- Thread starter
- #281
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
but I believe Hellcats had difficulty intercepting C6N's as well
To be fair I cant think of any wartime carrier aircraft could reliably catch a C6N it was a speedy bird.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
but I believe Hellcats had difficulty intercepting C6N's as well
Interesting as they had certainly been at the forefront of development of Naval Aviation between the wars.
It wasn't just the Hurricane that couldn't catch the Ju 88, neither could the Seafire IIc during Operation Torch, which is why it was given the low rated Merlin 32 to become the LIIc and hopefully everyone knows what happened to that one at Salerno. IIRC not a single victory although it did manage to drive off the Fw 190A jabo's.The former. I was just making a statement that Hurricanes not catching Ju-88's was not usual.
I may be mistaken, but I believe Hellcats had difficulty intercepting C6N's as well
Only the Corsair, IIRC.To be fair I cant think of any wartime carrier aircraft could reliably catch a C6N it was a speedy bird.
Only the Corsair, IIRC.
This statement is a little disingenuous. With the exception of the Fairey Flycatcher and the postwar Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar, every single seat fighter operated by the RN since the beginning of naval aviation has been either a shared RAF design or an off the shelf USN type. The arguably, very best carrier based piston fighter of all time, the Hawker Sea Fury was a RAF type, and the FAA did just fine with it. Sharing a type with the RAF isn't worthy of Captain Brown's scorn or stigma.In his book "Wings of the Navy" Winkle Brown made an interesting statement, "not a single British designed single seat purpose built naval fighter was employed at sea during WWII".
These are the same people who could not agree on the same 7.7mm small arms cartridge...........As a similarly small sized economy and industrial power (relative to the US), Japan made the same mistake as the British Fulmar/Firefly program in running dual track IJN and IJAF fighter programs. Instead, the Zero and Oscar should have been one type, with mods for sea and land use.
This statement is a little disingenuous. With the exception of the Fairey Flycatcher and the postwar Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar, every single seat fighter operated by the RN since the beginning of naval aviation has been either a shared RAF design or an off the shelf USN type. The arguably, very best carrier based piston fighter of all time, the Hawker Sea Fury was a RAF type, and the FAA did just fine with it. Sharing a type with the RAF isn't worthy of Captain Brown's scorn or stigma.
...
I think Sir Sydney would approve !Finally got around to copying some of my old files and transferring them to my laptop.
Here are a couple of the side-view drawings of my notional SeaHurricane Mk III. As I mentioned in my post "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" the overall foot print would be 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H, so in the hangar the wings could only be folded or unfolded with them between the deep support beams.
View attachment 789263
View attachment 789264
Why not fold them backwards like on the Skua, Roc, Fulmar, Firefly or Firebrand? The added weight and complexity will give the benefit of lower height, overall compactness and a larger CAG.Here are a couple of the side-view drawings of my notional SeaHurricane Mk III. As I mentioned in my post "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" the overall foot print would be 31' 2"L x 18' 6"W x 13' 1"H, so in the hangar the wings could only be folded or unfolded with them between the deep support beams.