1/350 Forrestal class

Strange to realize that the CVs of the time were designed at much earlier dates that the dates of service suggest.

The Midways ( my favorite class), were designed starting in 1940 based on Royal Navy designs using armored flight decks. This was before any USN CV had ever been sunk.

The original design had the then popular 8" cruiser rifles too.

Bill

Not so strange when you figure from thought, to operational, the process.

Thought, sketch on napkins, design, engineering, blueprints, changes, getting funding from Congress, and actual build time, then working out the bugs.  

Easily 12-15 years from concept to actually launching and recovering a/c.

Just as an example, I sit in a federal advisory council, and the USFS started a forest revision plan in 2003, and still not done and approved.  Used to be they were revised every 10-15 years.  Now we're figuring it will be at least double that

Speaking of which, I thought that you were supposed to be coming over to Prineville in May .  .  . What happened, I had beer in the cooler and everything!

Mikeym_us

Now if someone could put out a aftermarket interior for the Hangar bay for the KittyHawk in both 1/350 and 1/700 people can proudly display their aircraft in there.

 

Trumpeter does include a basic hangar deck. Gives you a start on building your own. Better option than a certain carrier kit from Japan. (Cough, cough, Tamiya Enterprise.)

GMorrison

The original design had the then popular 8" cruiser rifles too.

Naval rifles are of "shrunk tube" design, which allows for replacement of worn rifled liners.

Operationally, after expending a magazine of ammo (which was near the rifiling limit of rounds), the ship would return te base and the barrels removed and swapped for new ones.  The old ones would go back to the gun foundry to have the shot-out liners removed, and fresh ones installed in their place.

So, you (as a Naval Establisment) wanted three barrels for every one you put to sea.  Whic meant you started rifle production early, sometimes before the keels were laid.  Once Standarized, you wanted your gun foundries to run at some sort of predictale speed, too.

Which meant you built up an inventory of naval rifles.

Also, doctrine for CVs was in flux, too.  Tere was a contemplation that a CV might come under surface assault (say in non-flight conditions, or unavailability of screening ships).  And, having 3-4 miles' range on DDs or CLs was seen as a distinct average.

Actual experience taught us that a/c were the much more present risk, and that screening ships were quick and easy to crank out to provect and serve CVs.

That, and no one ever managed to sort out how to make 20cm rifles useful for AAA use.  90 secnds of fligt time is tough to use against a/c at 500 fps. (300kts is 5 miles per minute).

CapnMac82

That, and no one ever managed to sort out how to make 20cm rifles useful for AAA use.  90 secnds of fligt time is tough to use against a/c at 500 fps. (300kts is 5 miles per minute).

So an attacking dive bomber bomber flying at 300 kts. travels 7.5 miles in 90 seconds.

An attacking torpedo aircraft travels 3-4 miles in 90 seconds.

Shell arrival and kill zone for a 20cm explosive shell is what, maybe 1000 feet?

In any case, the loss of attacking aircraft at Midway was mostly

either operational or CAP related.

The design problem for the Midways most likely was that with the addition of the armored flight deck (still not the main structural deck)- in order to keep the vertical CG at a point below the axis of roll (I forget the ordinate); most AAA was reduced to single 5" mounts, more 3" mounts, loss of cruiser sized rilfes and use of the 5" mounts as horizontal protection at the hangar level.

 What became Forrestal was a long Midway that incorporated the angle deck. IIRC Saratoga had a slighty longer hull to reduce the angle.

Our friend Lee (subfixer) was quartermaster on Ranger. 

He had a good story about avoiding the center anchorage of the Oakland Bay Bridge while sailing out of Alameda during which the Admiral and Captain were arguing about a baseball score.

"Sir, course correction?"

^%$&**

"Sir, course correction?"

 And so on.

Bill

While there's no way to know, I hope the Trumpeter folks made a pile of money on their 1/350 Kitty Hawk/Constellation/JFK models - because that would encourage them to put out the angle-deck Midway class and the Forrestal class ships in 1/350 styrene.  Maybe an early Enterprise too, and the Tarawa and new America and of course Ford class as well.  Hey, I can dream!

Straycat1911

 

 

Mikeym_us

Now if someone could put out a aftermarket interior for the Hangar bay for the KittyHawk in both 1/350 and 1/700 people can proudly display their aircraft in there.

 

 

 

 

Trumpeter does include a basic hangar deck. Gives you a start on building your own. Better option than a certain carrier kit from Japan. (Cough, cough, Tamiya Enterprise.)

 

Well you are talking about a almost 50 year old kit after all. Plus the kit was really USS Hornet boxed as Enterprise her hull and Island configuration were a dead giveaway.

Hmmm;

 V.F.W. Says that we weren't in the Zone. We recieved Shore Fire and returned Same. If that isn't in the zone. Oh Well. Crew petty Officer on the U.S.S. Ozbourn D.D.846

Hmmmph!

 The Midway is the one that tried to sink us! Naw, only Kidding. Accidental hull to hull contact. Hurt them as much as it did us. Thankfully No loss of life on our ship, or injuries that required hospitalization. Don't know about her.

 When we ported we were escorted to secure Barracks till the Board of Inquiry called for our testimony. It was during a Refeuling Op that it happened. I still love the old Girl and think she's a beautiful Ship.

 I did at one time have Revell's rendition of the Forrestal. Don't remember the scale though. It was one of the Flat Bottom ships.

1/542. The ship was flat bottomed too, so the kit hull is fairly ok except for the bulb missing at the bow. I used the bottom of a Saratoga glue bomb to make a full hull Midway.

Same scale as their FDR/ Midway/ Coral Sea and their many Essex ships.

Their Essex most closely resembles CV-20 USS Bennington. 

Bill

the Forrestal class is not flat bottomed like the Iowa class, the Midway class plus a few others. i would buildup the bow for the bulb with .040" sheet plastic not putty then carve/sand to shape. slightly different scale to the 1/535 scale Essex class.

http://www.modelerjoe.net/shipmodellist.html#RevellForrestal

Except for the bulb, the hull is pretty accurate.

 535/542= 0.987. Same scale as far as I'm concerned.

Bill

Bill

Okay, I keep hearing this so I've got to speak up; "most ships have flat bottoms", and if you could flip a carrier over, you could put probably seven or more full basket ball courts on her bottom. Folks used to say that Newport class LST's had round bottoms, that's why they rolled so badly. Wrong. The Newport classers had narrow bows and narrow stern and wide flat bottoms amidship. Toss a football in a pool and watch how it floats. It's not because of the roundness, it's due to the skinny front and skinny rear and wide middle. It's the same reason you ballast for a higher bow rather than a higher stern - stability.

AND, since I'm on a roll; CV-63 and CV-64 were one class, and CV-66 and CV67 were a separate class. The JFK and America were modifications based on the Kitty Hawk class, but not Kitty Hawk's.

this link https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/66.htm says America is of the Kitty Hawk class but the JFK is of the John F. Kennedy class https://www.navsource.org/archives/02/67.htm

Convert from the Trumpeter 1/350 Constellation.  Hard work,but satisfying