The Ship Model Forum

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"

I backdated an Italaeri 1/720 USS FOrrestal to make a 1957 version:

http://www.planemechs.com/ships/forrestal1957.htm

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

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

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.

Hope that helps,
Mark

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

Happy modeling

John

_________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

I concur with your assessment John! Who needs a detailed kit whenwe can chop up styrene & build bits of detail ourselves!!

_________________
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"

or cut hands,fingers with the EVIL X- BLADE.

_________________
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"

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.

Any help would be great!

MM

I'm looking for ya Mark.

1/350 Saratoga 1960 all gun waterline about 10 days.

Sorry Red, I couldn't hep myself....

_________________
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"

That's o.k Ed, made you laugh. But this coming soon. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h97674.jpg

Yeah riggght

_________________
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"

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?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

My two cents,RANGER. When i was station in Kanhoe i took the Col. to a meeting on board her. What a clean ship she was back then.

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

_________________
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