Can someone tell me what specific ship this is a model of? I know it's a long hulled carrier with quad 40 sponsons on the mid starboard side below the island. It is NOT the Yorktown OR the Wasp. Thanks in advance.

What scale are you referring to? Lindbergh has made a couple of Essex Class carriers, one in about 1/400 scale, another in about 1/1200 scale. Neither is really worth building because they are so inaccurate and poorly molded. If you are after accuracy, the Trumpeter 1/350 Essex class and the Trumpeter and Dragon 1/700 kits are the most accurate.
VR Russ

If its the 1/525th scale kit your looking at, then its a re-box of the very old 1966 mould of the USS Wasp. It was then re-boxed as the USS Yorktown (2013) before being boxed as the USS Lexington in 2015.
Accuracy wise its probably all three and none of them .
Andy

I agree with Andy-- before the Trumpeter kit came out, I worked for over a year to try and get the box scale Lindbergh kit halfway into shape to represent the USS Essex, which my Dad was on in 1942-44. I ended up dumping the whole thing in the garbage because it really wasn't a representative model of the Essex class. By the way, as a rule of thumb--in response to the first question, the early short hull Essex class, of which Yorktown and Wasp were, did not have 40 mm mounts on the hull below the island, these were added later in the war during refits to many of the class, but the later long hulled Essex class came with those mounts-- long hulled Essex class ships can be identified by dual 40mm gun mounts on the bow and stern, making these ships look a little "squared off" fore and aft. These ships were relatively late war ships-- I think a long hulled Essex is what Lindbergh was trying to represent in the kit-- frankly I think it would be easier to take one of Revell's angled deck Essex carriers and convert it back to WWII standard.
VR, Russ

The kit I'm referring to is the 1/900 kit #705 which, I think, was originally issued in the late 50's and later on as different ships, same molds. Looking at the references I have on hand it appears to be modeled after one of the later long hulled ships. That means it could be Ticonderoga, Randolph, Hancock, Boxer, Leyte, Kearsarge, Oriskany, Antietam, Princeton, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain, Tarawa, Valley Forge or Phillipine Sea. I'd like to narrow it down as I intend to go on a nostalgia trip and build the kit (I originally built the "Wasp" when I was just a kid back in the 50's and happened to find it in my attic a while back.) I purchased a later issue aka Yorktown with an eye to building it. I also have a original, unbuilt kit in my collection which I wouldn't even consider building.

Hi John,
Round 2 has recently reissued the 1/900 kit as the Shangri-La

If you pick up a copy of that issue of the kit you can build it up out of the box using Round 2's new decals for Shangri-La. As a nostalgia build you aren't overly concerned with absolute accuracy anyway, right?

Probably a fairly nice kit but it has the angled deck, etc. Mine is the WW II vintage with straight deck. Thanks anyway.

I was wrong about the scale. It's 1/525th. As you can see my old model has suffered some over the years in the attic!

John,
I hesitate to give this opinion, because we all know that everyone has one so please forgive me and feel free to tell me to shut up-- but this kit is really in the "dog" category of model warship, and is much more like a toy than a true scale model. You'll see these up for incredible prices on sites like oldmodelkits.com (Rare Model Detective is much more reasonable), but frankly, they will retail for about $5 or less at hobby shows-- regardless of packaging or year. As I recall, the air wing on this kit is about ten very poorly molded Hellcats, nothing else, and they are almost unidentifiable as such. The bridge, island, stacks and gangways are thick, totally out of scale and inaccurate. Not to rain on your parade here buddy-- but if you want a true scale model of an Essex class carrier, I recommend either the Trumpeter 1/350 or 1/700 kits, or the Dragon 1/700 Kit. These are very accurate representations (not without flaws) but they build into very nice models. If on the other hand you are a glutton for punishment like I was-- build it-- as I said before, it was frustrating for me-- It might be a fun nostalgia trip for others though.
VR, Russ

Thanks Russ. Yep, I know it's not all that accurate but I just want to build it for nostalgia's sake. As you can see from the photo I posted I built it many moons ago when I was just a kid and, at that time, thought it was great. I would still like to find out which Essex they used as a source. Thanks again.

John,
You and I must be about the same age-- as I built this kit as a kid in about 1961 or 62. My Dad was on the Essex during WWII, so we built the Revell angled deck Essex kit too, even though it was not the version he was on during the war. In 1999, I saw the kit reissue in a store in Kansas and was taken with the box art. When I opened the box though I new I'd been had-- and the old kit memories really came back to me. I took the kit to Korea on a two year assignment and worked on it off and on for those two years trying to get it into something resembling the Essex, but there was just no way to do so-- for one thing it is definitely patterned after one of the long hulled ships. I seriously doubt though that Lindberg actually had any particular ship in mind, since they have released it advertised as short hull versions as the Wasp and Yorktown, rather than any of the long hulled versions. I obtained copies of Essex Class plans from the US Naval Institute, and went nuts trying to fix things-- even trying to mate a wooden lower hull to this flat bottomed kit. In the end, when I heard Trumpeter was releasing a 1/350 full hull kit, I gave up and committed the Lindberg kit to the "deep six" of my waste basket. I do understand though what you intend to do with the kit, and I applaud your dedication-- I still have the first kit I ever built and in the original issue box--a Monogram Jeep with 37mm gun-- which was pretty well stuck together with tube glue and painted with Q-tip and gloss paint in 1959. I've been cleaning, removing parts and rebuilding it to a "cleaner" more "modern" standard, even though it's totally inaccurate and toylike. I thought I'd display it on the original kit box-- just for nostalgia, in a place of honor in my display case--so I do understand what you are doing-- good luck with the kit-- post photos of your progress too-- they really bring back the memories for a lot of us "old timers"!
VR, Russ

The kit in question is no more a specific Essex class carrier than the contemporary Revell M4 Sherman was a specific Sherman tank. It is a mish-mash of features from all over on one hull.

I've read all kinds of assessments of the kit as I had one I got in a lot with two Renwal North Carolinas. It's worthless except as nostalgia. But then I have built a bunch of the Monogram reissue armor for nostalgia. The most you can do is find what you want to do and just build it. It's not right but it's what I want it to be. Like the Monogram SSP Halftrack I did recently. I even used the original figures because i wanted to put a decent paintjob on those ancient sculpts. Close but I'm really not even in the ballpark of an accurate M13 gun motor carriage.

I know one person built a series of Lindbergh Essexes for display in the USS Intrepid museum but they are mostly scratch built with the Lindbergh kits supplying a few basic shapes.

Nostalgia rules sometimes doesn't it? LOL I just turned 69 Russ so I truly am a oldie. I started building models when I was 6. I got up in the attic yesterday to look around some and was a little surprised at the number of Revell ship kits that were up there. Must be 15-20 or so. Several aircraft carriers, etc. I don't plan to go on a nostalgia build on any of them but I might bring 'em down and clean 'em up as best I can.

I agree Stephen. I'm usually a stickler for accuracy (not a rivet counter though). However, as far as nostalgia builds go accuracy isn't all that important. Thanks for the reply.