Calling all Forrestal-class & Kitty Hawk-class fans

[Mark McKinnis]

Hello,

I have sent Greg a few emails with no replies. I hope that he is OK. In addition to the Ranger work, he was going to do the Island for the Constellation CV-64 in a 60/70's fit for me. Both 1/700 and 1/350 scale.

Mark

[gtbred]

Is the waterline version available

Finally here Mark

[gtbred]

Lot of work to do.

[Mark McKinnis]

[/quote]

Finally here Mark[/quote]

Hi Red,

The SS Model 1/350 Forrestal? I have bought one. It should be here this week. I went with the full hull version.

Mark

[gtbred]

Great Mark, should be interesting to compare different building.

[FFG-7]

Mark, unless they corrected the cad program for that model then there will be issues with the model to the bow stem at the waterline & the straight line bilges keels as the hull shape is wrong.

[gtbred]

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.

[maurice de saxe]

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

Maurice

[Mark McKinnis]

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.

[Mark McKinnis]

A few more pics.....

[gtbred]

These printing tracks suck

[maurice de saxe]

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

[FFG-7]

are you talking about the 5" gun sponsons?

[maurice de saxe]

Yes - the sponsons removed in the late 1950s.

Maurice

[ModelMonkey]

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

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

[FFG-7]

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

[FFG-7]

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

[Admhawk]

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

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.

[FFG-7]

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

[Admhawk]

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!