News flash for liner fans

Carmike

Tucchase:

The United States is a very special ship, but was launched in 1951, you may be thinking of her smaller, older sister, the S.S. America that was launched in 1939 as served as a fast transport under the name of "West Point."  The America had a 37,400SHP steam turbine plant that could produce over 24 knots (Arnold Kludas, Great Passenger Ships of the World, Vol. 4), but doubt that she spent much time unescorted during the war.  Cunard's Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth did travel unescorted for much of the distance between the US and UK, but they were capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots.

Carmike:  You are absolutely correct.  Now that you said West Point, I do recall that was the name.  Oh well.  That would be a good model too!  I think someone made this years ago.  I don't know about other trips it took to Brisbane or anywhere else, but the voyage my mother was on was unescorted, I believe in late 1943, or early 1944.  She was so seasick she was half praying for a torpedo to put her out of her misery.  After three days she finally got her sea legs and was fine.  She said anyone not actually doing something was on periscope watch anytime they were on deck.  She also said quite a few whales were shot up, or at least shot at, while they were enroute.

Carmike

 

 

Subfixer:

I hadn't heard that the hull of the United States served as the prototype for the hull of the U.S.S.  Enterprise.  The "Big U" has a 240,000 SHP plant that was largely based on the plant for the Midway class carriers (1946).  Since the Midways were followed by the four carriers of the Forrestal class (laid down from 1952 to 1955) and the Kitty Hawk and Constellation (1955 and 1956) it seems likely that the hull of the Enterprise (laid down in 1958) owed more to those ships than it did to the United States.

 

 

I've been in the dry docks under examples of all of these classes of carriers during my career. None of them resemble the Enterprise's hull.  The only hull that I haven't seen up close and personal is the United States'. The reason that I made the statement above was because during my early career I worked with guys who built the United States and Enterprise and they made that claim. I have no evidence, just the statements of the guys who were there. The Enterprise's hull is unique among US carriers.

Tucchase:

The United States is a very special ship, but was launched in 1951, you may be thinking of her smaller, older sister, the S.S. America that was launched in 1939 as served as a fast transport under the name of "West Point."  The America had a 37,400SHP steam turbine plant that could produce over 24 knots (Arnold Kludas, Great Passenger Ships of the World, Vol. 4), but doubt that she spent much time unescorted during the war.  Cunard's Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth did travel unescorted for much of the distance between the US and UK, but they were capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots.

Subfixer:

I hadn't heard that the hull of the United States served as the prototype for the hull of the U.S.S.  Enterprise.  The "Big U" has a 240,000 SHP plant that was largely based on the plant for the Midway class carriers (1946).  Since the Midways were followed by the four carriers of the Forrestal class (laid down from 1952 to 1955) and the Kitty Hawk and Constellation (1955 and 1956) it seems likely that the hull of the Enterprise (laid down in 1958) owed more to those ships than it did to the United States.

As to the design of the United States, if you compare pictures of the United States and the former German liners Europa and Bremen (1929/30) you can see that William Francis Gibbs' design for the United States owed more to the German liners than to the earlier America.  The German liners were 938', 50,000 GRT, 27 knot ships compared to 53,339 GRT, 990', and over 35 knots for the United States).

All:

I have a re-issue of the "flat bottomed" Revell kit of the United States and will probably get around to building it one of these days if a better kit doesn't come along before then.  Patrick Camilleri has a great build of the Revell kit on the model ship gallery: www.modelshipgallery.com/.../us-index.html.

With all of the Titanic kits that have been on the market in the last 20 years, it's hard to believe that there is much demand for another one. Oh, well.

Best,

Mike

Wasn't the United States converted to a troop carrier in WWII and renamed "Eagle"?  My mother was a passenger on the Eagle when she was shipped to Brisbane.  Solo transport because there was nothing that could keep up with her.  They just depended on her speed to avoid any Japanese subs.  If this is the right ship, it would be nice if Revell added the conversion parts for the Eagle.

All I know about this sort of thing is what I read on the websites.  Here's what Revell Germany is saying about the Hornet kit:  http://www.revell.de/index.php?id=210&KGKANR=0&KGKOGP=10&KGSCHL=4&L=1&page=1&sort=0&nc=&searchactive=&q=&SWO=&ARMAS4=&PHPSESSID=a379971bb96da20815e6515baf1afa39&KZSLPG=&offset=4&cmd=show&ARARTN=05121&sp=1 .

The only picture is a photo of the real ship, but it's pretty clear that the kit is the old late-50s one (which initially appeared as the Essex and, over a span of more than a decade, turned up under the names of at least half a dozen sisterships.  By the standards of the day it was state-of-the-art.  (Dig those cool airplanes, and the crimped kengths of wire to make the deck edge antennas!)  It obviously doesn't come up to modern standards.  (The big problem I remember is that the hull right under the flight deck is way too narrow.  The box containing the escalator doesn't line up with the island.)  I suspect it would take a huge amount of work to make a serious scale model from this kit - and, as such things go, the day after you finished it, Dragon or Trumpeter would release a new late Essex that would blow it out of the water.  I may well be tempted to buy one, though, purely for nostalgia reasons.

If memory serves, Revell announced a reissue of this kit a year or two ago, but it never appeared.  The word here in the Forum was that the molds had been found to be irreparably damaged.  Guess they fixed them.

Another piece of good news from Revell Germany:  the re-release of the old 1/83 Mayflower.  That's one of the best sailing ships Revell ever did.  It's nice to see that almost all the old Revell sailing ships are currently back on the market in one form or another.  The obvious gaps:  the 1/96 Cutty Sark, the yacht America, and the Flying Cloud.  Maybe....

PROFF :

You hit the nail on the head ! Now ,do you think the rumor about the HORNET is true ? I ask because I served on her as a docent in her very early years as a museum .

We were struggling very hard to acquire planes , whilst the one on the other coast was getting money thrown at it , we had to beg for every dime we got !

That said I sure hope the " HORNET " model does come to pass. The U.S.S. FRANKLIN with angled deck in 1/700 is to tiny for these old eyes . I will  be hoping for a " FULL " hull S.S. UNITED STATES too .    Tanker-builder

I think you're right, subfixer - at least to some extent.  I think one big reason for the flat bottoms on early Revell kits was that the hull lines were still classified.  (That certainly was true in the United States's case, and I think probably in the Iowa class's as well.)

The joint where I used to work, the Mariners' Museum, has the plating model of the U.S. I spent a fair amount of time looking at it.  I have to say I couldn't see anything obviously revolutionary about it.  Let's hope that if a new kit ever does come out, it will include the underwater hull.

I would like to compare the hulls of the Unted States and USS Enterprise. I have heard it said that the former was the prototype for the latter.

HI :

I believe they have always had a " UNITED STATES " in their group of ships .It's the old "flat-bottomed " Kit though . I would like to see re-releases of the " MOORE-MCORMACK , "  " ARGENTINA/BRASIL (spelt both ways with an " S " and a " Z " .) as well . There were a few they always missed .I don't believe I've seen the NORMANDIE in anything but papermodeling .Now the "SAVANNAH" I felt , was always one of REVELL'S best civilian ships .

Great news, Prof! And I will be first in line if they ever produce a United States.