Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless.I guess the Japanese ultimately didn't need a carrier based scout in the early war because they had the Zero, which worked as an excellent armed scout
Radar also changed considerably as the war went on, also for long range search you search range was rather dependent on the altitude of the plane.also had radar pretty early on, though they also ended up putting that on TBFs, F6Fs and a lot of land based planes.
Not quite. In the early days maintaining and operating a radar set was a black art. Results were variable with many separate variables affecting detection ranges. ASV radar failures were just one factor that helped contribute to the German success in the Channel Dash in Feb 1942. Things got better as the war went on especially after the introduction of centimetric sets.Well it was certainly a neat trick. It made all those aircraft much more useful especially the 'stringbag'. More or less turns into a day / night all weather attack plane too right?
I don't believe it was a shortage of night fighter and strike aircraft. From 1944 the USN CV Air groups all had a night fighter flight attached for defensive purposes especially around dawn and dusk.A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless.
Scouts that need accompanying 2-3 seat aircraft to provide navigation support are also redundant/useless.
Vals and Kates could be used as scouts. It does dilute the strike force but using A6Ms as scouts and waiting for them to fly back from spotting something to land on the carrier or use a short range radio to report a sighting for 1-2 hours earlier doesn't make for very good strikes either.
Radar also changed considerably as the war went on, also for long range search you search range was rather dependent on the altitude of the plane.
Even the US didn't have enough radar equipped night fighters to use them as distant scouts. Even some big carriers only had 4-6 radar equipped night fighters.
To hit the Bismarck needed two types of Swordfish because they couldnt carry both RADAR and a torpedo. In ASW warfare it was purely by chance as close as you could get to a helicopter in WW2. It would take a particular genius to see that future requirement in 1939, the boffins were working on airborne RADAR but the UK was still struggling to deploy Chain Home around all of its coast.Well it was certainly a neat trick. It made all those aircraft much more useful especially the 'stringbag'. More or less turns into a day / night all weather attack plane too right?
Not true.To hit the Bismarck needed two types of Swordfish because they couldnt carry both RADAR and a torpedo. In ASW warfare it was purely by chance as close as you could get to a helicopter in WW2. It would take a particular genius to see that future requirement in 1939, the boffins were working on airborne RADAR but the UK was still struggling to deploy Chain Home around all of its coast.
Thanks, I confused those two bits of info. I knew they were using one plane to guide another.Not true.
All 9 Swordfish of 825 squadron launched from Victorious against the Bismarck carried torpedoes and were all equipped with ASV.II Radar. The leader got a radar contact on Bismarck at 16 miles.
On Ark Royal, the first strike that targeted the Sheffield had a single radar equipped Swordfish but several were launched as part of the second strike. Again all carried torpedoes.
ASV.II used Yagi aerials on the leading edge of the upper wing in front of the pilot and on the outer interplanetary struts. These did not interfere with the carriage of a torpedo between the undercarriage legs.
Come 1944 however, the Swordfish Mk.III was equipped with a radome for a centimetric ASV set between its undercarriage legs. As a result it was unable to carry a torpedo. It's main role was ASW with depth charges and rockets although they did take part in a number of anti-shipping strikes off Norway in 1944/45. They were often referred to as pregnant Swordfish.
The strike aircraft (Avengers and dive bombers) often had radar using the Yagi aerials. Since they had somebody besides the pilot as a radar operator they were probably a better bet for "scout duty" than using single seat night fighters were were not common.I don't believe it was a shortage of night fighter and strike aircraft. From 1944 the USN CV Air groups all had a night fighter flight attached for defensive purposes especially around dawn and dusk.
A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless.
Scouts that need accompanying 2-3 seat aircraft to provide navigation support are also redundant/useless.
Vals and Kates could be used as scouts. It does dilute the strike force but using A6Ms as scouts and waiting for them to fly back from spotting something to land on the carrier or use a short range radio to report a sighting for 1-2 hours earlier doesn't make for very good strikes either.
Radar also changed considerably as the war went on, also for long range search you search range was rather dependent on the altitude of the plane.
Even the US didn't have enough radar equipped night fighters to use them as distant scouts. Even some big carriers only had 4-6 radar equipped night fighters.
Bill, 1942 was the middle of the war. From the point of view of my father who had spent the three previous years in active service across three continents.The Army had the equally fast twin engined Ki-46 of course which caused the Allies some problems for a while but it seemed to become victim of Allied fighters fairly often by the mid-war.
You got a good point about the notion that scouts need radios to really work well, but even without a radio I would not go so far as to say 'useless'.
A6Ms routinely navigated over long distances in Pacific, from the Aleutians to Australia.
Never is a long time but a lot of the early A6m's didn't even have a radio or it was taken out, sometimes because the static from the engine ignition system was so bad as to make the radio useless.And you are sure they never had a long range radio in an A6M?
I'll try to summarise the RN fighter position interwar. Friedman's "Carrier Air Power" and "Fighters over the Fleet. Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War" are good reads on the subject. But first turn the clock back to 1920 and review the carrier position.Reading back through this thread, I'm beginning to sense that the RN/FAA didn't have a clearly defined vision for the role of the aircraft carrier and this shows in the types of aircraft being designed and flip flopping in design specs. Thinking about the Corsair vs Seafire part of this thread, the Corsair must have been a real boon to the FAA especially given its capacity as a multi-role platform. Ordnance capacity (other than the torpedo) is on par with the Barracude and well above the Seafire all the while being able to serve as an air superiority fighter. One could imagine that if enough had been available that you could have seen carriers with a majority of Corsairs and very few other types.
The whole fuselage was lengthened from the XF4U and the F4U-1. The cockpit moved aft and the engine forward so more fuel could be added, some of it displaced from the wings by increasing the armament.Didn't the original F4U have the cockpit more forward?
I've always understood that the RAF aversion interwar to rear fuel tanks was because they thought them more vulnerable to attack from behind, especially when they weren't self sealing.Why did Vought design the Corsair with such poor visibility and rearward cockpit placement?
Why not put the fuel behind the pilot, move some of the supercharger gear behind the engine to behind or beneath the pilot? Yes we need to watch the CoG. It's just such an odd layout by a designer who knew he was making a naval aircraft.
The fuel tank in front of the pilot is at or near the center of gravity, therefore as fuel is used the handling characteristics do not change. A rear mounted tank does have adverse effects on handling. This is why, for example, the rear tank of the P-51 was to be used before the other tanks. Note that drop tanks are mounted to be close to the aircrafts CoG.I've always understood that the RAF aversion interwar to rear fuel tanks was because they thought them more vulnerable to attack from behind, especially when they weren't self sealing.
You are correct.Didn't the original F4U have the cockpit more forward?
Bill, 1942 was the middle of the war. From the point of view of my father who had spent the three previous years in active service across three continents.