Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In the early part of WW II the float fighter could protect bases (mostly naval) from common recon planes and perhaps nuisance raiders without a lot of infrastructure.Thread says it all. I don't need to explain why a floatplane is at disadvantage compared to a contemporary land based plane (or carrier based).
Yet every nation with interests on the sea toyed with the idea at some point. Only Japan fielded them in numbers during ww2 but I don't think the results were noteworthy: not even the mighty N1K 'Kyofu' could hope to best a contemporary US fighter, if not caught off guard).
The idea persisted well into the '50s with the remarkable Convair F2Y 'Sea Dart', which, at least, had the advantage of being supersonic and capable of using rockets and missiles
(when the engines worked: Westinghouse poor jet engines nearly ruined a generation of promising Navy fighters)
While being able to take off without a runway is certainly an advantage for any aircraft (STOL/VTOL planes have found their niche), when you know well in advance that your 'fighter' will be hopelessly under performing, why insist?
There was a niche use for float planes operated from battleships as spotters and scouts.
Scouting was a popular role for floatplanes (and today many navies operate helicopters in the same role) but a fighter needs to unite acrobatic qualities with speed and very good power to weight ratio. Italy tried to have jack of all trades with the Imam Ro.43/44 but these planes ended up being used only as spotters, artillery directors and trainers because, as fighters, they would barely be able to fend off the old biplanes that the British navy was still operating in the Mediterranean theater. As a curiosity, in Italian there is even a specific word to identify a flaotplane fighter: "Idrocaccia", still mentioned in vocabularies.There was a niche use for float planes operated from battleships as spotters and scouts, some other uses grew out of that just because they were there.
For the US the float fighter was replaced by the Bulldozer and metal matting for very rapid airstrip construction.
Of course single engine planes have such short range. Don't they?
If you have a large central float, on occasions where the two outer floats dont both settle in the water, how do you taxi the plane?I have to think that the central float idea had more merit that the two canoes under the wings.
View attachment 629961
View attachment 629962
Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anywayI have to think that the central float idea had more merit that the two canoes under the wings.
View attachment 629961
View attachment 629962
Good point!Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anyway) Lest we forget, those racing seaplanes were the world's fastest aircraft in the 1930s, along with the Italian efforts, and they were 400 mph back in those days.... Let's not place a floatplane in the rubbish bin too quickly.
Well that is a historical basis, there was little to connect a Supermarine racer to a Spitfire other than the names Supermarine and the designer Mitchell.Didn't the Spitfire get it's roots from the Supermarine S-1? Or was it the R-1 (one of those letters, anyway) Lest we forget, those racing seaplanes were the world's fastest aircraft in the 1930s, along with the Italian efforts, and they were 400 mph back in those days.... Let's not place a floatplane in the rubbish bin too quickly.
Agreed, but the Kawanishi N1K1 "Rex" has them beat.Good point!