Darthtabby
Airman
- 59
- May 22, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Looks like the Gloster!
Indeed, they even share the same F.5 designation: Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Gloster F.5/34. As for the looks, Gloster, Caproni and Mitsubishi all seemed to find similar inspiration.Looks like the Gloster!
Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.The Buffalo was carrier-capable, you know.
Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.
The RE 2000 "Catapultabile" would be the leading candidate I would expect:
View attachment 633381View attachment 633382
Though Chris Dunning's "Courage Alone: The Italian Air Force 1940–1943" and other sources suggest that they selected the Re.2001 OR Serie II to fill the combined fighter and bomber/torpedo carrier for the Aquila:
View attachment 633383
Indeed, they even share the same F.5 designation: Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Gloster F.5/34. As for the looks, Gloster, Caproni and Mitsubishi all seemed to find similar inspiration.
First flight Dec. 1936
View attachment 633654
First flight Feb. 1939
View attachment 633655
First flight April 1939
View attachment 633656
Brewster or Skua isn't a hard decision for me -- Brewsters as fighters; Skuas as DB/backup fighters; Swords for strike, ASW, recon. 3 units of 12 each on an Illustrious and you can do good things, I reckon.
Would a Buffalo fit the elevators? A Admiral Beez ? You're good with this stuff, what say ye?
HiSpeaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.
Thanks MikeMeech. I got that notion from a post that I conveniently can't remember. Something along the lines they built a jet then nothing much else until later in the war.Hi
Gloster 'light on work'? No. It was rather busy building Gloster and Hawker designs that overlapped on the production lines:
View attachment 633666
From 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, page 417.
Mike
I did bring that up myself. Hence the "ANY" other manufacturer.The Re.2001 was derived from the Re.2000, so it's not hugely surprising that the Italian Navy considered it for Aquila given the use of the Re.2000 as a catapult fighter. Aircraft Profile #244: Capproni Regianne 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete & Re 2005 Sagittaire by John F Brindley also indicates that the Re.2002 also underwent catapult testing with a view towards having the type equip Aquila and Sparviero. The main reason I'm not so sure about the Re.2005 as a carrier fighter is because it was largely a new design with a different landing gear design then previous Regianne fighters, and one source indicates that its rear fuselage was structurally weak.
Actually Plane Encyclopedia claims that there was a proposal for a carrier version of the Re.2005 though no prototype was built. I wish they indicated which of their sources made that claim. It's not Brindley -his profile covers some of the other variants mentioned in the article, but not a carrier variant…..
Also would the Royal Navy actually get the Brewsters it ordered? Brewster wasn't that great at actually building aircraft.
Best way for Italy to get carriers into service is to avoid the war entirely. Follow Franco's lead, keep your fascism but don't join the fight with Germany. Then Italy can focus on getting its carriers into service by about 1939-40.But what sort of aircraft might have seen service on Regia Marina carriers had Italy started building carriers and a fleet air arm in the mid to late 1930s and/or managed to build a carrier during the war?
Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.
The F2A (Buffalo) had a wingspan of 35 feet, three feet shorter than the F4F/Martlet