Thanks Rick! If you calculate on for example a F14 who is 19 meters long it would be 2,71 centimeters in 1:700 and 2,63 centimeters in 1:720 (yes, I'm European ) . So I reasoned that it would be not that big a difference.
I will do a thorough comparison with the kit planes against the Pitroad ones and get back here.
Rick_H wrote:If you need some extra a/c for the Italeri kit, let me know.
Themongoose wrote:I�ve had good luck getting answers to obscure questions here. So let�s try another one�
I am looking for photo etch drop tank hangars for modern carriers. One/350 scale. I found a guy on a Czek forum that was adding them to his enterprise. Unfortunately, he didn�t say whether he bought them or made them. I spent a lot of time copying and pasting into Google translate to try and figure that out. Here�s what they look like.
Tom's model works makes a set of 1/350 drop tank racks for post ww2 carriers.
Enlisted men are stupid, but very cunning and deceitful and bear considerable watching." - Marine Corps Officers Manual, 1894
Ran across this a few days ago. I bought it and will update this thread when I get it. It looks to be a pretty good 1/700 Forrestal kit. From the pics, I think that it is circa 1962 right up to the fire, July 1967. I plan to do CVW-17 right before the fire. There is another 3D Kit of Forrestal, but it looked "clunky" to me. The elevators were way to thick and so forth. I am hoping that this is a good, reasonably accurate (whatever that really means!) Forrestal. If it is, it could also be used to do Saratoga and with the Model Monkey Island, a bit broader range of dates. (1970-1975) Ranger and Indy had enough differences that I doubt that this kit would be good for those ships, at least without a lot of scratch building.
Themongoose wrote:I�ve had good luck getting answers to obscure questions here. So let�s try another one�
I am looking for photo etch drop tank hangars for modern carriers. One/350 scale. I found a guy on a Czek forum that was adding them to his enterprise. Unfortunately, he didn�t say whether he bought them or made them. I spent a lot of time copying and pasting into Google translate to try and figure that out. Here�s what they look like.
Tom's model works makes a set of 1/350 drop tank racks for post ww2 carriers.
I bought a set and it arrived the other day. Looks more like a ww2 set that's been relabeled. It has circular holders on the ends of the down braces. I tried to see what f there was a way to still use them if i cut off the circles but the width of the down bars is too narrow for a 1/350 drop tank to fit in-between them. I�m on the hunt again.
Seeing Ronald47 working on a Ranger got me wondering...
There was talk earlier in this thread about resin or 3-D printed sponsons for the Forrestal-class ships. Did those ever materialize? I've poked around a bit to no avail. Ranger in particular is quite in need of them since, unique in her class, she kept hers all the way to the scrappers!
Archive.gov posted an unredacted version of CV-63s BOGP! Unlike the CV-60 HNSA version, underwater protection seems to be included: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/365107554
A 1/350 scale Forrestal! I have the 1/700 scale version of this kit. It is pretty nice. The 1/350 scale would be pretty cool! It is modeled as 1965/1967 prior to the fire. I am going to have to save up a few coins for this one.
I would wait til they correct the model's issues unless you want to spend that sort of money & still correct those issues. here is what I posted to them about those issues.
"there are some issues with this model.
the bulbous bow foot is missing as that bow part is not slender as currently on the model.
the bow does not have that overhang at the waterline were the grey upper hull meets the red lower hull meet as shown on the model.
the bilge keels are not supposed to be parallel to the keel as shown on the model."
his reply was.
"Hello, thank you. I will verify the product."
& my response was.
"how can you verify it if you are using the wrong drawings? i have the US navy Booklet of General Plans for that class of ship which says your model is wrong. because of ebay file size restrictions, i cannot send you the port & starboard profiles of that ship nor links for that info."
So, the hull shape is wrong then. I got the waterline version in 700 scale so of course no issue. Also, the port aft gun sponson is not quite right but pretty close. Still, a good-looking kit in a 700-scale waterline version.
ModelMonkey wrote:Here are the US fleet carriers and whether or not they have been kitted in injection-molded plastic in 1/350 scale.
CV-1 Langley: yes
CV-2 Lexington: yes
CV-3 Saratoga: yes
CV-4 Ranger: yes
CV-5 Yorktown: yes
CV-6 Enterprise: yes
CV-7 Wasp: no
CV-8 Hornet: yes
CV-9 Essex: yes
CV-10 Yorktown: yes
CVS-11 Intrepid: yes
CV-12 Hornet: no
CV-13 Franklin: yes
CV-14 Ticonderoga: yes
CV-15 Randolph: no
CV-16 Lexington: no
CV-17 Bunker Hill: no
CV-18 Wasp: no
CV-19 Hancock: yes
CV-20 Bennington: no
CV-21 Boxer: no
CVL-22 Independence: yes
CVL-23 Princeton: yes
CVL-24 Belleau Wood: no
CVL-25 Cowpens: no
CVL-26 Monterey: no
CVL-27 Langley: no
CVL-28 Cabot: no
CVL-29 Bataan: no
CVL-30 San Jacinto: no
CV-31 Bon Homme Richard: no
CV-32 Leyte: no
CV-33 Kearsarge: no
CV-34 Oriskany: no
CV-35 Reprisal: no
CV-36 Antietam: no
CV-37 Princeton: no
CV-38 Shangri La: no
CV-39 Lake Champlain: no
CV-40 Tarawa: no CV-41 Midway: yes
CV-42 Franklin D. Roosevelt: no
CV-43 Coral Sea: no
CV-45 Valley Forge: no
CV-46 Iwo Jima: no
CV-47 Philippine Sea: no
CV-59 Forrestal: no
CV-60 Saratoga: no
CV-61 Ranger: no
CV-62 Independence: no
CV-63 Kitty Hawk: yes
CV-64 Constellation: yes
CVN-65 Enterprise: yes
CV-66 America: no
CV-67 John F. Kennedy: yes
CVN-68 Nimitz: yes
CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower: no
CVN-70 Carl Vinson: no
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: no
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: no
CVN-73 George Washington: no
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: no
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: no
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: no
CVN-77 George H. W. Bush: no
CVN-78 Gerald Ford: no
CVN-79 John F. Kennedy: no
CVN-80 Enterprise: no
CVN-81 Doris Miller: no
I would go with the CV-62 Island. The smokestack is angled on CV-62 (and CV-61) and level on CV-60 (and CV-59). CV-61/62 were a bit different in some subtle ways from the first two. The sterns are different, the port elevator is shaped different, the Islands are a bit different, and the masts were generally different on all of them depending on the era you build. Using the 1971 Island for a 1977 build should get you pretty close.
I would go with the CV-62 Island. The smokestack is angled on CV-62 (and CV-61) and level on CV-60 (and CV-59). CV-61/62 were a bit different in some subtle ways from the first two. The sterns are different, the port elevator is shaped different, the Islands are a bit different, and the masts were generally different on all of them depending on the era you build. Using the 1971 Island for a 1977 build should get you pretty close.
I would go with the CV-62 Island. The smokestack is angled on CV-62 (and CV-61) and level on CV-60 (and CV-59). CV-61/62 were a bit different in some subtle ways from the first two. The sterns are different, the port elevator is shaped different, the Islands are a bit different, and the masts were generally different on all of them depending on the era you build. Using the 1971 Island for a 1977 build should get you pretty close.
Good luck,
Mark
Agreed. I spent 5-1/2 years on Indy in the 90s and collected a good bit of photos and other detail info. The Forrestall and Sara had a longer "finger" on Elevator 2, whereas, Ranger and Indy had shorter ones. The other details, as you mentioned, differed almost like the overall Forrestal class had two "sub-classes".
Thanks,
Jim
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
G'day all. Does anyone know what's happened to gjholmes77? I haven't seen any comments or posts from here for several years now, and his Shapeways account has been removed. Just to refresh folk, he was doing some 3d printed updates for the Italeri Ranger CV61, as well as 1/700 Nimitz class carriers and other vehicles of the same scale.
) . So I reasoned that it would be not that big a difference.
