Old FSM Article on Grafting a Revell USS Forrestal lower hull to the 1/547 USS Midway

Would be a bit of work. Essex had a few differences. Hydraulic cats, the flight deck forward round-down is different, a few sponsons, the stern fantail sponsons. Haven't really researched any further than that after I saw the bow end round down. How many alterations are you doing to get it to Hancock?

EJ

GM,

My wife gave me a little grief when I bought the Merit USS Yorktown until I showed her the differences between the bows.  She was stunned that any company could be so very far wrong.

ejhammer, couldn't you modify the Gallery USS Intrepid (CVS 11)?  I am modifying her to the USS Hancock (CVA 19).

Bill

How about ESSEX,CVA-9 or CVS-9 the first of her class, in her angle deck configuration. Guess I'm biased cause I served on her.

My pleasure!  I used this technique to replace the horrible lower hull of the Revell USS Lexington with that of Lindbergh's USS Yorktown.  I believe it gave me a much better model of the Lex.

I concur that we need a 1/350 Midway. I would also add a Forrestal as well.  In fact, I would like to see a series of Midway class carriers as follows:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt as built with the axial deck.

2. Coral Sea as in the Vietnam War.

3. Midway as modified in the 1970's.

Bill

Thanks Bill for the article. I'm stumped with my CV-8. I cut the horrible bottom off, plus the red part I won't use, and rough shaped the hull back up with balsa foam.

I learned two things from this article-

1) It doesn't really have to be spot accurate, but it needs to "look" right.

2) The kind of thing you want to do once...

Thanks much.

Any Midways out there in 1/350?

I will do so on Monday morning.  I am at home, and my scanner doesn't work.  My scanner on my printer at work does work properly (Yes, I bought that printer.)

It will be worth the wait!

Bill

PS: How is that model of the Illustrious coming?  I remember you were doing a terrific job!

Well pm it to me I'd like to see it.

John and GM,

Found it!  For some reason I had remembered it as the cover story and had glossed over it while searching.  Thanks!

GM,  I remember that you had started the Heller 1/400 HMS Illustrious.  There might be some good suggestions in this story if you have it.

Bill

Ooops!  My apologies to both of you!  John, thanks!  Ditto to you!

And I assure you, Morrison, that you are a tremendous help!  

Ditto the T-2 and the Haskell.

My ships fought the good fight over at my best friend Curtis Wong's house back in the day. The Wongs had wall-to-wall carpeting that probably still has prop blades in it.

And I assure you Morrison that I'm NO help at all. That's to Dr. T.

The old Revell Midway-class kit, originally released in 1954 (as the Franklin D. Roosevelt), was one of those notorious early Revell flat bottomed ships. The Forrestal, which came along in 1957, had a full hull.

One explanation for the flat bottoms was that Revell wanted kids to be able to play with the models on the floor. (Aurora did the same thing with several of its first warship kits.) I suspect another reason was that the underwater hull lines of some or all of the ships in question were still classified. (The Midway class, after all, was the most high-tech carrier design in the world in 1954. And the S.S. United States's hull form was kept secret for a long time, because she'd been built under a big government subsidy as a high-speed wartime troop carrier.)

What still doesn't make sense to me is that the flat-bottom kits also contained those sturdy "trestle"-style mounting stands (complete with screw slots, in case you wanted to screw them down to a wood base). An old Revell Missouri, FDR, or United States sitting on those trestles looks pretty silly to modern eyes. But in those days few of us noticed.

Edit two minutes later: Bill, it looks like you and I were typing at the same time.

Thanks!  I'll check to see if I have  that edition.  The upside is that the Revell Midway has the old flat-bottom so that kids could play with the finished model on the floor. The Forrestal kits had a more realistic hull bottom.  Also, the author detailed the Midway to make it more presentable.

GM, I do appreciate your help!

Bill

Out of curiosity, whats the upside?

I did read that the Midway is considered an excellent tool and die job, especially for the time.

Found it in the FSM 25th Anniversary CD-ROM set. It's in Issue #159 (July, 2002), pp. 136-141.

When I bought my Mac a few years ago I had to pay extra for an external CD drive. At moments like this I'm glad I did.

I'd be glad to send you a copy of those pages, Bill, but I don't know whether Kalmbach would let me. If so, I can't figure out the procedure to do it.

I could print out those pages and mail them to you - I think. Let me know.