taiho was the only Japanese carrier with the so called "hurricane bow" where the bow comes up and meets the flight deck, also analogous to the Illustrious class.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: S Goh

Date: Monday, 15 March 1999, at 11:18 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Thanks for the correction

ANy ideas if the Japanese design team got their ideas about the bow from the british and does this hurricane bow had any practical use?

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Tuesday, 16 March 1999, at 5:45 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (S Goh)

 

I don't know if the design team of the Taiho was influenced by the design of the Illustrious, but there was a reason behind its adoptation of the hurricane bow design. Taiho's armoured flight deck would have risen its centre of gravity and made it unstable. To avoid this, Taiho was designed with one less layer of hangar deck compared to the Shokaku class, to keep its centre of gravity low. That is why Taiho had to sacrifice the number of aircraft. Because the flight deck was lowered, had the Taiho kept an opened bow like the contemporary carriers, its bow would have been too low and its seaworthiness would have been sacrificed. Therefore the design team decided to bring the bow all the way up to the flight deck level.

Also, lower flight deck had another consequence. As you know, IJN carriers had their funnels sticking out of the starboard side and bent down, in order to minimize the air turbulance behind the carrier. However, with its lower profile, Taiho's design team feared that if the ship was damaged and listed to starboard, the sea water will easily enter the funnels. Thus they decided to truncate the funnel with the bridge. In order to minimize the air turbulence behind the carrier, after extensive testing, they found out that angulating the funnel outwards 26 degrees will suffice. I heard that this method was adopted by the US Navy after the war for their carriers.

Taiho's unique characteristics all stem from its armoured flight deck. Its ironic that it was sunk before the effectiveness of the armour of its flight deck was actually tested in combat.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@boak98.freestyle.co.uk>

Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999, at 5:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

The value of the armoured flight deck was demonstrated three time in the Mediterranean, where the multiple Stuka hits on Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable would have sunk unarmoured ships. Then there were the Kamikaze hits on the British Pacific Fleet (I don't recall exactly how many - three again?) Arguably, of course, the penalty of the armoured deck was demonstrated with every strike launched....fewer aircraft.

The value of the hurricane bow was also demonstrated when the BPF survived the typhoon near the end of the war without significant damage. I don't think that anyone has built a carrier post-war without such a bow.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999, at 12:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Graham Boak)

 

Thanks for your input. Yes,the Illustrious class did well against Stuka and kamikaze attacks. But I was wondering how the TAIHO would have done if it was bombed. Chances are that it would have done just as well as the Illustriouses, but remember, Taiho sank after only one torpedo hit. She was supposed to be adequately armoured against torpedoes as well. Perhaps there was some inherent structual weakness of her that was overlooked? If so, she may have not faired well against bombs as well. No one will ever know. After all the hard work her design team went through to produce a carrier with an armoured flight deck, she didn't even have a chance to have it tested. I find this ironic(but then, life is full of irony isn't it?)

Gee, I'm getting too philosophical. This is supposed to be only a hobby!

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>

Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 6:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

I have found your points to be well taken. But let us not overlook the

very dangerous volatility of the Balikpapan oil which was processed (re-

fined?) to a degree that previous oil was not. There is, I believe, a tech-

nical aspect which caused a tremendous problem -- read DEFEAT -- for the Japanese at the Marianas, wholly apart from the loss of aircraft. This

issue bears study; how a technical deficency created an insuperable challenge.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>

Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2000, at 9:20 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Randy)

 

Perhaps you've had the opportunity to read "Kaigun", released about two years ago. One of the well presented premises of this book is technological particulars, and shortcomings relative to other industrial powers, in part drove both IJN tactics and design with consequences more obvious in hindsight. It's a great book, though I can't remember the author's name off-hand.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>

Date: Wednesday, 31 May 2000, at 11:12 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Dan Kaplan)

 

Thank you, I do have it...have read it and you are correct. Also, my

post should have made clear that the fuel carried by Taiho, Hiyo and Sho-

kaku, and in large measure causing their losses, was NOT refined to the

degree it should have been. I would like to see Anthony Tully explore the

IJN at the Phillipine Sea with this aspect as one focus.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho

Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@boak98.freestyle.co.uk>

Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999, at 1:27 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier Taiho (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

I understood that TAIHO was not lost because of the direct damage from the torpedo, but from lax battle 

damage practices that permitted vapour from damaged fuel tanks to spread throughout the ship. This technique was something that the Americans were very good at, permitting them to save severely-damaged ships such as BUNKER HILL and FRANKLIN.

Moving slightly off-subject, I understand that it was a design flaw that led to the loss of the PRINCE OF WALES, an early torpedo hit cutting power supply (or ammuniton supply? I can't recall the details) to the heavy AA turrets.

 

AKAGI: Midway Battle Camo Scheme

Posted By: Robert O. Sweetman <vfa27@earthlink.net>

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

 

I have been on a search far and wide looking for accurate and reliable reference sources for painting a kit; the 1/450 scale Akagi. It has gathered dust now for over 2 years waiting for me to hit pay dirt with a source out there, who has the right stuff.

I realize there are no standards that exist for paint and camo schemes for WW II IJN Man of War's. If any of you out here have in fact found and or built this ship with accurate reference sources for painting this ship, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Re: AKAGI: Midway Battle Camo Scheme

Posted By: Rob Graham <RGraham111@aol.com>

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1999, at 7:17 p.m.

In Response To: AKAGI: Midway Battle Camo Scheme (Robert O. Sweetman)

 

Mike Quan posted this on Jan 20:

"...If you can wait, this summer, Snyder and Short Enterprises, 9175 Kiefer Blvd., #224, Sacramento, CA 95826, (ph #916-368-2610), will release a set of WW2 IJN color chips that should go a long way to guiding you towards the correct color to match to existing paints made for the modeler. Snyder & Short currently have released a set of chips for the US Navy purple-blue colors and they're a real help. Their next planned release is a brown/green color chip set for the USN, and then a Royal Navy color chip set."

Something to consider...

 

Re: AKAGI: Midway Battle Camo Scheme

Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>

Date: Thursday, 4 February 1999, at 2:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: AKAGI: Midway Battle Camo Scheme (Rob Graham)

 

Thanks Rob! The current status of the IJN chips project is that the paint matches have been completed with respect to the spectroscopic(?) analysis, and paints are being mixed right now to the formulas determined. Stay tuned........

 

Japanese carrier camouflage in 1945

Posted By: François P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>

Date: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 5:00 p.m.

 

Just have a look at the following address.

http://navismagazine.com/color/ijncarriercamo/ijncarriercamo.htm

 

Carrier elevators

Posted By: Steve Long <lmcclong@mindspring.com>

Date: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 11:48 a.m.

 

Is there any photo's or drawing for the elevators on japanese carriers. I would like to produce a 1/48th elevator to use as a base for a model.

 

Re: Carrier elevators

Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>

Date: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:06 p.m.

In Response To: Carrier elevators (Steve Long)

 

Drawings of Japanese carrier elevators can be found in a book by Hasegawa Tôichi entitled "Gunkan Mekanizumu Zukan: Nihon no Kôkû-bokan" ("Warship Mechanisms Picture Book: Japanese Aircraft Carriers") published by Grand Prix, Tokyo, 1997 (Japanese text). On page 152 you will find a good drawing of an elevator from the light fleet carrier "Chiyoda" and some other details.

 

Re: Carrier elevators

Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>

Date: Friday, 22 January 1999, at 3:36 p.m.

In Response To: Carrier elevators (Steve Long)

 

We certainly need some good diorama bases.

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of really clear

photos showing whole elevators. Then, too,

you will find some different sizes and shapes.

I think it's safe to say that a manufacturer

would need to choose between doing a sort

of generic elevator and doing them on a

case-by-case basis.

Have you seen the Maru series? It does a

pretty good job of showing the couple of dozen

photos that seem to have been published. Wish

I knew of a big sink hole of such photos.

 

Zuikaku Camouflage

Posted By: Allan Parry <100670.3404@compuserve.com>

Date: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 11:13 a.m.

 

I am currently building the Nichimo 500 scale Zuikaku.

Can anyone help with details of the camouflage/paint sceme?

 

Re: Zuikaku Camouflage

Posted By: Charles Watson <procladius@aol.com>

Date: Sunday, 24 January 1999, at 4:04 p.m.

In Response To: Zuikaku Camouflage (Allan Parry)

 

What time period? If it's late war, I have some references for the camouflage scheme she was wearing at Cape Engano. Prior to that It would have been IJN grey overall with the planked areas of the flight deck natural wood. I also have several references that show flight deck markings at various times. If you will let me know the time period, I will try to help.

 

Re: Zuikaku Camouflage

Posted By: Allan Parry <100670.3404@compuserve.com>

Date: Monday, 25 January 1999, at 2:41 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Zuikaku Camouflage (Charles Watson)

 

Thanks for your response. However I have now received the info I needed.

 

Re: Zuikaku Camouflage

Posted By: David Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>

Date: Monday, 25 January 1999, at 3:18 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Zuikaku Camouflage (Allan Parry)

 

While Allan received the data he needed for his miniature, I am interested in your info! It is great to know if your data suppports my own, or differs from mine. To learn new sources or differing views keeps our minds open to all aspects of addition, deletion, correction and possibility.

 

Posted By: Francois P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>

Date: Saturday, 12 September 1998, at 2:29 p.m.

 

This is a long time dream for me: have a 1/72nd carrier to put models on...

Unfortunately, I'm an humble plastic kit builder and I don't feel ready to undertake a scratch build ship model of this size. Beside that do any of you, guys, have a source for very detailed plans that could help in such endeavour?

I know sounds foolish but...

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Dean Keller <deankeller@internetwis.com>

Date: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 4:51 a.m.

In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)

 

I built a Kagero class destroyer in 1/72 just to practice for the same reason. I intend to build the Zuiho someday. No, my DD isn't very detailed but it is to scale. The hull and bridge are solid wood and the gun and torpedo turrets are solid steel. (I made those at work) I used three different profiles I was able to find for this class of ship. I took each profile and determined the mathematical ratio that would give me 1/72 scale. Then I measured all the different dimensions and made an exact 1/72 blueprint to work from.

I plan to make the carrier as I mentioned, but my debate now is how I want to build it. My son will soon be 4 and he likes to play with my really old kits. I was considering wether I should make the flight deck with elevators and or with hinges so he could use it as a toy box for the planes he is allowed to play with.

If you really want to see what a 72nd carrier should look like, there is a fabulous 'on the water' version of the Essex (?) at the air museum in Oshkosh WI. USA with F6F's, TBF's, figures, and whatever you can imagine.

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Mike Goodwin <Mike.Goodwin@kst.siemens.de>

Date: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:07 a.m.

In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)

 

This is probably not the ideal solution for you, but I have a 1/300th card scale model of the Akagi. It is from the Polish firm of Flymodel, and generally available. If you'd like to photocopy and enlarge each sheet x4 (it is printed on A3 format, about twice as large as Letter), you could make a 1/75th paper Akagi! Flymodel and other Polish producers make a range of aircraft carriers, mostly to 1/200th scale, so you could make a 1/50th scale model with the same magnification, or a 1/72nd scale model by magnifying somewhat less.

There is also a 1/100th scale card model of the I-19, from GPM in Poland. It includes a 1/100th card E14Y1 "GLEN" to perch on top. There is also a number of card models available of Japanese aircraft, mostly to 1/33rd scale. The largest I have is also by GPM, of the G4M2e "BETTY", together with MXY7 "BAKA" to sling underneath.

If anyone would like further details, please get in touch.

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Hiroyuki

Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 8:06 p.m.

In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)

 

I know sounds foolish but...

Well,there's a famous model club in Tokyo whose members spent several years building the USS Hornet in 1/48 scale and loaded it with B-25s!

I'm not a ship modeller so I don't know what kind of plans are nocessary to scratch build a ship, but if I were you, I'd start with a sub like I-400 or I-19 and load Seiran or Type O Small Floatplane for starters. I saw a guy who scratchbuilt an I-400 in 1/48 that was electrically operated so the hatch opens and the Seiran slides out, and the wings unfold.

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Dave Pluth <info@j-aircraft.com>

Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 4:05 a.m.

In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)

 

VLM has a section of deck that you can buy and put your aircraft on. I believe it's about 1 foot X 1 foot and runs somewhere around $16. They have both 48th and 72nd. So, even if you didn't want to use the piece itself, you may be able to use it as a template for the rest of the deck. Oh and you do have to paint it yourself.

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Francois P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>

Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 5:05 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Carriers for our plane models (Dave Pluth)

 

But my real dream would be a complete waterline model...

 

PS: I'm not sure this trade mark is distributed in France

 

Re: Carriers for our plane models

Posted By: Rob Graham <RGraham111@aol.com>

Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 3:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)

 

Verlinden should be available there, Francois. I believe VLS is from Belgium. As an additional note, Carrier Deck Accessories (a division of Classic Warships) makes several versions. Mine, a 1/48 IJN carrier deck, measures 11" by 12 1/2 " and includes photoetched tie downs and a set of white metal wheel chocks. It also comes with painting instructions. It is available at hobby shops here, and retails for about $30 US. It looks nice, and I think it works out well. The manufacturer can be reached at:

Carrier Deck Accessories

PO Box 57591

Tucson, AZ 85732

Phone/FAX (520)748-2992

 

Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail

Posted By: Jun Villalon <mailto:smvillalon@yahoo.com?subject=Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 5:09 a.m.

I am building the 1:500 IJN Hiryu by Nichimo. I am having problems with the colros since the instructions of the kit are in Japanese. There is very little information available for this ship especially around the time of Pearl Harbor which is what I would like to do. A friend told me to use Tamiya's Neutral Grey. Also, I need info on the colors of the small boats that were on the stern of the carrier. Are they white? Finally, I know that during the assault at Pearl, the planes available were Vals abd Zekes. What color were they? I'd really appreciate the info. Thanks!

Re: Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail

Posted By: Tom Matlosz <mailto:slayer14@bellsouth.net?subject=Re: Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 8:26 a.m.

In Response To: Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail (Jun Villalon)

Jun,

Have you checked www.combinedfleet.com. You may find your answers at that site. Jon Parshall one of the contributors to that page is quite knowledgeable regarding paint schemes for the Kido Butai carriers.

Tom Matlosz

Re: Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail

Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: Help on IJN Hiryu Color and Detail>
Date: Friday, 27 July 2001, at 3:09 p.m.

In Response To:  (Tom Matlosz)

God, I wish I really were! I don't have camouflage information up on the carriers. Here's my current thinking on the matter, though:

The exact color scheme of a Japanese warship on any given day often depended on where she had been in the yards last. All four major naval yards--Kure, Yokosuka, Maizuru, and Sasebo--had their own shade of naval grey. I rather imagine that the larger civilian yards such as Mitsubishi Nagasaki and Kawasaki Kobe did too, although they may have been using designated formulas prescribed by the Navy; I dunno. You can see samples of the various paints on this site here:

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/ijn.htm

Regarding Hiryu, I don't know what she was painted with on Dec. 8th. My guess would be Sasebo grey, since she was in drydock in Sasebo from Aug 7th to September 10th, 1941, and during that time I'll be she was repainted. At Midway, I doubt that anyone has a clue as to which grey they were painted with, although my money would be on Kure, since all four of the carriers had spent time there immediately prior to the battle, although I am guessing Kaga is wearing Sasebo since she had her bottom repaired there in March-April 1942.

I have four illustrations of the Midway carriers which will be the basis for the carrier illustrations in my forthcoming book. They are on my site, unlinked, but can be seen here:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/AkagiJune42.gif
http://www.combinedfleet.com/KagaJune42.gif
http://www.combinedfleet.com/SoryuJune42.gif
http://www.combinedfleet.com/HiryuJune42.gif

Please note that the colors I used on these illustrations cannot be considered as accurate. For one thing, as an illustrator, my focus is bringing out details in the subject--Kure grey is a miserably dark, drab color, and would make for a yucky illustration. So my greys are undoubtedly too light.

Regarding deck colors, who the hell knows? Akagi's deck was Japanese cypress, but scale models of her that I have seen in Japanese publications tend to show her wood as a yellowish color, the same as the other three whose decks were (I believe) teak. Teak is a very light-colored wood, but would age darker. And the effect of rubber tires on it during deck operations would have contributed to that trend. On the flip, if they holystoned the decks, that would tend to expose bare wood, which would be lighter. Anybody know when the last time the Midway carriers holystoned their decks? Neither do I, so your guess as to the relative weathering of the flight decks, and their subsequent color, is as good as mine.

Hope that helps.

-jon parshall-
Imperial Japanese Navy Homepage
http://www.combinedfleet.com