Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was the fall of France that poked the unforeseen hole in the perfectly reasonable logic. France was to be the principal counter to Italian activity and who would have expected the Germans to be able to operate out of airfields in western and southern France? Let alone Italy with no French support, but rather French bases in Syria being used by the Luftwaffe and French bombers bombIng Gibraltar.I kinda like it, but it is rather big for a fighter, that's for sure. Those folding wings make putting it into a museum setting quite easy.
View attachment 634333Fulmar nose
It was a bit like the Boulton Paul Defiant, the guys who proposed the original idea shouldn't have been making the decisions, but the designers came up with the best design to fit what wasn't the most thought out concept. In the Fulmar's defence, 1. it was an interim design that saw use beyond its original requirement against enemies it wasn't expected to counter (like the Defiant), 2. it was expected to range far out to sea, well beyond the ranges of any existing single-seat fighter in Europe at the time, to intercept reconnaissance and bomber aircraft, against which it was deemed to be more than a match. There was logic, but in hindsight was kinda flawed.
There were a number of proposals for Re 2001 variants for carrier use, some were built in ones or twos?
Actual practicality may be something else.
You have a 220sq ft wing.
Early torpedo bombers didn't use large wings because of the weight of the 2nd or even 3rd crewman, They used large wings because of the weight of the torpedoes/bombs/fuel.
A DB 601 engine has more power than the early torpedo bombers used but less than the later ones.
Wiki claims planes were built (or proposed) to use a 1300lb torpedo but NavWeapons doesn't list such a weapon. It might be possible to "cut down" a 1800-2000lb torpedo to around 1300lbs but what are you giving up?
Land based torpedo strike fighter (or dive bomber with heavy bomb) doesn't have to worry about short flight deck or cat launches.
You can also launch a land based strike group faster than a cat launched strike group which means greater practical operational radius.
The large wing is also there as the attack requires flying low and slow (<60', <90kn) otherwise impact with water damages the torpedo casing/gyros and it doesn't run ?swim? straight to target. Yes, everyone figured out how to protect the torpedo for high speed/reasonable altitude launches, but that wasn't what navies were planning pre-war.Re.2001 has a 220sq ft wing.
Early torpedo bombers didn't use large wings because of the weight of the 2nd or even 3rd crewman, They used large wings because of the weight of the torpedoes/bombs/fuel.
Land based torpedo strike fighter (or dive bomber with heavy bomb) doesn't have to worry about short flight deck or cat launches.
What use is copying an American airframe is you don't have the engine/turbocharger? And I didn't know those Seversky/Republic aircraft were naval airframes.Too bad the Italians didn't have time to copy the P-41/43 like they copied the P-35 (Re 2000), they may not of needed the German engines; & could of had a naval variant.
Anyway, the SM93 would of made a great naval divebomber, if they sorted out the seating arrangement.
The P-35 had quite a few variants, including the 2PA-B3 for the IJN (AV81) and the NF-1 for the USN.What use is copying an American airframe is you don't have the engine/turbocharger? And I didn't know those Seversky/Republic aircraft were naval airframes.
And what good is a plane which 1st flies in '44 for a CV in '39?
Too bad the Italians didn't have time to copy the P-41/43 like they copied the P-35 (Re 2000), they may not of needed the German engines; & could of had a naval variant.
Anyway, the SM93 would of made a great naval divebomber, if they sorted out the seating arrangement.
View attachment 637359
Gibraltar from Former French bases in Syria? What French or German Bombers had that range with a bomb load?It was the fall of France that poked the unforeseen hole in the perfectly reasonable logic. France was to be the principal counter to Italian activity and who would have expected the Germans to be able to operate out of airfields in western and southern France? Let alone Italy with no French support, but rather French bases in Syria being used by the Luftwaffe and French bombers bombIng Gibraltar.
Good lord, that has got to be the weirdest looking WW2 aircraft I have ever seen. I had to look it up to be sure it wasn't a joke - it looks like a bad photoshop of an Re 2005 with a London double decker bus. Reading the wiki doesn't make it much less zanier.... the pilot must get hot laying on top of that DB 605!
Another angle to prove the thing is real...
View attachment 637368
Too bad the Italians didn't have time to copy the P-41/43 like they copied the P-35 (Re 2000), they may not of needed the German engines; & could of had a naval variant.
Anyway, the SM93 would of made a great naval divebomber, if they sorted out the seating arrangement.
View attachment 637359
Hence the 'and' being as Gibraltar is at the mouth of the Mediterranean with France itself to the north west and French Morocco and Algeria to the south and south east. The French were spoiled for choice. The two raids of about 95 sorties dropped about 100 tons of bombs.Gibraltar from Former French bases in Syria? What French or German Bombers had that range with a bomb load?