Recent content by K5083

Because Lockheed had more 'influence' than any other contender?

None of the Axis powers fielded second-rate fighters to fight the RAF overseas. The RAF did not provide adequate air support for surface forces until well into 1942. Because it was going to win the war alone, not support pongos or matelots. These was only a short period when Hercules could be...

Well yeah, but would you like to suggest any torpedo bomber operational in Feb 42 six of which would get through against a geschwader of the best fighter units in the world at that time? Certainly Devastator or Kate would have done no better. Nor any of the landplanes.

As far as the effect of 'elliptical' is concerned, the Spitfire's wing was not aerodynamically ideal and even if it had been the effect is mostly seen in reduction of induced drag, so range and climb but not so much top speed. Top speed is where the thinness comes in, that's the bonus and the...

Did Grumman maybe go for mid-wing because the fuselage-mounted landing gear they used on the previous FF,F2F and F3F was something they knew how to do? Nearly all other WW2 single-engine fighters went with low wings. Hellcat was barely -mid, F2A mid but spread the gear out over wing and...

There's nothing at all wrong with a tactical aircraft. Surface forces need support from the air and that's the way to do it. But what is the mission of our what-if bomber if it isn't tactical? Do we expect to invest in it to, for the RAF, fly to the Ruhr from UK bases and be anything more...

" Caproni Ca.335 looks like a pretty good candidate too." Jeez Bill, that looks like an under-powered slug.

OK, we've been all round the houses but have we actually found or imagined a single-engined bomber which was not either a tactical aircraft or carrier-borne? Have we found an example of an air force specifying such an aircraft for bombing at a more strategic level after the Battle/Mary/Ann...

With the sole exception of the D4Y we haven't found a succesful operational single used as a bomber. It isn't that it can't be done, it's that it is not a logical use of resources. Two engines get you a far better bomber, and if you want a tactical aircraft you can use a current or slightly...

The Wicked Witch of the West, whom all those witches were dressed up as, was played by Margaret Hamilton. Founder of Hamilton Standard.

A twin out-performs a single with the same engine for all important bomber measures. Saving cost, a single just can't do it. Where there is an advantage to a single is for tactical types, attack aircraft intended to operate over the front lines of a land or sea battle, or for carrier types...

I don't see the good of the longer-range mission. Britain is going to bomb the Ruhr 1,000lbs at a time from presumably Lincolnshire? By day? Or by night? How is this going to advance the Allied cause? What the RAF needed, although it didn't know it, was a tactical bomber capable of supporting...

The technical problems exist but they are trivial. All the players in WW2 were capable of building decent aircraft in all categories, or at least the ones who had good engines.. The problem was the air forces asking for the wrong stuff. They asked for the wrong stuff because they had not...

Transferred from the F5/34 thread "Shortround6 has it right. The RAF had no clue of what to do with the aircraft they had even if the war they planned for had come to pass. They did not plan to have the LW across the channel inside escort range. They did not plan to support the army except...