- Thread starter
-
- #201
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 Stringbag was certainly there in numbers and what the FAA could field at the time, but it was obsolescent.
The Shark also had hydraulic-powered folding wings.
The Shark also had hydraulic-powered folding wings.
And, at least in Canadian service a fully enclosed canopy.The Shark also had hydraulic-powered folding wings.
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.
IDK, but the weight and dims seem similar. The RCAF Sharks, produced by Boeing Canada in Vancouver in 1937 were Pegasus-powered.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.
See this vid to see the Avenger pilot auto fold in front of all the deck hands trying to manually fold the Seafire 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 folding the wings, the Shark pilot watched with interest - and then pushed the wing fold button.
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.
View attachment 598953
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.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.
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.
View attachment 599045
True. When looking for the best looking single engine application of the Daimler DB601-5 engines you're likely going to pick non-German aircraft.No country really had a monopoly on ugly aircraft, but I really enjoy making fun of WWII era Germany.