Shipbucket
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/

British carriers 50-85.
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1745		 Page 47 of 51
Author:  Bombhead [ August 23rd, 2012, 8:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
Mosquito I redrew the christmas tree for Audacious you can use that if you like it. :geek:
Author:  MOSQUITO [ August 24th, 2012, 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
Thanks Bombhead.

I was a little bit annoyed; i just see the video "Floating fortress" another time and ...
horror,
the flight deck is ... green.
see the still photo here:

http://www.baimfilms.com/baimStillsDeta ... entPage=3#


So, for the maniacs, here she is: i have called this drawing Victorious 1960 (but in the drawing itself the title stays 1958), - the film was released in 1960, so the configuration of the ship is for the commission "1958 to 1960"
here is a link to the film:

Part one: http://www.popscreen.com/v/5ZWPK/Floati ... art-1-of-2

Part two: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=55a_1307792666

and now ladies and gentleman the Floating Fortress: 1958 (1959), 1962, 1964 and 1966 (With Seavixen FAW1 for 1962)

[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
[ img ]
Author:  Hood [ August 25th, 2012, 8:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
An excellent series of updates Mosquito, these look perfect now. It's nice to get a timeline of her changes etc.
Author:  seeker36340 [ August 26th, 2012, 3:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
It's interesting to note that the RN equipped Ark Royal and Eagle with F-4s versus the US Oriskany class. If I understand from checking the specs the deck of the Oriskany (and possibly the others) was stressed to handle aircraft as heavy as Phantom but were not fitted with the catapults and blast deflectors to handle them.
Author:  travestytrav25 [ August 26th, 2012, 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
seeker36340 wrote:
It's interesting to note that the RN equipped Ark Royal and Eagle with F-4s versus the US Oriskany class. If I understand from checking the specs the deck of the Oriskany (and possibly the others) was stressed to handle aircraft as heavy as Phantom but were not fitted with the catapults and blast deflectors to handle them.
A friend of mine served as an Aviation Maitenance Officer onboard the Oriskany before and during Vietnam, and he said that's exactly why the F-4s were never carried about the Oriskany and her sisters, inadequate catapults and blast deflectors. Apparently the Navy didn't feel the ships could carry a large enough number of Phantoms for an adequate size airwing, so they didn't equip them to carry the aircraft. Personally, I think it was a political move so the Navy could justify asking Congress for funding to build larger supercarriers.
Author:  MOSQUITO [ August 27th, 2012, 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
Herebefore, I have edited the (i hope) FINAL HMS Victorious saga,

i have corrected some errors ,

i have added the catapult bridle catcher for the 1962 config. (soon dismounted),

i have added the 1964 config.

so there they are:
Commission: 1958-1959 (two colour shemes-at least the green is sure) 1958: green - 1959: Grey
Commission: 1960-1962 1962
Commission: 1963-1965 1964
Commission: 1966-1967 1966

Enjoy
Author:  Bombhead [ October 14th, 2012, 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
The last of the Illustrious class drawings HMS Formidable.

[ img ]
Author:  Trojan [ October 14th, 2012, 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
:o :o :shock: :shock: simply fantastic
Author:  heuhen [ October 14th, 2012, 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
THAT JUST AWESOME!
Author:  eswube [ October 14th, 2012, 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: British carriers 50-85.
This whole thread is simply to awesome to be true! ;)
Great job Bombhead!
Page 47 of 51 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/