A6EINTRUDER wrote:anybody got any hangar pics of the Forrestal class ships, or know where i can look?
Thanks.
you might want to go to the websites of those ships. squids or jarheads on board may have personel photos taken of the areas. worth a try,hey you might find a gold mine of info.
Roger that Red!!
If ya lose yer sense of humor...
You've lost everything...
On the Bench:
1/720 Italeri CVN-68 ca 1976/77
1/800 ARii 1/800 CV-59 backdating to 1961 (CVA-59)
1/700Trumpy USS Hornet CV-8 "Doolittle Raiders"
A6EINTRUDER wrote:anybody got any hangar pics of the Forrestal class ships, or know where i can look?
Thanks.
Hi!
I think "In Detail and Scale" book for Forrestal, author Bert Kinzey, can provide some images from the hangar.
Friends here pointed too good sources and this book can help a lot with other detail.
Jimmy
Make your influence positive!
"Oh Lord thy sea is so great and my boat is so small."
Breton Fisherman's Prayer
Dowunder wrote:Can anyone who has one please give me a simple review of the quality of the 1/700 Fujimi USS Constellation or Kitty Hawk ?
Many thanks, Ross
I have built two of them. Kitty Hawk 1997 and an America conversion of one, circa 1970. I like the kit and the fact that it is the correct scale. I am building one of every Carrier the Navy built and I hate the look of the 1/720 kits next to the 1/700 kits.
My only complaint is that the stern area in the jet shop has no detail at all. I use some Italeri Nimitz Class kits that I have to finish it out. Otherwise it is a big hole in the back of the ship with a floor.
I also have the Fujimi Conny in the stash and upon inspection the kit is more than just a re-boxed Kitty Hawk. It has the correct CWIS Sponsons for the Island and stern which were different than the Kitty Hawk. I have also built the Italeri kits. I like the Italeri kits but I like the fit and build of the Fujimi Kit is better. Also, the Itaeri kits are basically the America re-boxed as Kitty Hawk with a corrected Island.
Thanks Mark - I assume that they're not up to the standard of fine detail of the Trumpeter Nimiz class ships, but are better than the Italeri ones? Ross
Downunder wrote:Thanks Mark - I assume that they're not up to the standard of fine detail of the Trumpeter Nimiz class ships, but are better than the Italeri ones? Ross
That would be a true statement. If we could get all of the Carrier Kits as detailed as the Trumpeter and Dargon kits, that would be model ship heavan!
Downunder wrote:Thanks Mark - I assume that they're not up to the standard of fine detail of the Trumpeter Nimiz class ships, but are better than the Italeri ones? Ross
That would be a true statement. If we could get all of the Carrier Kits as detailed as the Trumpeter and Dargon kits, that would be model ship heavan!
But then we would lose all the fun of chopping all this plastic and scratching hangars and sponsons and such like
Anyone have some good photo's of Forrestal in 1980? I need flight deck shots to figure out what CVW-17 looked like then. It looks like VF-11and VF-74 are low vis paint, high vis markings, VA-81 & 83 appear to be low vis everything and the rest of the airwing is gull gray over white. I have the fighters locked but I am not sure what the A-7's look like.
Mark McKinnis wrote:Anyone have some good photo's of Forrestal in 1980? I need flight deck shots to figure out what CVW-17 looked like then. It looks like VF-11and VF-74 are low vis paint, high vis markings, VA-81 & 83 appear to be low vis everything and the rest of the airwing is gull gray over white. I have the fighters locked but I am not sure what the A-7's look like.
Hey guys, let me pose the question. To the knowledge of the base here, which of the Forrestal-class would be fit for reactivation and modernization? I am under the impression that any and all ships that are struck from the mothball maintenance list go down hill quickly. They suck pretty hard after only a few years, and if they were to be reactivated, such as the Kidd-class, there are significant issues. The Forrestals have all been struck for over 10 years, which really, really sucks. So, I understand that IF they were to be reactivated, a lot of extra work would have to go into them other than just simple reactivation ofa Class B asset. To one's knowledge, which two of the four would be best candidates for reactivation?
From what I recall Indy is in the worst shape and Sara is in the best. Sara is supposed to become a museum ship if they ever raise the last few million bucks. Ranger or Forrestal is supposed to become a museum ship as well but they're worse off than Sara. The Navy has plans to SINKEX one or two of em but every time I read about any of them their statuses change so we'll see what happens
Last edited by Cliffy B on Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984
Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984
