Forestal class

[fleetmaster]

There is two 3D printed 1/700 scale kits of the USS Forestal on Ebay. Has anyone checked them out to see what year if any the might be correct for? I would like to add one to my collection but only if it's at least fairly accurate for a certain period in the ships life.

[FFG-7]

full hull or waterline tho both have the same dimension problem but more noticeable full hull?

[Mark McKinnis]

Greetings,

I have completed this kit in 1/700 scale:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/167324484426?_ ... R6KU4-2AaA


It is a pretty good kit, and it represents Forrestal from early 60's when Forrestal Lost the forward gun sponsons until the fire. Definitely get the waterline kit if you are buying one. I have the 1/350 scale kit as well and the hull needs work in the bow area. I am still working on the air wing. I am doing my 700th scale Forrestal CVW-17 1967 right before the fire.

I recommend the kit. It builds out to a good-looking Forrestal, and it scales out to 1/700 well. It is also the only choice if you want a 1/700 Forrestal. It can also be used to do Saratoga during that time frame and into the 70's. I scavenged the SPS-30 Radar off of a CG-10 USS Albany Kit.

[Killerbeans]

Apologies for the drift, but how good is the Revell 1/540 USS Saratoga, accuracy wise. I have one, with GMM pe. Any glareing issues?

[jpeeler]

The original 1950s-era issue with the 5" gun sponsons, which was reissued many times over the years as different ships, was really good, especially given its era. In the late 1980s Revell permanently modified the tooling to represent Forrestal's post-SLEP configuration. Given the budget Revell had to work with wasn't much, it was a reasonable job. You will notice raised areas on the hull where the gun sponsons used to be, and if you can find a way to grind those down or fair them in, it will help the appearance a ton. I also think it's necessary to add the little extension on the flight deck at the forward end of the waist catapults. Some details are a little simplified and others (the mast seems to come to mind) weren't really changed that much, so there's plenty of room to add detail. Overall, though, the bones are good and the Booklet of General Plans for CV-60 (available online in a couple places, IIRC) will help you a lot in figuring out what you may want to add or fix.

Jodie Peeler

[FFG-7]

I have the Saratoga's Booklet of General Plans 1993 if you want a copy, 18 files, 10.3mb. will need email address via pm if you want a copy.

Jodie, I have that newer Revell Forrestal kit in the stash waiting to be corrected & build.

[jpeeler]

Out in the garage are a Forrestal and a Saratoga I built in the late '80s from the first issue of the modernized kits. At some point I plan to rebuild at least one of them to my current standard. I also have a couple of 1970s issues of Forrestal upstairs, one of which is an off-and-on project. That original-version kit is one of my favorite things and a sentimental favorite.

Jodie Peeler

[FFG-7]

I have 2 or 3 of the earlier Forrestals that I built in the late 70s early 80s plus the newer 1. will have 1 as 1st commissioned, the newer 1 as the Saratoga unless I can find the plans for the Independence then kitbash the other 2 into the Kitty Hawk & JFK as I have the plans for those 2 plus the Saratoga.

[Bill Code]

I have often wondered the reason for placing an elevator forward on the port side in this class.. ?

[FFG-7]

because that is were it was on the Essex & Midway classes, straight decks not angled.

[jpeeler]

Also worth noting that Forrestal's design changed several times from original concept to authorization to construction to commissioning. Forrestal was originally going to be akin to the concept for the canceled United States, a flush-deck ship with waist catapults firing to either side and an axial landing area. The design was changed to an angled-deck carrier with an island (and even that changed after construction, with the already-in-place island being moved 22 feet to starboard after the ship was launched). According to one source, the final configuration was the 34th revision to the design. Norman Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History states that the port elevator was a carryover from the original axial-deck configuration and had been meant to serve the port forward catapult, but in practice it turned out not to be very useful.

In fairness, Forrestal was very much a learn-by-doing exercise, as was so much of the technology in the decade after World War II. The whole ship was a testbed for these new super-sized concepts and they found out a lot worked, but a lot needed to be changed for future ships.

Jodie Peeler