Jump to content

Anyone found the Forretal hard to use?


Gunfreak

Recommended Posts

The Nimitzes are a bit chonkier at the waterline, but in terms of flight deck, the deck angle is the same as the Nimitz (9 degrees), and the width of the flight deck at its widest point is the same ~240 feet. 

Screen_211101_021959.png

Here's a Nimitz and the Forrestal next to one another, the diameter of the zone is the same. You'll notice the major difference between the two (other the elevators around) is by the time of the Nimitz, the Navy has added more usable area to the periphery of the flight deck, for example the area added by moving the port side elevator to the aft of the flight deck, adding usable space to the "finger" on the starboard side of the landing area, and expanding the deck forward around the re-arranged elevators. 

The Forrestals were very much a transitional design, bridging the relatively new technologies of the angled deck, steam catapults and mirrored/Fresnel landing lenses with a elevator arrangement and proposed deck operation that's something like a half step above the old straight deck carriers of WW2. This would all get hammered out and refined starting with minor changes to the Ranger and Independence, then more radical changes through the Kitty Hawks and Enterprise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...