¹⁄350

USS Lexington (CV2) 1927-1942

Stage 17: 5-inch fire control

Kit parts: 8
Scratch parts: 76
PE parts: 8
Time: 6.25 hours

There were four 5-inch fire control stations, port and starboard on the foretop and on the upper platform at the aft end of the stack. Each controlled one of the four groups of three 5-inch guns. Unlike later fire-control systems in which the director and range finder were combined in one unit, in the Lexingtons these functions were separated. The Mk19 directors (target bearing and training) were located close to an associated rangefinder/altimeter (range/altitude and laying) unit. Clearly this close proximity was essential to ensure both teams were concentrating on the same target. Quite erroneously, the Trumpeter kit omits the directors completely, their positions being occupied by light AA weapons.

As you would expect, the 5-inch fire-control fittings on the foretop and on the stack platform were identical. But for some inexplicable reason, the aft rangefinder platforms and shields (parts D22 on the instructions but actually F22) are much smaller in diameter than their forward counterparts (E6), and neither do they have the correct stepped profile. And given that the shields were actually rails covered by canvas dodgers, the best option was to make up all four of these from scratch.

The rails were made from three-bar rail with the lower rail removed, and the upper rail removed at the ends to give the characteristic stepped-profile. These were fixed to circular styrene platforms and the effect of the canvas dodgers created by in-filling the rails with PVA glue.



Above: rangefinder platforms.



The directors were mounted on tall pedestals with circular wooden gratings for the fire-control team to stand on when operating the director. Each pedestal was made up from a piece of circular styrene sheet (the operating platform) mounted on a length of styrene tube. Two-bar railings had splinter mattresses attached to them. Note that the railings surrounded only half the operating platform on the forward directors, but on the aft directors were continuous apart from an access opening.





Above Director pedestals.



The directors supplied in the kit are very accurate representations. The pedestals had to be reduced in height. There were two telescopes on the rear (one each for the layer and pointer), and one on the left hand side (for the cross-level operator). These were made from very thin stretched sprue inserted and glued into drilled holes.

The rangefinders are not very accurate in their detail. I considered scratch built replacements, but decided the scale is simply too small to make this worthwhile. Instead I adapted the existing parts. The over-scale end caps were reduced in size and the central dome removed. This was replaced with a short vertical length of rectangular section styrene representing the base of the height-finding unit. To the rear of this and off-centre, a length of vertical styrene rod represented the height-finding tube. The rangefinder pedestals were too high, but there had to be a secure way of fixing them into the deck. I left the mounting spigots in place but sliced away the circular bases above them. This allowed me to insert the units into the deck with adjustment for height.





Above: Completed 5-inch fire control on foretop (left) and aft end of stack (right).

Tip from experience: To airbrush paint these small items, apply double-sided adhesive tape to a piece of scrap wood, styrene sheet, or whatever comes to hand. Put the items to be sprayed on the adhesive tape. They will stay in place and can be easily removed afterwards.

Stage 18: flight deck and hull assembly

Nautilus parts: 2
Kit parts: 1
Scratch parts: 8
Time: 5.25 hours

The Nautilus laser-cut wooden flight deck developed a serious distortion after I’d removed the two pieces from the panel. The edges along the length bowed upwards. To correct this is I glued suitable lengths of sturdy balsa wood stiffeners to the undersides. I used PVA glue for maximum strength and clamped the stiffeners to the flight deck panels while the glue cured. One of these was positioned to act as a supporting bridge between the two sections.





Above: Reinforcing the flight deck to prevent warping.

The forward edge of the flight deck was sawn off the moulded flight deck part in the kit and cemented to the bow. The aft round-down had already been similarly sawn off and cemented in position as part of the aft deck assembly stage. For some odd reason, the forward flight deck in the kit and the Nautilus equivalent is very slightly wider on the port side than the starboard side. I can only presume that Nautilus followed the outline of the Trumpeter part in order to create a matching like-for-like replacement. It should be symmetrical, but visually this error is not intrusive and is easy to live with. But do make sure the forward edge is positioned laterally so that it aligns with the flight deck.



Above: Integrating plastic and wood at the forward end of the flight deck.



Attaching the Nautilus deck to the hull was where things got really interesting. Allow a good hour for this job. I dealt with the aft section of the Nautilus deck first, saving the forward section later for adjustment and fettling. I had assumed that the issue was going to be ensuring the flight deck attached to the hull in all planes in a vertical direction. Initially I assembled a collection of kitchen scale weights to bear down on the flight deck during the gluing process. I then decided it would be better to invert the hull on a level surface and apply the weight to the hull cross-members.

When it came to the job, this really wasn’t the issue. Instead, it turned out to be ensuring that the edge of the hull matched the edge of the flight deck. Having applied medium thickness superglue to the hull edges and put the aft section of the Nautilus deck in place, they didn’t match up. But which was correct – the hull or the flight deck? The hull could be squeezed in or pulled outwards. The flight deck could not. I worked through this on a visual rather than scientific measurement basis as the superglue was curing. The objective was to ensure the hull was spread or squeezed to match the edges of the flight deck where possible. The flight deck overlapped the hull in places, which was fine because that would only involve subsequently removing material. What was not tolerable was having the hull extending beyond the edge of the deck. Such is art – and modelling convenience - over science.

Blending the deck edges into the hull profile was important and worth spending time on getting right. I have seen at least one completed model of this kit on the Internet where the deck looks exactly what it is – a separate plank of wood stuck onto the hull. It was a repeticious process of sanding, filling, sanding, filling and sanding again until a fine blend was achieved without any gaps.



Above: It’s worth spending time ensuring the edge of the flight deck is flush with the hull.