# Best Fleet Air Arm (Royal Navy) Aircraft of WW2



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

I think the best British Naval fighter used during the war was the Fairey Firefly

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/firefly_wb271_preserved_flying_RNHF.jpg

First flew on December 22nd 1941 (soon after Pearl Harbour was bombed) and was a two-seater naval fighter - it was built under the understanding that (in the Royal Navys opinion at the time) all Navy fighters should have a navigator onboard to navigate for the pilot while at sea (several incidents of pilots becoming disorientated and lost while flying bombing missions and long-range partols in bad weather in combat conditions led to this decision) so the Firefly was no different.
The Firefly became fully operational in October 1943 on board the carrier HMS Indefatigable (the aircraft carrier my grandfather served on was the HMS Implacable - the Indefatigables sister ship) and escorted bombers during their attacks (most notably against the Tirpitz in 1944) 
The fireflys were often used to 'scout ahead' to claer enemy fighters from the area before the bombers came through

It was used as a nightfighter in 1943 and often intercepted V1s and Heinkel He111s during raids 

whilst stationed in the Pacific in 1945 Fireflys took part in the destruction of an Oil refinery in Sumutra - they had a tremendous operation record whilst fighting in the Pacific proving to be a versatile opponent for the Japanese - operating both day and night as a recon plane or fighter bomber

In June 1945 Fireflies of 1771 Squadron, operating from HMS Implacable, took part in attacks in the Carolinas, while in July 1772 squadron aircraft, from HMS Indefatigable, were flying strikes against shipping and ground targets in the Japanese home islands, becoming the first FAA aircraft to fly over the Japanese mainland. On 24 July, 1945 aircraft from 1772 Squadron became the first British aircraft to fly over Tokyo  

They were also used to drop supplies to prisoners of war during these historic trips over Tokyo

It performed well in dogfights despite the Firefly's size and was armed with four 20mm cannons as well as rockets and mines (for the bomber role)

These are its stats:

Speed: 316mph
Ceiling: 28,000ft
Range: 1300miles
Wingspan: 44ft
Length: 37ft 7in
Weight: 14,020lb

It was so successful as a Naval fighter that it continued to be used on Royal Navy carriers during the Korean war

I think this plane was the best naval plane designed by Britain solely for use on carriers (i.e the American planes such as Hellcats and Corsairs don't count! )


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 4, 2004)

It had to happen, I suppose, but, I agree!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

well, for convey defence it's seafire......................


----------



## nutter (Apr 4, 2004)

i go for the swordfish because it helped destroy the italian fleet at taranto and sunk the bismark


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

ive always liked the fairey barracuda 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

The Barracuda had its uses and it was a damn fine aircraft but it wasn't as versatile as the Firefly - the Swordfish was also fantastic but again it was limited in what it could do because of poor defences and slow speed (even the authorities admitted it was outdated by the outset of WW2  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

i know, barracuda still does it for me though 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

nutter said:


> i go for the swordfish because it helped destroy the italian fleet at taranto and sunk the bismark



The Swordfish is also my pick. Provided its performance limitations were kept in mind, it was astonishingly versatile, being used in roles it was never designed for, including as a fighter! I don't know the details for that last one, but someone, somewhere, used a "Stringbag" as a fighter one time. The shocking thing is that it apparently shot down an enemy aircraft! Anyone know anything about this?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Yeah - the Swordwish was HOPELESS as a fighter - it was slow, had no armour - hardly any weapons (it had one fixed forward firing .303 and another in the rear for christ sake!) and not very manouvorable - i think the only plane it could manage to shoot down kitted out like that was a Ju87! but a kid with a peashooter could manage that  

don't forget it was the swordfish that flew in the infamous 'channel dash' in 1942 that cost all six swordfish crews their lives  

don't get me wrong the Swordfish was truly a great plane and its sucessful campaigns easily outweigh its disasterous ones and i would be very foolish  to say it wasn't one of the best aircraft the Brits had during WW2 but the Firefly was a better aircraft (in my opinion) 
Fireflys could do almost anything the Swordfish could do and do the jobs better (although the firefly couldn't use torpedos, it could attack shipping with its rockets and cannons) 

More Fireflys were built and they were still being used in the Korean war wereas the Swordfish had ended its production in 1944

The firefly was more versatile (see first post for details)

The Swordfish was only capable of 138mph  , whereas the Firefly could fly at 316mph  
The Swordfishes one .303 forward firing machine gun would fade into obscurity if pitted against the four 20mm cannons of the Firefly  
The Swordfish could only fly at a max of 19,250ft 
The Firefly could reach 28,000ft (not bad for a navy plane)
and of course the swordfish had a fabric skin with no armour whereas the firefly was made mostly of metal with monoplane wings and so therefore - tough armour  

The only real disadvantage the firefly had over the Swordfish was that it was bigger (only 2 ft) and it didn't have the same ship-sinking capabilities as the Swordfish but however you must bear in mind that the Firefly was a fighter (not a lover  ) - not a torpedo bomber - the Swordfish was arguably the best torpedo bomber in the FAA - i think peoples problem when comparing these aircraft often seems that they look at the romantic images of the planes but ignores the bare facts - the firefly was a better aircraft in general and based on the bare facts i don't think anyone could argue that point - but knowing you lot as i do i'm certain someone will try - bring it on 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> "Stringbag"



the swordfish shouldnt be nicknamed that, as it was in fact high-tention wire - not string  however, "high-tention-wirebag" doesnt quite have the same ring to it


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > "Stringbag"
> 
> 
> 
> the swordfish shouldnt be nicknamed that, as it was in fact high-tention wire - not string  however, "high-tention-wirebag" doesnt quite have the same ring to it



I think it was more of a stab at the way it looked rather than its components 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

but it wasnt ugly  anyway, lets not go there, were already having this argument somewhere else 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well, for convey defence it's seafire......................



Funny that you should mention the Seafire - apparently it was quite a fragile plane to have as a navy fighter - records show they actually lost four times as many Seafires in landing accidents than they did in combat

The Seafire's wheels were weak and often broke completely during a landing, as it was basically a modified Spitfire and not designed from scatch to land on moving aircraft carriers with tough metal decks

The only reason the navy kept them was as you say...they were good at escorting convoys...just a shame they couldn't get back safely on deck afterwards  

However i was also reading about the Fireflys capabilities...the Firefly was designed around the Fairey Fulmar (another two seater navy plane) and was by design an excellent dogfighter  it also had excellent handling at low speeds, and a better all-round view than any other tail-wheel fighter in the air at that time - in the hands of a skilled pilot the Firefly was more than a match in a dogfight with an Me109 and several reports of 109s being downed by Fireflys were made - however i also read that the Fireflys in the Pacific had alot of trouble with Japanese fighters  - i also discovered that the Firefly was capable of carrying 2000lb of bombs and eight 60pound rockets (not bad for a fighter 8) ) by 1945 many models had been converted into night-fighters with radar fitted and these types had some success in the field

All round I am convinced it was the best the British had to offer in terms of home-made naval fighters in that period...i suppose the other obvious advantage was that if the pilot was injured or perhaps became confused during a dogfight out at sea at least he DID have another crewman with him to guide him home...all in all - an excellent plane  

(I still think the Japs had better fighters than the Germans  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

> (I still think the Japs had better fighters than the Germans)



oooooo thats gonna start a riot 8) with me for one


----------



## Andrew (Apr 8, 2004)

> Stringbag" as a fighter one time. The shocking thing is that it apparently shot down an enemy aircraft! Anyone know anything about this?



Commander Charles Lamb mentions this in his book "War in a Stringbag" and all I know about it is , that it was an Italian Fighter that was shot down by a Swordfish . Although Charles Lamb accounted for 2 Italian Fighters himself , which were trying to shoot him down , he threw his Swordfish around the sky , and the Pilots lost control of their aircraft while trying to keep a bead on him , and they crashed into the sea , but as he had not fired his guns he could not claim them .

Andrew


----------



## Andrew (Apr 8, 2004)

> Quote:
> 
> "Stringbag"
> 
> ...



It was apparently nicknamed the "Stringbag" because you could put more in it than the average shopping bag , which was made out of sting at the time .


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

HAHAH!  

oh that cracks me up - the only time the Swordfish brought down an enemy plane was when it was flown by some drunken Italian who crashed his plane into the sea!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

well it wasn't designed as a fighter was it..........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Of course it wasn't....and it was far from the best Naval aircraft the brits had at their disposal during WW2... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

> well it wasn't designed as a fighter was it..........................



sure it wasnt........


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

The Firefly was the best the FAA had to offer during WW2 - the best all round aircraft 8) 

No-one has come up with a convincing argument against that fact which is a bit disappointing actually - i was hoping for a debate...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

well what are you gonna say was better than it, as far as naval fighters go, the brits didn't exactily exell ourselfs....................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

I have to admit you're correct  - the Americans AND the Japanese both had much better naval planes than us...ironic though isn't it? an island nation such as ourselves didn't have a better naval airforce?

I still think the Japanese had the right idea 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

they had a better approach than the americans, i would rather fly a light, manouverable plane, that a plane whit a huge engine that made it hard to land..............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

The best Japanese naval fighter of the war was the Zero and it gave the american navy/airforce a hard time during the first years of the war but it had no armour and so was easy to shoot down...if earlier models of the Zero had armour the americans would have had even more trouble with them...perhaps they wouldn't have won...who knows?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

makes you think...

ive always been a fan of the zero though 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

yeah, sure as hell gave the americans a suprise, i mean it could turn circles around the wildcat.............


----------



## Andrew (Apr 16, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 Wrote


> No-one has come up with a convincing argument against that fact which is a bit disappointing actually - i was hoping for a debate...



Well lets put it this way , I think most aircraft that Fairey produced were not very good , they were all seriously underpowered , even the much vaunted Fairey Firefly considering it had a Rolls Royce Griffon as it's powerplant , was not quick off the mark , the only aircaft they produced which were any good was the Swordfish , followed by the Albcore which was basically a Swordfish with a bigger engine , and the height of luxury an enclosed cockpit .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nutter (Apr 16, 2004)

the firefly was hardly a decent fighter it was originally designed as a reconisance aircraft. it entered service in1943 but didn't shoot anything down until 1945, on jan 3nd leut D.Levaitt shot down a Ki-83. It served well in the pacific but in europe it was not very effective.
The swordfish was a much better all round naval aircraft and was did more use for britain than the firefly


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

> Well lets put it this way , I think most aircraft that Fairey produced were not very good , they were all seriously underpowered , even the much vaunted Fairey Firefly considering it had a Rolls Royce Griffon as it's powerplant , was not quick off the mark , the only aircaft they produced which were any good was the Swordfish , followed by the Albcore which was basically a Swordfish with a bigger engine , and the height of luxury an enclosed cockpit .



there could be some reasons for that  

Firstly, Fairey tended to make only naval aircraft, which already restricts what you can do to a plane. And, saying the swordfish was the only plane they made which was any good is a bit silly, as bronzewhaler has put across some verry good points for the firefly, which have pretty much convinced me, and convincing me takes a lot of effort 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

but you still gotta say the swordfish was better..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

why? it clearly wasnt 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

name something memorable a firefly did?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

improper use of punctuations abounds with you lanc! but for the best FAA aircraft, i go with the Seafire Mk.47 (if that's too late for the war, then i go with the Seafire in general, earlier Mks included)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

my pucuation is a work of art......................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Sticking my oar in firmly for SEAFIRES - I too can't think of anything exceptional from Fairey, even when they stuck a Merlin in a bloated body of a Firefly - Bloody ridiculous to risk 3 chaps lives in a single engined aircraft over water, in a MONOplane then, even if had cannons. Seafires are proof again of the versatile development of the Spitfire, and like all aircraft, it had one fault at least, in this case a narrow track undercart - but it did give the Navy it's first 400+mph fighter -Also, alotta N.Zer's flew them! - My 2nd choice is [naturally] the Sea Mosquito....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

i still like the swordfish the best..................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

I have profound respect for the men who flew them....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

they did have to be pretty brave................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

or stupid... no the firefly seemed a great plane to me 8) come on bronze, i dont have the intelligence to prove it was better, where are you!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

go on, name from memory some of the firefly's more memorable acivements................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

do i look like i know?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

no, but that's cos it has no memorable achivements, unlike the swordfish................


----------



## nutter (Apr 29, 2004)

the only memorablie thing the firefly did was fly a few strafing runs against the tripitz it also did some armed reconisance of the tripitz.
how can anyone say this is the best fleet air arm plane when it was only a two-seat reconnaissance fighter?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 29, 2004)

I always thought it was a 3 seater...but anyway, SEAFIRES ruled...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Performance is fine to talk about but I always like to look at impact. So I'm selecting the Fairy Swordfish, the veritable Stringbag. Yes it was a bi-plane, and yes it was slower than just about anything else in the air, but look at what it did. Disabled the Italian fleet at Taranto. Prevented Bismarck from reaching France by disabling its rudder. Was a menance to U-boats throughout the Atlantic. It even outlasted it's successor (the Albecore)! Pretty impressive performance out of such an old machine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

i like the swordfish too, it was easily had the most impact out of all the navy's planes...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I think you also have to admit that there was something very romantic about flying a plane that was obviously obsolete.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 1, 2004)

Aircraft-carrier defence became a priority through the Pacific engagements, the Japanese using Kamikaze tactics in the finish, rather than torpedos. Also, the age of Rocketry was emerging, the Japs had their 'Okha', the Germans their Fritz-X, and the Allies mostly developing and using the 60lb jobs...Mosquitos got most proficent with these, [the Banff Wing], having the rails harmonised to hit not just superstructure, but to go for the waterline/engine-room...- As much as I cherish the Swordfish, Seafires and Sea Mosquitos were developments into Defensive Offensive Naval Warfare, in the light of new advancing Weaponry...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

but a sea-fire had no chance of doing some of the things swordfish's did, and while seafires and sea mosquitos were for carrier defence, swordfish offered some offensive power...............


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

That's why you have both kinds of aircraft on a carrier. The Sea Mosquito was more versatile than the Swordfish, but it couldn't do the Torp job as good as the String Bag...I can't decide on this one...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

in terms of achievements, i'm gonna go for the swordfish still.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Was the Sea Mosquito ever used in service during WWII? I was under the impression it was a post-war aircraft but I may be wrong. I'm not especially impressed with the Seafire as a carrier aircraft. It wasn't nearly as sturdy as purposed built naval plains and it's range really limited its usefulness. I also think it's telling, that whenever possibly, the FAA prefered to use Corsairs or Hellcats to the homegrown Seafires. So I'm still sticking with the Stringbag.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

a sea mossie would be a bit big for brittish carriers wouldn't it? after all, the brittish carriers were famed for their low decks............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

The Brits did trial landings with a Sea Mosquito onboard HMS Ideftaigable in 1944, but I'm not sure any of them actually saw service during the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i don't think they did, but i would be very ineterested if anyone has any pics of one...............


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

The Sea Mosquito didn't actually arrive in force until September 1945, [50 of 'em] the testing starting with the HMS. Indefatigable, as stated.- They were basically a FB.Mk.VI, and with folding wings, arrestor hook and even rockets to assist take-off, and were known as TR.Mk33's...and capable of carrying an 18in. torpedo - But their armament capabilities have been equated to a ' Crusier broadside ', so they were Offensively-capable. - My current reading of Corsairs at the moment, states that the Americans preferred the Hellcats to Corsairs on Carriers, due to their shorter nose being easier to land...the Seafires, besides their narrow-track undercart would've had a long nose to land around too, but they did do good service, although the Corsairs were built with a dive-bomber capabilty- lowering their under-carriage acted very-well as dive-brakes - they carried-off some good results at this task...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

And since the Sea Mosquito arrived after the VJ Day, it can hardly be the best FAA aircraft of the war. I've never heard it's firepower compared to a cruiser broadside though I've often heard a barrage of rockets likened to a destroyer broadside (which seems more reasonable). The Corsair may have been the best aircraft opperated by the FAA, but it wasn't homegrown. Does it still qualify for this discussion?


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

We Brits still made the Corsair what it was. 

The Seafire was perfectly capable of defending the Carrier if attacked, and that's its task.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

You could argue that the USMC made the Corsair what it was. The Seafire was a fine interceptor but that's all it was. Suppose a British carrier equipped with Seafires wanted to launch a strike against a target 250-300 miles away. What's going to fly escort? A Seafire would be hard-pressed to meet that kinda range even if everything went exactly right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

swordfish were invincible, they didn't need fighter escort ...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I think you are stretching the truth abit there Lanc. I've never heard of Swordfish running into enemy fighters which is probably a good thing for the Swordfish crews.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

yup  if a swordfish crew saw a 190 or a 262... well... oh dear  thats said, i doubt the enemy would waste their ammo on them, they'd probably just fly straight through em  hell, even a stuka would be able to shoot down a swordfish


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The Swordfish would have been a sitting duck in an air-to-air situation. But I have heard that the slow speed of the Swordfish saved them in their attacks on the Bismarck. Supposedly, the fire-control for the German AA guns assumed a minimum speed of 100 mph so that they were actually firing slightly ahead of the Swordfish! Slow speed a defense? Go figure!


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

I haven't read extensively about Swordfish, but in the Channel Dash, they indeed suffered horrific losses, but the feature of their slow speed seems to me to have been a sort of blessing, to a degree. I agree the Gunnery Control would have been 'tuned' for faster aircraft attacking, and fighters like Fw190's would have found attacking such a slow aircraft quite tricky, especially if return-fire from their rather meagre rear-gunner could affect their aim...biplanes were quite manoevrable compared to fast monoplane fighters, and although they were 3 seaters, lining-up to drop their torpedo was their most vulnerable moments...I salute those that flew them, and they did indeed have their successes - and who else would have been their escorts but Seafires ?- Finding the best FAA aircraft still seems 'lacking' if the Swordfish is to be heralded as it's best, [no direspect to it's brave actions], but there doesn't seem to be much else that lobbed torpedos so effectively...Seafires did do a sterling job as defense/escort aircraft, and after further reference, Sea Mosquitos did came a little late, although I do strongly support Mosquito Mk.XVIII's FB.VI's such as the Banff Wing on anti-shipping duties, as having consumate firepower not evidenced in other aircraft...they were 'Flying Cruisers' of the Coastal Strike Force...' I've gotta do more reading on FAA duties of WWII, admittedly....that's why I enjoy this Website so much!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The problem with finding the best FAA aircraft is that the FAA never really got the chance to develop homegrown aircraft. Many of the purpose built carrier aircraft (Barracuda, Albecore) are clearly not contenders and the Seafire was a derrivative of a land fighter rather than a purpose built carrier plane. The result was that by the end of the war the Royal Navy's carrier were mostly sporting American built planes (Hellcats, Corsairs, and Avengers).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

the firefly was good 8) loadsa stats on the first page 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The Firefly was a fine multipurpose aircraft. I don't know much about it, but I've always been a little skeptical about its actual usefullness as a fighter. I would appreciate any information.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I think the best British Naval fighter used during the war was the Fairey Firefly
> 
> http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/firefly_wb271_preserved_flying_RNHF.jpg
> 
> ...



There you go! 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

That's good, I'm going with the Firefly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

brozewhaler doesnt half make for interesting reading... wonder where he is


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

brozewhaler doesnt half make for interesting reading... wonder where he is


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

He disappeared soon after the whole Belgium incident...


----------



## nutter (May 5, 2004)

"It performed well in dogfights despite the Firefly's size and was armed with four 20mm cannons as well as rockets and mines (for the bomber role)"

no it didn't it first flew in 1942 and didn't shoot anything down in a dogfight until 1945. not a very good fighter


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

And your evidence of this disagreement is where?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

I have trouble imagine that the early Fireflies that were barely breaking 300mph were very effective in an air-to-air role. Even the post-war variants with a Griffon engine would only make 386mph. Don't get my wrong, the Firefly was great for ground attack (especially since the FAA lacked a dive-bomber) but I just don't see it shooting down many fighters.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

There's always luck, and 300 mph isn't that bad if you come across other dive or torpedo bombers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

I wouldn't want to tangle with a Zero if all I had was 300 mph. I've never seen anything on the Firefly's maneuverability but it couldn't possibly have been a match for the Zero and couldn't use speed to it's advantage like the Americans did.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

That's true but you always have to look at skill of pilot, a bad pilot can make a great aircraft poor.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

> I do strongly support Mosquito Mk.XVIII's FB.VI's such as the Banff Wing on anti-shipping duties, as having consumate firepower not evidenced in other aircraft...they were 'Flying Cruisers' of the Coastal Strike Force...'



actually that title has to go to the beaufighter, 4 20mm, 6 303's, and a torp............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

There was a Mosquito equipped with a 57mm cannon though. I can't remember its other armament though. .303s wouldn't do much against a ship apart from aim aid.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

remeber the beau was a fighter and ground attack aswell as ship strike, so that's why it needed them, but it would do allot of damage with the 90lb rockets............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well, I just don't know. The Mosquito was good though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

the beau was better in a ship strike, and most ground attack, that's bout it.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well there's nothing for the Mosquito designers to be ashamed of if it was beaten in a few things, since it excelled in most other things and could do almost everything tasked to a plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

very very true, it doesn't say much for us brtis that we nearly didn't order what became one of the best planes of the war at all!!!!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Now that would have been a huge mistake. Have you seen the Mosquito in American markings, it looks really weird but they did use it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i've seen it, and i think whoever gave them to the americans deserves to be done for treason, it was massacerred by the americans, it looks stupid!!!!!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, yes it does.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

thank you for agreeing, again, it's the same with RAF mustangs however..........


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

I always had the impression the Mosquito replaced the Beaufighter in alot of roles; Nightfighting for example...- While I have the utmost respect for the Beau and all it's Duties-performed, the Mosquito was capable of heavier armament...37 AND 57mm cannon, and the humble .303 was more than a flea in the ear, in a dogfight or ground-attack -[50 cal. would've been better, however...] - the American Mossies were mostly Reconnaissance variants although Canada sent them some Bomber ones too. - Although the Beau was heavier, they shared the 4 cannon and 60lb rocketry, .303's, torpedos, mines etc. but the speed manoevrability, range, altitude and bombing recce roles were Mosquito advantages...bloody shame they didn't have the DH.-103 Hornet up going , because they went FAA postwar too...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

.303s were good enough for dog fighting if you had enough of them, the Hurricane and Spitfire pulled it off with 8, and 12 in the Hurricane Mk. IV.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

Yeah, they sufficed, but the 50 cal. was heavier and came in greater variety, that say dogfighting Zeros in the Pacific that were a 'flammable' aircraft, incendiaries were belted in more quantity...or AP/HE/Tracer for ground-attacks...even today they're still very much in use....


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, they are but then if you think about it the Zero wasn't very well armoured so a Hurricane Mk. IV with 12 .303s would do a lot of damage to the craft.
Of course more ideally you would put .50 cals in the aircraft put with that you have less ammo, or more weight which is less range.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

Well, in the case of Mosquitos, they left the .303's off anyway to make room for the radar in the Nightfighters, plus the gunflash destroyed night-vision. - 50 cal. is pretty-well 'light-cannon' anyway...couple of them in the Mossie would've been an improvement over 4x .303's...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The Mosquito with the 57mm cannon was the FB.XVIII. In addition it retained the 4 .303s in the nose. Although the weapon proved successful, Coastal Command (not the FAA) considered a standard FB.VI with rockets a better overall selection. In total, only 27 of them were built.

In the .50cal v .303 argument, with a .50cal you do carry less ammo, but with the slower rate of fire there probably won't be much difference in firing TIME and the .50cal definitely packed more range and more punch.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

The 'TSE-TSE' Mk.XVIII were specialist aircraft, and although they were Coastal Command, I'm pretty sure they came under Navy authority to a degree...I remember reading somewhere that Churchill, who was First Sea Lord also, saying the Admiralty wanted some too, once they were getting into serious production...[and the XVIII could also carry the 37mm Molins instead...]


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

in the film pearl harbour, a p-40 is chasing a zero and manages to tke off one of its wings with just 4 bullets from a .50 cal  and it was all going so well till then


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

You could destroy a plane with one hit from a 37mm, so why not use them all the time? It depends on the aircraft you are using, the .303 was perfectly suited to the Hurricane, and the Hurricane IV would have been a devestating hail of bullets especially with more chance of striking a fuel line or the pilot. 
Personally I would rather be flying an aircraft with a mix of .50 cal and 20mm but it's the aircraft as I said. 

C.C I would advise getting knowledge from movies, especially Pearl Harbour. Did you notice the ships had modern radars on them?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

nope, do they really?


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, they used many modern ships and you can see the modern radar domes on them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

someone like me wouldnt have been able to pick that out in a million years  nice one  8)


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Well I didn't when I watched it, I saw it on a programme, then watched it again and noticed it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

If you watch Pearl Harbor there are several shots of what appear to be Ticonderoga class cruisers blowing up. Additionally, the Japanese fleest features Nimitz class carriers! I don't understand going to so much trouble to beautifully recreate ships like the Arizona and the Oklahoma only to screw up the film with that.

There were several reasons why the 37mm wasn't used that often for air-to-air. Early 37mm guns, like the one on the P-39, had a nasty habit of jamming when fired during maneuvers. They also had a relatively low muzzle velocity (read short range) and low rate of fire (meaning your eim has to be nearly perfect and that is very hard to do against a maneuvering fighter).


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I know Lightning Guy, I was joking because C.C said a Zeros wing got ripped off with 4 shots from a .50 cal. Never mind. You wouldn't be able to fly effectively flying 37mm cannons anyway, the recoil would cause major handling problems.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

i never notised the ships, but that is a pretty bad film............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

i wouldnt say bad, just a little OTT and a bit poorly researched


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I wouldn't say bad, I'd say crap.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

The scenes around Battleship Row were very well done. But the historical value of the movie is virtually zero.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 7, 2004)

Always wondered why they took the 37mm's outa P-39's for 20mm's ! - The fact that some new Projects Officer at Bell followed a NACA suggestion, and took-out the turbosuperchargers, doomed the P-39; - it was only good for low-level work after that, which was a bloody shame really, they were a delight to fly apparently, and I quite liked their unique design....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

Few people would believe it, but if the P-39 had retained its turbo-supercharger it could have been one of the great fighters of the war. As it was, it was thoroughly unloved in the US, though the Russians had great success with it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

> Always wondered why they took the 37mm's outa P-39's for 20mm's !



because the 37mm wasn't very suitable for fighters, low rate of fire, little ammo not to mention the huge recoil.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

37mm was fine for ground attack, but lousy for air-to-air for all of the reasons mentioned.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

I thought we all knew that, I questioned it on the P-38 for its ground attack..


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Just making the comment.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

I know, and well said.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

why are you saying well done to him, all he said was 



> 37mm was fine for ground attack, but lousy for air-to-air for all of the reasons mentioned.



i put forward the argument............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Well, it was nice and simple, and short.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

And I have presented the same argument more eloquently in some of the other threads.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

Are we saying that the P-39 was nice and simple and short????????


Kiwimac


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

We are making the statement that the discussion on the pros and cons of 37mm armament was nice, short, and simple.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Yes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

the gun or the conversation about it?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

both


----------



## Gemhorse (May 11, 2004)

Still kinda liked the P-39, they're becoming quite a restoration item these days...maybe someone will put that turbosupercharger in one and see just what we missed during the War...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I never really liked the P-39. Maybe the supercharger would have changed my opinion. But I thought it looked aweful (P-63 was better). And it's firepower wasn't very impressive (2 x .50cal and 4 x .30cal, and that nearly useless 37mm).


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes maybe a mix of 4x .50s and 2x 20mm might have been more ideal.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Even the 4 x .50cals of the P-63 were an improvement. 6 .50cals wouldn't have been bad and could have been done fairly easily.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

i think the p-39 looked pretty good


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I never liked anything with that stupid car-door on the side.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Yes, the Mustang had that armament and that was pretty damn good. I still think a mix of cannon and machine gun is the best.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 13, 2004)

Yep, I agree with that...they did have success as a low-level attack aircraft, but I felt it was somewhat 'unfinished' as to it's real potential...would've been a bitch to get out of in a hurry with that door though....Anyway, I'm still rooting for the Seafire, with gulps of respect for the Swordfish...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

My problem with the Seafire is that it really wasn't suited to carrier duty. It wasn't extremely rugged (not like a Hellcat or Corsair) and it's long nose and narrow undercarriage track didn't lend themselves to carrier landings.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes but the British are champions of carrier landings, come here Americans, let us show you how it's done.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2004)

Well established facts, yes, but warts and all, they still gave good sterling Offensive Defensive service - the FAA didn't get into the US aircraft until later, mostly ex-US Corsairs, as the Hellcats were much more easier to handle on carriers. They didn't have a long nose, so the Marine Corsairs flew off to airfields and continued from there...Seafires might not have been the bees-knees ON carriers, but off them they could scrap...they were afterall 'Spitfires in the Navy,' and their range wasn't the greatest, but that's how the Empire accomodated a shortfall, wasn't it ...? Incidentally, it was a British idea to create the angled-flightdeck, although they themselves took some convincing; - Abit like the Mosquito when still on the drawing-board; - until they saw it fly...then they were convinced....


----------



## Andrew (May 14, 2004)

This reply is slightly off topic.

We not only invented the Idea of the Aircraft Carrier, but we also invented all the items that are used on a modern Aircraft Carrier, the Steam Catapult, Arrester Gear, Gyroscopic Mirror Landing Sight, and as already stated the Angled Flight Deck, we also invented the concept of the Island Bridge, and when we announced that we were going to Scrap our Aircraft Carriers, one American Admiral is reputed to have said "who are we going to get our ideas from now"


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

typical americans..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

8) 

(i havent done that in a while, felt good  )


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, the Aircraft Carrier was a creation of the British. The complaint on the Seafire having short range is a little unfair looking at British doctrine which had an eye for defence rather than attack. 
The British military the only force in the world that was actually a Defence force right up until after the EE Lightning.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

The comment about Americans was a little unfair . . .


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

What did I say about the Americans?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Not you . . . Lanc.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

OK


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yes lanc, i should have pointed that out. jj1982 was regularly told off for taking the pi** outta other people and their countries, please refrain from comments which maybe offensive to some


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

you agreed................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Calm down, children.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

i'm 13 i'll have you know ..............


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Lanc is all grown up.  I don't really care, for a start age isn't wisdom, and I'm only 17 anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

where did i agree?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

agree with what, we're talking about weather age means wisdom, which it doesn't.................


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

It certainly doesn't mean wisdom. A lot of older people are ignorant beyond belief, that's why I don't respect my elders unless they deserve my respect, or respect me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

i have respect for elders if they have respect for me.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

i respect everyone 8) i dont care if they respect me or not, i cant force them to


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

People have to earn my respect, and all people that fought in World War 2 have earnt it. Otherwise, they have to earn it some other way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

by bringing you food??


----------



## Gemhorse (May 29, 2004)

That's the great tradgedy of Life - You don't get your Youth and Wisdom at the same time...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

speak for yourself............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

you cant have enough life experience in your youth, so you can possibly have wisdom.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

> you cant have enough life experience in your youth



that doesn't mean i've not got wisdom.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i know, it means you have very little wisdom


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

i have wisdom enough to get us back on topic (see the link there8))

i think the most successfull FAA aircraft was the swordfish............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

that was a pretty good link 8) shame you messed it up by sayin the swordfish was the best because it wasnt, the firfly was


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

ah, that's where you're wrong, if you read it again you'll see i said it was the most successfull, not the best, so ha!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

Piss off! most successful was the Battle


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

obviously................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

something we agree on


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

but seriously now, i think most people will agree with the statement that the swordfish was the most successfull FAA aircraft??


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

The Swordfish certainly was the most successful FAA aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

Agreed. Considering the age and performance of the Stringbag, I would say that its performance was one of the great surprises of the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

indeed 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

i think it was just because they had nothing else that could do the job................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

Not really. Which is why the FAA ended up using American Avengers as its primary torpedo bomber late in the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

the topic is about best FAA aircraft though, of which the firefly walks away with the title.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

The Firefly would probably be the only one that could challenge the Swordfish. But I think the Swordfish gets the edge because of its impact. Many of the most famous FAA missions of the war (Bismarck, Taranto) were purely Swordfish affairs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

and the swordfish was more manouverable than the firefly...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

it was also uglier


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

the swordfish wasn't ugly

(oh god, we're gonna have erich in here saying "what sources did you use for this")...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

i didnt say it was ugly, i said it was ugliER


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 2, 2004)

I have no criticism of the Swordfish, which did a terrific job considering. However, the backbone of Carrier defence was the Seafire, and although it was secondary to the US aircraft used by FAA, it still did a good job as well, particuarly the Mk.XV, being Griffon-engined. Also, they were armed with cannon, whereas most other Carrier Fighters were armed with MG's.- Although mostly defensive, they did alot of offensive operations, bombing and strafing during the Pacific conflict, and as a testament to their adaption to the role of Carrier Fighter, it wasn't until post-1954 that Seafires were finally superceded by the Supermarine Attacker, the first FAA jet fighter...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

The Seafire Mk. XV didn't enter service until May of '45. There were less than three months left in the war and only four squadrons were equipped with it during the war. According to the FAA's own website, the Royal Navy ended up using Corsairs and Hellcats as the primary fleet defense fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

and of corse we all know who made the corsair the fighter it was............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

yup. the trouble is the "terrible two", archer and viper, dont post anymore  so theres no-one to argue


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

it seems there are less and less regular posters now, we're a dying breed, however erich's araival has made things a bit better, if a bit longer.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

yup  since bronzewhaler left its all been downhill


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

i wouldn't say that, i'm still here afterall

(i'm expecting a good reply here................)


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 4, 2004)

Yeah, you're quite right there LG...Bloody fine looking aircraft though ! - I'm a fan of the Corsair too, having recently read of a N.Z. Pilot who flew them, quite a viceless aircraft in the hands of an experienced pilot. I liked the fact that the Pratt Whitney engines were so reliable and durable, having a cylinder shot-out, and you could still fly home ! - Something y'can't do with inline V12's...- They used these R-2800 engines in so many different aircraft, a real testament to Radials, and American Engineering....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

I've heard of P-47s over Europe coming back with multiple cylinders shot out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

radials give more H.P, but they cause more air resistance, so they cancel each other out..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Depends on how much more power they give. On the basic R-2800 producing 2,000 hp it probably does cancel out. By the end of the war, an engine of the exact same size was producing 2,850hp which is a decided advantage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2004)

whereas inlines generally give less power, but offer less air resistance...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

what about engines in a V configuration, they offer more power than in-lines but in a samaller space, meaning even less air resistance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

as far as i know inlines were more common than Vs...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

wasnt the merlin a V12 though?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 11, 2004)

I don't know about the Merlin, but the Db-601,-603,-605, and -610 (two linked Db-605's) were all inverted v's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

sorry, it's just in a book i was reading, it talks about inlines, so i assumed they were common................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 12, 2004)

in-lines are actually quite rare especially with 12 cylinders. in-line 6's are common as are in-line 4's 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 12, 2004)

Actually, radials required alot more work for the pilot, as in aerobatics the engines being air-cooled, required constant temperature-watching and resultant cowl-flap adjustment...I imagine they eventually got thermostats, like the Mustangs had, to control the constant air altitude change on the engine while in combat. - The Corsair was quickly passed onto the US Marines by their Navy, because of their vicious stall which made carrier operation alot trickier...choosing the Hellcat instead...Many were passed onto the FAA, but Corsairs were a much better land-based fighter and although more powerful than the earlier Seafires, the latter was used more for Carriers. - The RNZAF had 13 Corsair Sqn.'s during the Soloman's conflict, and they were used as land-based fighters. The FAA did continue to use them though, even off light fleet carriers, their pilots were indeed heroic chaps...Land-based Corsairs landed at up to 120 knots, the Carrier guys at 83 knots, five knots short of their very dangerous stall-speed....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 12, 2004)

Other reasons for not deploying the Corsair to carriers immediately included bounce on landing and horrid visibility over the nose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

problems both sorted by the brittish..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

......as established several times before.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

how much is five knots in mph??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

About 6.25 mph. And actually, the British never solved the issue of visibility (unless you can find evidence of the British raising the cockpit or shortening the nose).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

we developed a way of coming in at an angle so you could see the whole arrier, then straightening up at the end..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

I'm not sure who developed that, but that was actually common practice by WWII. The Japanese even built their initial carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, Soryu) with islands on opposite sides with one carrier using a right turn landing pattern and the adjacent carrier using a left turn landing pattern.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 14, 2004)

The Corsairs were usually happy to do three-point landings as they were a delight to fly, just that nasty stall to watch-out for....the landing approach by curving around and down was used since the first 'long-nosed breeds', Hurri's n' Spit's, came onto the scene...simply the easiest way to land, as it gave one visual right-up until you were lined-up to touch-down...just like they 'snake' left to right up to the flight-line to take-off, so they get to see what's in front...Corsairs had quite a short take-off for their size, and if they 'bounced' on landing, you weren't doing it right;- they had a tendency to nose-over, hence the emphasis on buzz break three-point landings, where the tail wheel was locked in place to give directional stability...Apart from this , Corsairs were pretty 'viceless' aircraft...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

But those were pretty serious vices. It was far more difficult to fly than its USN stablemate the Hellcat and wasn't called the 'Ensign Eliminator' without reason.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

But those were pretty serious vices. It was far more difficult to fly than its USN stablemate the Hellcat and wasn't called the 'Ensign Eliminator' without reason.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 15, 2004)

Yeah, yeah, got that twice....But it was still a deadly fighter, with great all-round capabilities, and it was really a case of aircrew becoming totally familiar and at home with them, vices all, that made them a great asset in the PTO. - The FAA made the best of them, as did US Marines and us 'Colonials'....The 'Black Sheep' made them famous, the Colonials were great support to Ground Forces, especially 'Daisy-cutting' the jungle....that left the Hellcats free for Carrier Defence....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Sorry about the double post. I had trouble with my internet service last night and I think that might have been responsible. 

I am not denying the abilities of the Corsair. Properly handled I believe it was the best carrier fighter of the war easily. But you described it as being "pretty viceless." A pilot familiar with it could handle the quirks of a Corsair but it was pretty quick to kill anyone (pilot or foe) who didn't respect it. On the otherhand, nearly anyone could fly a Hellcat. That was a plane that was "pretty viceless."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

i agree with LG on this one, the hellcat was the easier to fly..........

one question, when a carrier plane was lost, when/how would they replace it?? i mean in the western pacific they wouldn't be ably to fly a new one out from the mainland, were they brought on supply ships or smaller carriers?? how ofetn could they do this??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Not very often. Which is why every Essex class carried was required to carry spare parts equivalent to 25% of its air group. In other words, if the ship was carrying 100 planes, it was supposed to basically be carrying enough spare parts to build another 25. As far as replacements, the carrier was unlikely to get any for its entire patrol (possibly several months) but I imagine replacements could be taken on every time the fleet set into Ulithi or wherever for refit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

so they couldn't bring any on ships?? how did they replace the ships after midway??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I haven't seen anything about resupply ships bringing more aircraft. The Japanese had the idea of a replenishment carrier. They converted the third Yamato class BB into the (at that time) largest carrier in the world, the Shinano. They decided it would be used to carry replenishment aircraft to the carrier and also carry more complete repair facilities so that damaged but airworthy aircraft could be flown back to her and repaired. They never got to test the idea because an American submarine sank her as she was moving to another port to be fully fitted out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 15, 2004)

how would a resupply carrier differ from a normal one??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

It wasn't intended to see combat and carried a very small compliment of aircraft for its size (a planned 45 or so). Instead it would ferry new aircraft and aircraft related supplies between the home islands and wherever the fleet was operating.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

would it carry and defensive armourment for the event of a suprise attack??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

The Shinano was intended to carry a very heavy AA armament including 16 5"/40 guns and 145 25mm. Additionally, it was supposed to carry a small airgroup of 45-50 planes (small considering 120 could probably have been carried) for self-defense.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

they'd be pretty pissed off if they lost those planes in dogfights then had to go back to get more......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well like I said, they never got to try it out. The Shinano was sunk before she was even fitted out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

back on topic, i think we all agree on the swordfish was the most sucessfull fleet air arm plane of the war???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

back on topic, i think we all agree on the swordfish was the most sucessfull fleet air arm plane of the war???


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Easily. There is nothing else to compare it to.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 16, 2004)

but was it the best??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well, again how are we defining best? Certainly not the best in terms of performance. But it did out-live the Alabacore which was supposed to replace it. The plane that did replace it was the Avenger but since it was American built should probably be omitted from this discussion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

as much as it pains me to say it, as a island nation that depended on our carriers, we hardly exelled ourselfs when it came to the design of naval planes...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

No you didn not. But alot of that was infighting between the RAF and the FAA. It was imagined that naval versions of land-based planes would work fine. Well, that wasn't always the case.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

Plus the fact that Britain didn't depend on its carriers. Being an island nation where defence was the only military stratergy short ranged land-based fighters were perfectly good enough to serve the purpose of defence of the British nation. 

Carriers are an offensive weapon, not defensive. Still, we're the ones who invented them, and put all the improvements on them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

That may be true, but at no time since inventing the carrier have the British had the best carrier in the world. That title would belong to the IJN and the USN.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

That is also true, but Britain, as a defensive nation doesn't really need them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

perhaps I should have said as an island nation............

and it's proberly worthy of note that we came up with many of the ideas that make your american carriers so great.........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

I didn't deny that. IMO the RN would have done well to have invested more in carriers during the period between the wars. Yes they were an island nation, but during the 20s and 30s they were still responsible for a huge empire/commonwealth. That was the reason the RN was as large as it was but most of that strength was in a WWI-style battle fleet. The RN would have done well to have produced one or two more Ark Royal class CVs prior to the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2004)

but you know how stubborn we are, we were always set in our minds that the battle ship was the primary naval weapon, WWII changed that however...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 22, 2004)

My turn for 'Internet-troubles'... Yeah, thanks LG, I do concede the Hellcat as being the Best Carrier Aircraft ; - the book I've been reading is of a NZ pilot who trained on P-40's and fought in Corsairs, and it seems that once experienced, this 'vice' was overcome by taking care during those manoevres. He had a scare early in his training with the stall, flying the P-40, so he was most careful of this vice in the heavier Corsair and become 'at one' with them during his service. - I have now read more extensively on the Swordfish, and do also concede that the 'Stringbags' were the Best Offensive Carrier Aircraft in the FAA...The Seafire must rate though, as the Best Defensive Carrier Aircraft, I cannot accept the Firefly here as it wouldn't have been much chop in a dogfight, although they were good at Ground-attacks.- I feel the greatest problem the FAA had, was as a result of the inter-service rivalry which really seems to have inhibited the positive-growth and development of the 'Senior Service's' Aviation Arm during the War years...Britain is always very proud of it's Navy...like Lanc says, 'stubborn'.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

The Seafire was the best 'homegrown' fighter the FAA had during the war but it was still a carrier-based version of a land-based fighter and, consequently, was less than perfect. It was a wonderful defense fighter, but lacked the range to be an offensive fighter. It simply couldn't escort Swordfish or Avengers to a useful radius.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

but the stringbad didn't need escort, it was hardly likely to run into a pack of 109s in the middle of the atlantic were they, and there'd be no point in escorting them on a ship srike...............................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

But would have been a serious problem had the RN engaged in a fleet encounter with the IJN. I realize that is all hypothetical, but the Seafire lacked that range for any sort of effective offensive opperation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

but if we had come into that problem, we would have developed a fighter with better range or just used hellcats..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Probably just use Hellcats. They were available and a lot easier to aquire than developing a new fighter. Frankly, the RN was pretty much dependant on the USN for aircraft during the later half of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2004)

that's because we had that option, if we had needed longer range fighters and america couldn't supply any, we would have developed our own....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

But still easier said that done.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

i realise it would have taken some time and a few tries, but knowing us brits, we would have got there in the end..................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2004)

It's hard for everyone and anyone to design a fighter. In times of war though, things happen quickly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

it's doubtful if allot of our modern technology would have beed developed as quickly if it wasn't needed for the war effort.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm not disagreeing that things come about quickly during wartime, but things rarely work perfectly well the first time and maturing a weapon-system takes time. I would say about the quickest that could be excpected would be a year to actually develop a brand new aircraft and get it into action.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

we'll ignore the 117 days for the P-51 then shall we??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

117 days for design to first flight. Include time to test the aircraft, train aircrews, deploy them overseas, and get squadrons/groups opperational, and you are talking closer to a year.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

but 117 days is pretty amazing for a design to first flight....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

I'm not denying that. But it wasn't 117 days from design to effective service.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 29, 2004)

I still think the Seafire wasn't as '2nd rate' as all that...they had external fuel tanks afterall, later in the conflict, and the Griffoned Mk.XV entered service in 1944, although it didn't make a noticeable impact as the enemy was on the run by then...The Seafire's contribution was large, as far as the FAA went, coming on stream in 1942. They weren't 'ideal', but they played a significant role in all Allied amphibious landings, in fact they were the first onto the hastily-made landing strips on D-Day, only a few kms from the German positions...I think Britain 'made a silk purse out of a sour's ear' with them.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

They did make an impact and they were a good fighter . . . but I think it's significant, that when they were available, the FAA prefered to equip its squadrons with purpose built types like the Hellcat and Corsair.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

the seafire wasn't ideal for sea, it couldn't take a huge deal of damage and had very little range.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

Plus the long nose and narrow landing gear track.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

but we came up with a way to counter the long nose, that's how the corsair problem was solved (well, the long nose part anyway)..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

Well, the Corsair had an advantage in carrier landing that the Seafire didn't and that was the high-blown canopy. Forward visibility for both types was pretty poor but I would guess that extra head room probably made things a little easier on the Corsair pilot. And in multi-role ability, the Seafire was a poor match for either American type.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

admitidly the seafire was only good for convoy defence.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 2, 2004)

Well, it was a fine interceptor. It was probably the finest ship-borne interceptor of the war (only competition being the -4 Corsair). It lacked, however, the durability and the versatility really needed on a ship.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

i wouldn't say it lacked durability, after all it didn't have any fighters to go up against in the atlantic..........................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

Well it's liquid-cooled Merlin or Griffon wasn't nearly as resistant to groundfire as the R-2800 used in the Hellcat or Corsair.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 7, 2004)

but then again it didn't come up against a huge ammount of ground fire either..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

No, but that is still a liability in the air-to-air role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

how is ground fire a liability in a dogfight??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

Ground fire isn't but an easily disabled engine is. A liquid-cooled engine wasn't nearly as robust as an air-cooled one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

but a liquid cooled generally gave better performance.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

That is difficult to say. Many of the fastest piston-engined fighters used radials (Bearcat, Sea Fury, P-47M, F4U-4). In general, the in-line weighted less and produced less drag but they also produced less horsepower.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

but that's the thing, a radial wil produce more drag, which cancels out some of it's extra power......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

But not necessarily all. For example, the initial R-2800 was churning out 2,000hp. By the end of the war it was producing 2,850hp with water injection (equivalent to something like 1.75 Merlins) but without an increase in drag.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 9, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> That is difficult to say. Many of the fastest piston-engined fighters used radials (Bearcat, Sea Fury, P-47M, F4U-4). In general, the in-line weighted less and produced less drag but they also produced less horsepower.



Fw-190 (not the Dora, that has an Inline with an annular radiator), Corsair, Japanese planes other than the Tony, Beau, Wildcat, Hellcat, many Ju-88 NF variants, La-5/7...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

Well, I was pointing out just a few aircraft which were among the very fastest of the war. I never understood why the Germans used a for mounted radiator as it added drag and low-drag was the major advantage to a liquid-cooled engine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 10, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Lightning Guy said:
> 
> 
> > That is difficult to say. Many of the fastest piston-engined fighters used radials (Bearcat, Sea Fury, P-47M, F4U-4). In general, the in-line weighted less and produced less drag but they also produced less horsepower.
> ...



what point are you trying to make??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

Especially when you put the Wildcat in there. 

The Spitfire, Lightning, Mustang all in-line and were some of the BEST planes of the war.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

I don't deny that. But the common thought at the start of the war was that a radial-engined fighter couldn't compete with a inline-engined fighter. Clearly that wasn't the case.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 11, 2004)

until the mid war years.....................


----------



## Stu60H (Jan 2, 2017)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I think the best British Naval fighter used during the war was the Fairey Firefly
> 
> http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/firefly_wb271_preserved_flying_RNHF.jpg
> 
> ...



My Father served on the HMS Indefatigable as an airframe fitter, before being transferred to Monab II HMS Nabberly in Australia to assemble Hellcats, Corsairs & Avengers for the Pacific fleet. He always said the old stringbags were good for cooling down the beer when crossing the Indian ocean. Apparently they would put a couple of crates of beer in the back of the Swordfish cockpit take off go up to 10 to 15,000 feet for a convoy observation flight and land with ice-cold beer. I have photos of him with Fireflys at Nabberly but he always said the Corsair was the better fighter & the Avenger the better torpedo bomber. There is a good photo of one Firefly that had an undercarriage failure on landing & bent the prop & underside up. The only reason the Royal Navy didn't continue to use the Corsairs & Avengers was that they were on 'Lend Lease' & had to be destroyed at the end of the War. My father said he nearly cried when dozens of aircraft he assembled were pushed of the end of the Carrier just off the Sydney Harbour.
Cheers.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 14, 2019)

Andrew said:


> bronzewhaler82 Wrote
> 
> 
> Well lets put it this way , I think most aircraft that Fairey produced were not very good , they were all seriously underpowered , even the much vaunted Fairey Firefly considering it had a Rolls Royce Griffon as it's powerplant , was not quick off the mark , the only aircaft they produced which were any good was the Swordfish , followed by the Albcore which was basically a Swordfish with a bigger engine , and the height of luxury an enclosed cockpit .


If Fairey had built the Fulmar with a Vulture engine that worked and the Firefly with a Sabre engine that worked then both planes would have had a decent enough performance to compete with IJN single engine single seat fighters, but they didn't. Air frames great, engines under powered.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If Fairey had built the Fulmar with a Vulture engine that worked and the Firefly with a Sabre engine that worked then both planes would have had a decent enough performance to compete with IJN single engine single seat fighters, but they didn't. Air frames great, engines under powered.


Neither Fulmar or Firefly was intended to compete with single engine fighters.
Firefly was a very capable dive bomber/attack aircraft, and a far better bomber interceptor than virtually any other DB aircraft.


----------

