Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

nuuumannn said:
The Stringbag was certainly there in numbers and what the FAA could field at the time, but it was obsolescent.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the FAA ever asked for the Swordfish, but that Fairey built it on speculation that their Seal and Blackburn's Sharks would need replacing. I think the FAA would have been better off to tell Fairey to come back with something modern (likely the Albacore) and in the meantime stick a Bristol Pegasus onto the Shark and tell Blackburn to make more.

The Blackburn Shark is faster, smaller (in length, equal in deck area), lighter and longer ranged. The only thing the Swordfish has that the Shark doesn't is a Bristol engine.
 
Would installing the Bristol Pegasus require major structural changes? It didn't work for the Buffalo but it seems like a good idea. Which is of course why it didn't happen.
 
SaparotRob said:
Would installing the Bristol Pegasus require major structural changes? It didn't work for the Buffalo but it seems like a good idea. Which is of course why it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

There were a number of Sharks fitted with Pegasus engines.


Usually identified by the short cowling.

A problem may have been engine allocations. Not every plane (or plane maker) that wanted Pegasus engines got them.
Some makers got Armstrong Siddeley Tigers even when they didn't want them.
 
SaparotRob said:
Would installing the Bristol Pegasus require major structural changes? It didn't work for the Buffalo but it seems like a good idea. Which is of course why it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
IDK, but the weight and dims seem similar. The RCAF Sharks, produced by Boeing Canada in Vancouver in 1937 were Pegasus-powered.

Armstrong Siddeley Tiger - Wikipedia
  • Length: 64.6 in (1,641 mm)
  • Diameter: 50.8 in (1,290 mm)
  • Dry weight: 1,287 lb (584 kg)
Bristol Pegasus - Wikipedia
  • Length: 61 in (1,549 mm)
  • Diameter: 55.3 in (1,405 mm)
  • Dry weight: 1,111 lb (504 kg)
Though I wonder about the execution of the Canadian Shark's overall assembly, with some noteworthy summation of service here, my favourite passage: "There was no synchronization gear for the .303 fixed Browning machine gun firing through the three bladed wooden prop. A red tag reading, "use in emergency only" was hung from the gun. "
 
Last edited:
Hey RCAFson,

re:"It had hydraulic wing locking pins; the hydraulic system allowing for all pins to be actuated simultaneously, but the wing fold was manual."

Well, darn! There goes another one of my treasured mistaken beliefs. I really liked the idea of a Swordfish contemporary biplane with power folding wings. I always imagined a scenario where a Swordfish and a Shark landed on a carrier deck, and while a bunch of deck crew scurried around the Swordfish and manually folded the wings, the Shark pilot watched with interest - and then pushed the wing fold button. Darn it! Curse you I say!
 
Last edited:
See this vid to see the Avenger pilot auto fold in front of all the deck hands trying to manually fold the Seafire wings.

Fairey Albacore. Was so awful?
 
I have to admit that the Shark is the better looking aircraft. I don't see why the FAA bothered with the Stringbag when the better option was to order more Sharks with Pegasus engines and tell Fairey to come back with something like the Albacore or a strike platform that's Battle or Fulmar-like.

It's interesting that the Germans also thought the biplane was the best format for their carrier-based torpedo strike aircraft. I wonder how the Albacore would have compared to the Fieseler Fi 167. Looking at this ugly thing it's clear there's no one at Fieseler who cares about esthetics.

 
Last edited:

This is what happens when a country forces the Bauhaus' members into exile. Of course, some will say the presence of the Balkenkreuz and Hakenkreuz define beauty.
 
swampyankee said:
This is what happens when a country forces the Bauhaus' members into exile. Of course, some will say the presence of the Balkenkreuz and Hakenkreuz define beauty.
Click to expand...
Not that the designers at Fairey have any claims to aesthetics over Fieseler. From Flycatcher to Gannet the naval aviation bureau at Fairey did not waste time on making an aircraft look good. Fulmar and Firefly are okay, but Barracuda? Jeez. I'll give them points for the Fairey Fleetwing, perhaps their prettiest carrier aircraft.

 
Last edited:

No country really had a monopoly on ugly aircraft, but I really enjoy making fun of WWII era Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
Replies
14
Views
759
Robomog
R
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
S
Were the 15*69B cartridge a better option for early WWII fighters
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register