I like it too, seen below landing on Bearn.
That definitely helps the looks of the Skua, by covering up most of the thing.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I was thinking along the same lines:
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 armour
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?
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.
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.
