The Ship Model Forum

I'd say Timmy was correct.

Thanks TimmyC so it wasn't always that way then? I'm planning on doing my model as late 70s/early 80s fit using the Model Monkey 3d print island so looks like I don't need to do anything with the deck then.

Thanks muchly....

Based on the photos on Navsource, it seems that was added/modified as part of her SLEP in 1985-1988.

And now Ranger

Hi all a question on CV-62 Independence and her stern port angle on the flight deck. At her end of service fit this was a much more acute angle than her 3 sisters. My question is; was she built like this or was it a refit feature? If so, anyone know when it was done? I'm trying to improve the Italeri kit to some decent degree and this is too big a feature to miss. I'm going to try adding photos to show what I mean. First Indy...

You focus on the port elevator. From my experience, the greater deficiency was in the location of the island an the two elevators aft.
I served on Independence in 83-84, including the time we operated off Lebanon with JFK. In a briefing from the battle group staff where they were discussing air ops and flight deck cycles, they were firm that the JFK ("big decks") were much superior to the Forrestal class (In 1983, they actually had the nerve to call us a "small deck). Their main factor was not related to the location of elevator #2, but rather the fact that #3 was aft of the island. In Air Ops terms, this caused some kind of a bottleneck for deck aircraft handling. The "big" or "smal" label had nothing to do with the actual square feet of real estate, just the operational factor.
They said that the Forrestals needed to use package launch or recovery, while their precious (no jealousy here ) JFK could handle near simultaneous launch and recovery, allowing many more sorties per day. Bleah.

All I know is that their precious JFK had an engineering casualty and had to leave the station while we continued to continue.

True, but redesigning a new build vs reconfiguring existing ships are two completely different kettles of fish.
A comprehensive cost benefits analysis could have been done to determine if it was worthwhile to move the elevator, but I doubt it was even a consideration.

You have to put these kinds of things into perspective.

Politics: Attempts to shrink budgets, fighting the Korean war. Building more ships.
Capabilities: Design staff - it takes a lot of people to design a carrier, plus all the other ships that were being asked for.
Many studies were done on building carriers.Shipyards were busy. The Navy was busy. The 50's and 60's had an explosion of new equipment and aircraft size was increasing, making designers work constantly evolving.

In order to move the one elevator, you would have to examine and redesign the structural integrity of the ship where the hangar door would go. Move all electrical, piping, etc from the new opening.
Consider hangar operations and deck edge services, like electrical, fire, fuel. Move the gun sponsons maybe. It's a huge amount of design work and studies.

Also, consider how much the follow on ships changed. The elevators were bigger. The island was bigger and moved back. Not just the port elevator was moved, but two elevators were put in front of the island, with one behind.
The port catapults were also longer, making it impossible to put the elevator at the fwd port side position.

The port elevator was initially put there to support the fwd port catapult during operations. Moving it, without changing the stbd positions might have made things worse.

I wasn't there, but it seems to me that there is no one 'reason' why it wasn't done. It's more a case of why would anyone even consider doing it? If you want a different design, build a new ship. (which they did)

When you consider how much design work went into these ships, it's amazing they even got built!

but they learned from the Forrestals not to put the port elevator so far forward on the succeeding carrier classes.

After they were built? A very extensive rebuild to move the elevator, Hangar door, any facilities and equipment in the area. The gain in operational performance wouldn't justify the cost and time out of service.

Case in point, the new Ford class only have 3 elevators instead of 4, so it could be argued that the 4th elevator doesn't add a lot of value.

why were the Forrestal class forward port elevator not moved to a similar position as what the Kitty Hawk class had?

Maurice, pm your email address so I can send a 3 part drawing to you of the Forrestal with those sponsons.

I regret to say that we have never offered them. Very sorry for any disappointment.

Yes - the sponsons removed in the late 1950s.

Maurice

are you talking about the 5" gun sponsons?

Does any aftermarket manufacturer offer 1:700-scale forward sponsons for Saratoga or Forrestal? For example, I thought I saw a mention some time ago in this thread that Model Monkey did so but could not find them in the catalogue. Alternatively, is there a source for drawings sufficient to scratch build them?

Many thanks,
Maurice

These printing tracks suck

A few more pics.....

Greetings,

Here are a few pics. The bow does not look that bad. The pic on the web does not show it correctly. It will need some shaping but not heavy lifting. I am not as concerned about the below the waterline details. I am very impressed by the way it was packaged. I am completing the 1/700 waterline version, and I am impressed with the level of detail. Cutting away the printing platforms kind of sux. I think that the 1/350 scale will be a lot easier. I ordered an air wing from L'Arsenal that I have had good luck with. Cutting away those printing post really sux and I generally lose about a third of the order to scrappage. L'Arsenal has replaced defective aircraft for me so I am pleased with my dealings with them so far.

How did you cut away the printing platforms between the parts?

Maurice

Lots of corrections to be done. Bowl has to be fix. Too thick. Comes in 5 parts Mark. Reminds me of the old Bluewater models when they first came out. Lots of flash also.