Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I like it too, seen below landing on Bearn.I had never considered the Dewoitine D.373! It is a looker
That definitely helps the looks of the Skua, by covering up most of the thing.The Blackburn Skua wings folded back with the wing leading edge up. A bit like a Sto wing but the leading edge on Sto wing points down. Blackburn Sharks had hydraulic locks on the backwards folding wings.View attachment 629467
The US has a long history of recognizing foreign patents. My favorite example is the M1903 Springfield rifle and Mauser. From 1905 to 1914, the U.S. paid $200,000 in royalties to Mauser for patent infringements on Mauser's rifle designs. That included 75 cents per M1903 Springfield Rifle produced, and charges for stripper clip production. Mauser did not actually sue, but both the United States and Mauser's attorneys agreed that the patent infringement had occurred and that any lawsuit would be won by Mauser.Really? For starters, does the US really have to care about foreign patents?
So far - not enough facts to support the contention. Any rational explanation for survival and continuance of the F4U over the F6F post war? I chose F8F but easily could have picked F4Uor F6F.I'll let the evidence speak for itself, if a plane is killing enough of it's own pilots during wartime that it is removed from service you know the number was high. The thread is about naval fighters, I voted for the Hellcat, the fighter that replaced the F4U, enough said. As for exact numbers, sorry I'm not doing all that research to prove a point the available evidence already does.
On popular metrics of performance mainly top speed, the Spitfire Mk I was superior to to the Mk II, but the LW noticed that a newer better performing Spitfire had been introduced.So far - not enough facts to support the contention. Any rational explanation for survival and continuance of the F4U over the F6F post war? I chose F8F but easily could have picked F4Uor F6F.
By any standard, the F6F was more of a 'pilot's airplane' with respect to handling qualities - but even the USN pilots picked F4U and F8F as Best Fighter more than F6F - Patuxent River Fighter Evaluation Oct-Nov 1944. Recognition that here was importance of Performance Envelope over 'all around great airplane'.
It is all opinion and your choice is fine.
So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?
Perhaps. We must remember how innovative the Skua was when designed in 1936. It was the first ever all-metal, monoplane carrier aircraft with folding wings and retractable undercarriage, plus a conformal bomb rack. The nearly vertical windshield was intended to give the pilot a good view whilst dive bombing. Aside from the Canadian-modified Sharks shown below, IIRC the Skua was the first single-engined, tandem-seat aircraft Blackburn made with an enclosed canopy, so they got it a little wrong.So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?
Looks gorgeous to meThat definitely helps the looks of the Skua, by covering up most of the thing.
Supposedly the flat windscreen was designed like that to give perfect vision during the dive. A more streamlined optical windscreen possibly wasn't available with the current technology.So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?
I was thinking along the same lines:Supposedly the flat windscreen was designed like that to give perfect vision during the dive. A more streamlined optical windscreen possibly wasn't available with the current technology.
It must have knocked 10mph off the speed.
I was thinking along the same lines:
Built-indivebrake...
They probably could have, but pre-war Royal Navy/FAA thinking was that the air defense of the carrier would be handled by anti-aircraft guns and an armoured flight deck. With all the aircraft "safely" stored below decks. The Skua (and Roc) was only expected to fend off recce planes, shadowing the fleet. If they had developed a single seat fighter, it would have taken up the preciously few hanger positions below decks, OR they would have had to store them on the flight deck, defeating the purpose of the armourGiven the level of innovation put into their 1936 design for the Skua, I'd like to think Blackburn could have come up with a good, Bristol-powered single seat fighter had they been asked in 1936
Agreed, and the RN got what it wanted. I wonder if the RN ever asked the FAA squadron commanders and senior pilot officers what they needed/wanted?They probably could have, but pre-war Royal Navy/FAA thinking was that the air defense of the carrier would be handled by anti-aircraft guns and an armoured flight deck.
I was thinking of a swap for Skua single seat fighter instead of DB. The Swordfish can dive bomb, so a CAG made up entirely of Skua fighters and Stringbag TSRs shouldn't alarm the beancounters.If the treasury will not buy AA guns in anywhere near the desired quantities buying and operating extra squadrons of aircraft may be a doubtful proposition.
[...] a CAG made up entirely of Skua fighters and Stringbag TSRs shouldn't alarm the beancounters.
Just about any warship without carrier or landbased aviation support should fear a fully equipped RN CAG of Stringbags. Seven battleships from three nations crippled by the Swordfish: Bismarck, Veneto, Littorio, Duilio, Cavour, Richelieu and Dunkerque, plus numerous smaller vessels, including the cruisers Gorizia and Pola and at least twenty-two U-Boats.... or anyone else?