Thumpalumpacus
Major
I love how all the airplanes you've pictured here have a sense of deadly purpose built into their very designs. These are airplanes that look faster than all-get-out even when sitting on static display. What a cool post, thanks!
Floatplane fighters: wishful thinking or tactical resource?
- Thread starter msxyz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I love how all the airplanes you've pictured here have a sense of deadly purpose built into their very designs. These are airplanes that look faster than all-get-out even when sitting on static display. What a cool post, thanks!
Thanks, man. I hope you guys don't mind me bombarding threads with these pics. Those Italian aircraft have a mystique of their own and are stunning to see. The museum was well worth the travel expense and time out of my agenda in Europe and I certainly have no regrets. I've travelled to aviation museums around the world and the Italian one is up there among the best.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Seriously, thank you. I've known about and seen pics of the S.6/S.6b for a loooooong time, but seeing the other planes, and just getting the vibe, actually matters.
I've been to plenty of av museums, and airshows featuring old warbirds as well, but those planes you posted, well, we can't see them here in America much at all -- so you know that at least someone appreciates what you're sharing. It's good brainfood.
You're seriously welcome, man. I have a hankering for going to do more museums in the States once this nasty covid business ends as I've only been to a few in the USA. I also wanna walk on the decks of some of the battleships you guys have over there.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
If you find your way down to Texas, we can hit USS Texas and Lexington, and/or the PacWar museum in Fred'burg. I've been to all of them and would be happy to visit with ya.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,677
- May 13, 2018
My best friend years ago had saved for a trip to Europe's air museums and on to Moscow's museums. When he said he intended to rent a car in Britain so he could go to all of the museums at his schedule, I pointed out the problem with driving from the other side of the road. His comment was, "I have commercial land and sea, multi, instrument, instructor, and glider ratings. I think I can handle it." When he got back, i found out two blocks from the car rental office he was involved in running into a double deck buss and rear ended by a black taxi. Of course, this was material for years, however, he did come home on the Concorde and used that as an answer. When he went to Italy on a Wednesday, their museum was closed and he could only look through the windows. The thoughts of this while writing this makes me laugh again.
Hell yeah, the Texas is on my list of battleships! And the Lexie would be icing on the cake!
Thumpalumpacus
Major
If you ever get down this way, you let me know. You'll have a bed of some sort, some good barbecue, and then a little fightin' steel. A couple of beers might be involved.
That's awesome! The last time I was in the UK I drove 1,800 miles and did another 2,500 miles in the back of a tour bus going to museums and aviation sites. I did manage to scrape one of my hire cars down a ridiculously narrow Kent back road, which cost me over 1,000 pounds, but I could claim it back because of 3rd party insurance.
A link to my UK tur pages on this site: Nuuumannn's UK Tour of 2018
Thumpalumpacus
Major
In Spain and Saudi Arabia both, they drove on the right side of the road. But I'm here to say that even as I learrt driving on the right side of the road in SoCal, at 25 years old, I was seriously outside my league in those countries. First, all drove like crazy. Second, lanes were narrower, requiring more driver attention.
I got rear-ended in Torremolinos, and it was probably my fault for a sloppy lane-change, but when renting the car I had demanded all existing damage be documented, and it so happened that the guy who rear-ended me hit me exactly where, on the rental schematic, I had pointed out a paint-scratch or some-such. So on the paperwork, I'd drawn a big arrow towards the scratch-- and got very lucky that when I got rear-ended, it was purt' much in exactly the right place.
Zero-point-zero dollars paid, which was my main concern.
Sounds like a plan, my man!
I've heard so many stories about car damage during holidays. Looks like it happens to everyone. I remember driving around Sydney once with a hire car and I put a scratch in the lower front skirt, visible with a close look, but the guy seemed more preoccupied with the car next to mine, whose occupants put a big prang in the rear bumper and he didn't mention mine at all and I got a free pass!
- Thread starter
- #52
Going to a country where people drive on the opposite side of the road as yours can be...quite unsettling 
I used to travel a lot for business before 2020 and I still forgot regularly to 'look at the other side' when crossing a street in said countries. Very dangerous as a pedestrian.
During said business travels, I always tried to have some hours or a day off work to go to museum or visit historical landmarks. Nowadays you can find a picture of pretty much anything, but being there in person it's an entirely different experience. Size for once, in a picture, can be deceiving and I often imagined a plane, ship monument to be larger/smaller than it really is.
I used to travel a lot for business before 2020 and I still forgot regularly to 'look at the other side' when crossing a street in said countries. Very dangerous as a pedestrian.During said business travels, I always tried to have some hours or a day off work to go to museum or visit historical landmarks. Nowadays you can find a picture of pretty much anything, but being there in person it's an entirely different experience. Size for once, in a picture, can be deceiving and I often imagined a plane, ship monument to be larger/smaller than it really is.
Sums up my trips to Japan, and yet I still fell in love with the place. I'm really hoping to see some of their aircraft collection the next time around. I agree with more than a few travel show host that the best way to know a place is to go there; it's the best learning experience.Going to a country where people drive on the opposite side of the road as yours can be...quite unsettling
During said business travels, I always tried to have some hours or a day off work to go to museum or visit historical landmarks. Nowadays you can find a picture of pretty much anything, but being there in person it's an entirely different experience. Size for once, in a picture, can be deceiving and I often imagined a plane, ship monument to be larger/smaller than it really is.
Also important....Don't be a tourist. Big mistake.
Tea Brewer
Recruit
- 6
- Nov 2, 2015
The Germans tried both types on the Arado Ar 196 and found that the outriggers on the central float version dug into waves during take-off in roughish water, so went with the twin-float version. The Arado AR 196 had some success in downing allied airplanes. They also put twin floats on the Junkers Ju 52.
Admiral Beez
Major
I've read that the Ar 196 was not successful either way as the engine would crack when exposed to the cold sea water.
Interesting thread and a good discussion. I think failure to understand the need or role for floatplane fighters is a matter of not applying imagination to the context. It's not really that difficult if you think it through.
1) There are vast ocean areas (particularly in the Pacific) and many remote sites where the battles of WW2 took place - including some quite important sea lanes related to strategic logistics and so on - which were out of range of conventional land based fighters.
2) They did however often tend to be in range of long range maritime patrol bombers (FW 200, PB4Y-2, Wellington) and flying boats (PBY, Sunderland, H6K, H8K, BV 222, Z.501) as well as (sometimes) medium range patrol bombers or fighter-bombers (Hudson, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Maryland, He 111, Ju 88) and seaplane-bombers (He 115, B&V 138, Cant Z.506) which could do serious damage, especially to poorly protected merchant ships.
3) Strategically important submarine warfare was also impacted by this (both offensively as in spotting for and coordinating attacks, and defensively as ASW). Unmolested flying boats and long range maritime patrol bombers could have a major effect on submarine operations.
4) Light floatplane scouts carried by cruisers and battleships were used to locate surface fleets and spot naval gunfire. Whenever surface ships did engage one another this could prove a decisive advantage.
5) Many ships operating in these areas were fairly poorly protected maritime vessels, and many of the more remote bases and stations were not well defended either. Any protection the far flung sealanes had was often by obsolete or refitted pseudo warships (antique gunboats or armed merchantmen and so on). All of the above could be highly vulnerable to air attacks.
6) There were only so many aircraft carriers and they tended to be needed for crucial battles. Smaller escort carriers filled some of the gap but not all of it.
7) Even where they were available, many carrier fighters used during the war were not necessarily first tier aircraft either, especially on the smaller escort carriers. You have aircraft like Gladiators, Sea-Hurricanes, Skuas and Fulmars bearing the brunt of fighting against first-rate enemy types. And barely adequate Wildcats / Martlets. There were also desperate ploys like the Hurricat on the CAM ships.
8) Having an armed seaplane capable of air to air combat, and especially a proper seaplane fighter, did confer significant and obvious advantages especially in these more remote combat zones. Seaplanes (scouts, bombers or fighters) could be based on very remote and tiny islands, reefs or atolls too small for any airfield, and supplied by seaplane tender or even submarine. Seaplanes could also be deployed from lakes in remote areas.
I think the CAM ships are a particularly obvious example of the need. Would the CAM ship 'Hurricat' have worked out better as a seaplane fighter rather than ditching in the sea after their mission? Even if it was say, 30 mph slower, it still would have been able to drive off FW 200s and He 115s. How many good (and very brave!) pilots were lost during ditching?
The US perfected the art of using the bulldozer to make airfields on remote islands and atolls, to permit the operation of high performance land based fighters, but many important locales were not even as big as Midway and did not have enough land for an airstrip. And / or they were occupied by Japanese troops who had to be evicted at an invariably bloody cost, or they were too far beyond the normal zones of control to be kept in supply. But far more small islands and coral reefs had an anchorage where a seaplane tender could anchor and support flying boats, seaplane-bombers and seaplane-fighters.
So to me, armed seaplane scouts (like AR 196, FM-1, N-3PB, Ro. 43) and actual seaplane fighters (A6M2-N, N1K1 and the Curtiss SC Seahawk) did make sense and clearly did have a role. In fact in the actual day to day battle records some of these aircraft did play a role and did prove quite useful. A6M2-N, probably the most prominent of the Seaplane fighters, proved difficult adverseries and shot down Allied aircraft both in the Solomon Islands area and in the Aleutians. I believe the Seahawk was developed partly in response to encounters with these planes. AR 196s and FM-1s also did some damage.
1) There are vast ocean areas (particularly in the Pacific) and many remote sites where the battles of WW2 took place - including some quite important sea lanes related to strategic logistics and so on - which were out of range of conventional land based fighters.
2) They did however often tend to be in range of long range maritime patrol bombers (FW 200, PB4Y-2, Wellington) and flying boats (PBY, Sunderland, H6K, H8K, BV 222, Z.501) as well as (sometimes) medium range patrol bombers or fighter-bombers (Hudson, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Maryland, He 111, Ju 88) and seaplane-bombers (He 115, B&V 138, Cant Z.506) which could do serious damage, especially to poorly protected merchant ships.
3) Strategically important submarine warfare was also impacted by this (both offensively as in spotting for and coordinating attacks, and defensively as ASW). Unmolested flying boats and long range maritime patrol bombers could have a major effect on submarine operations.
4) Light floatplane scouts carried by cruisers and battleships were used to locate surface fleets and spot naval gunfire. Whenever surface ships did engage one another this could prove a decisive advantage.
5) Many ships operating in these areas were fairly poorly protected maritime vessels, and many of the more remote bases and stations were not well defended either. Any protection the far flung sealanes had was often by obsolete or refitted pseudo warships (antique gunboats or armed merchantmen and so on). All of the above could be highly vulnerable to air attacks.
6) There were only so many aircraft carriers and they tended to be needed for crucial battles. Smaller escort carriers filled some of the gap but not all of it.
7) Even where they were available, many carrier fighters used during the war were not necessarily first tier aircraft either, especially on the smaller escort carriers. You have aircraft like Gladiators, Sea-Hurricanes, Skuas and Fulmars bearing the brunt of fighting against first-rate enemy types. And barely adequate Wildcats / Martlets. There were also desperate ploys like the Hurricat on the CAM ships.
8) Having an armed seaplane capable of air to air combat, and especially a proper seaplane fighter, did confer significant and obvious advantages especially in these more remote combat zones. Seaplanes (scouts, bombers or fighters) could be based on very remote and tiny islands, reefs or atolls too small for any airfield, and supplied by seaplane tender or even submarine. Seaplanes could also be deployed from lakes in remote areas.
I think the CAM ships are a particularly obvious example of the need. Would the CAM ship 'Hurricat' have worked out better as a seaplane fighter rather than ditching in the sea after their mission? Even if it was say, 30 mph slower, it still would have been able to drive off FW 200s and He 115s. How many good (and very brave!) pilots were lost during ditching?
The US perfected the art of using the bulldozer to make airfields on remote islands and atolls, to permit the operation of high performance land based fighters, but many important locales were not even as big as Midway and did not have enough land for an airstrip. And / or they were occupied by Japanese troops who had to be evicted at an invariably bloody cost, or they were too far beyond the normal zones of control to be kept in supply. But far more small islands and coral reefs had an anchorage where a seaplane tender could anchor and support flying boats, seaplane-bombers and seaplane-fighters.
So to me, armed seaplane scouts (like AR 196, FM-1, N-3PB, Ro. 43) and actual seaplane fighters (A6M2-N, N1K1 and the Curtiss SC Seahawk) did make sense and clearly did have a role. In fact in the actual day to day battle records some of these aircraft did play a role and did prove quite useful. A6M2-N, probably the most prominent of the Seaplane fighters, proved difficult adverseries and shot down Allied aircraft both in the Solomon Islands area and in the Aleutians. I believe the Seahawk was developed partly in response to encounters with these planes. AR 196s and FM-1s also did some damage.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #58
The most beautiful float plane fighter of the war, even if it was useless in the 1940s
Two gull wings in one plane Sadly, not twice the performance 
I always had a soft spot for Kawanishi N1K... The propeller hub looks comically big without the contra rotating propellers, though.
Two gull wings in one plane
Sadly, not twice the performance I always had a soft spot for Kawanishi N1K... The propeller hub looks comically big without the contra rotating propellers, though.
Last edited:
Ro 44 on that first one? Great model and a neat plane for sure. The only reason I didn't include it on my list is because they were apparently relegated to training units.
That N1K is clearly a BEAST. I always wanted to make a model of the seaplane version but all I can ever find are the later land based fighter version they made out of it.
That N1K is clearly a BEAST. I always wanted to make a model of the seaplane version but all I can ever find are the later land based fighter version they made out of it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One floatplane that rarely gets any recognition, is the Curtiss SC.
While it was lightly armed (two .50MGs) and intended to be a scout, it could have defended itself if pressed, as it had good speed for it's type as well as good handling.
Sadly, it's slow development saw it arrive late in the war.
While it was lightly armed (two .50MGs) and intended to be a scout, it could have defended itself if pressed, as it had good speed for it's type as well as good handling.
Sadly, it's slow development saw it arrive late in the war.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
