Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: USS Forrestal (CV-59)  (Read 10491 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Redweasel

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« on: March 02, 2011, 04:33:43 AM »

CV-59 USS Forrestal


Length:990 ft (300 m) at waterline;
1,067 ft (325 m) overall
Beam:129 ft 4 in (39.42 m) ;
238 ft (72.5 m) extreme width
Propulsion:Steam turbines, 4 shafts;
260,000 shp (194 MW)
Speed:33 knots (61 km/h)
Armament:8 × 5"/54 Mk 42 guns (removed)
Mk 29 NATO Sea Sparrow,
Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS
Aircraft carried:approx. 85 aircraft (F-14, F-4, A-4, A-7, A-6, E-2,
S-3B, EA-6B, C-2, SH-3, A-3B, KC-130 (test flight))




Quote
An FJ-3 was the first fighter to land aboard the new supercarrier USS Forrestal in 1956
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_%28CV-59%29






Logged

Batbomb

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 879
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2011, 02:20:44 PM »

Nice and important ship... BUT because of its tragic past I would be against it, for Vietnam Carriers in general I would go.
Logged

SAS~Anto

  • Aussie Bush Pilot
  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4439
  • Retired from modding
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2011, 08:23:17 PM »

+1 The Forrestal class is essential for future game development, as it covers the late 1950s through to 1970s perfectly :)
Logged

SAS~Malone

  • flying as #46 with the FAC
  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14562
  • proud member of that 'other' site
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2011, 11:34:16 PM »

Nice and important ship... BUT because of its tragic past I would be against it, for Vietnam Carriers in general I would go.

i can't agree with your thinking on this one, Batbomb - surely we would want to remember this because of it's tragic past.....i mean, the entire first and second world wars were tragic on unprecedented scales, but we should not forget it never happened, and ignore these chapters of our history.
by including a carrier like Forrestal, we would only be honouring the sacrifices made, don't you think?
Logged
.....taking fun seriously since 1968.....  8)

SAS~Friction

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 768
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2011, 01:04:43 AM »

i can't agree with your thinking on this one, Batbomb - surely we would want to remember this because of it's tragic past.....i mean, the entire first and second world wars were tragic on unprecedented scales, but we should not forget it never happened, and ignore these chapters of our history.
by including a carrier like Forrestal, we would only be honouring the sacrifices made, don't you think?

Great point Malone.  ;) This ship and its crew have definately earned honor.

Also, we have (and are probably getting more) aircraft that were stationed on this carrier. Something I've been working on... a number of them were destroyed on the deck if I recall.  ;)

Regards
Friction

Logged

duffys tavern

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2011, 11:24:53 AM »

With the new jets we need a modified CAT mod to work in 4.01/4.01.1.
Logged

SAS~GJE52

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5176
  • Orchard Studios
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2011, 11:39:20 AM »

For those who don't know the story.

 About 10:50 hours (local time) on 29 July, while preparations for the second strike of the day were being made, an unguided 5.0 in (127.0 mm) Mk-32 "Zuni" rocket, one of four contained in a LAU-10 underwing rocket pod mounted on a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, was accidentally fired due to an electrical power surge during the switch from external power to internal power.

The rocket flew across the flight deck, striking a wing-mounted external fuel tank on a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk awaiting launch,aircraft No. 405, piloted by LCDR Fred D. White.T The warhead's safety mechanism prevented it from detonating, but the impact tore the tank off the wing and ignited the resulting spray of escaping JP-5 fuel, causing an instantaneous conflagration. Other external fuel tanks overheated and ruptured, releasing more jet fuel to feed the flames which spread along the flight deck, leaving pilots in their aircraft with the options of being incinerated in their cockpits or running through the flames to escape. LCDR White leaped from his burning aircraft but was killed instantly (along with many firefighters) by the cooking off of the first bomb. LCDR Herbert A. Hope of VA-46 (and operations officer of CVW-17) jumped out of the cockpit of his Skyhawk between explosions, rolled off the flight deck and into the starboard man-overboard net. Making his way down below to the hangar deck, he took command of a firefighting team. "The port quarter of the flight deck where I was", he recalled, "is no longer there."[1] With his aircraft surrounded by flames, LCDR John McCain, pilot of A-4 Skyhawk side No. 416, escaped by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down the nose and jumping off the refueling probe.
The impact of the Zuni dislodged two of the 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs (World War II-vintage AN-M65s), which lay in the burning fuel. The fire team's chief, Gerald Farrier (without benefit of protective clothing) immediately smothered the bombs with a PKP fire extinguisher in an effort to knock down the fuel fire long enough to allow the pilots to escape. According to their training, the fire team normally had almost three minutes to reduce the temperature of the bombs to a safe level, but the chief did not realize the "Comp. B" bombs were already critically close to cooking-off until one split open. The chief, knowing a lethal explosion was imminent, shouted for the fire team to withdraw but the bomb exploded seconds later - only one and a half minutes after the start of the fire.
The detonation destroyed McCain's aircraft (along with its remaining fuel and armament), blew a crater in the armored flight deck, and sprayed the deck and crew with shrapnel and burning jet fuel. It killed the on-deck firefighting contingent, with the exception of three men who survived with critical injuries. The two bomb-laden A-4s in line ahead of McCain's were riddled with shrapnel and engulfed in the flaming jet fuel still spreading over the deck, causing more bombs to detonate and more fuel to spill.
Nine bomb explosions occurred on the flight deck, eight caused by the "Comp. B" bombs and the ninth occurred as a sympathetic detonation between an old bomb and a newer H6 bomb. The explosions tore large holes in the armored flight deck, causing flaming jet fuel to drain into the interior of the ship, including the living quarters directly underneath the flight deck, and the below-decks aircraft hangar.
Sailors and Marines controlled the flight deck fires by 12:15 hours, and continued to clear smoke and to cool hot steel on the 02 and 03 levels until all fires were under control by 13:42 hours. They finally declared the fire defeated at 04:00 the next morning, due to additional flare-ups.

IMHO it would not insult the memory of those who lost their lives to model this carrier. Most of the safety features and procedures now included and practiced on all carriers were designed in the aftermath of this incident.

G
Logged
Do not criticise a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes...  Then you can call him what you like, as you have his shoes ... and he is a mile away......

Killer Ghost

  • Jet Member
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
  • Oorah
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2011, 01:20:17 PM »

I would verry much enjoy this in game
Logged

Hemi

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
  • [Insert a nice sentence here]
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2011, 01:21:42 PM »

great boat!
Logged

SAS~Csocso

  • Aviator Mod Team
  • SAS Honourable Member
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2011, 01:45:43 PM »

+1 would be very nice to have.
Logged

duffys tavern

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2011, 02:06:42 PM »

Nice YouTube video:
Logged

Strike

  • F-16 Crew Chief
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 74
Re: USS Forrestal (CV-59)
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2011, 02:14:58 PM »

+1 to the addition of a more modern aircraft carrier!

And wow, it amazes me what bravery these men show to save their fellow comrades.

What a horrible accident, and true tradegy.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 26 queries.