Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I seem to prefer Razorbacks to bubble tops....
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks. Should've linked the page I found that on, cuz I can't find it now.Never saw that shot of a P-43 before. Nice find.
Resp:My favourite version of the P51 Mustang is the P51-B/MkIII with Malcolm Hood and tail fillet. My Father was an Instrument Artificer and his 1st operational squadron flew the MkIII he loved the Mustang.
View attachment 500367
Resp:
Mine as well. I have a print of Sqd Ldr Horbacewski's MkIII on the wall of my work room. I hope to get Maj Howard's P-51B print as well. I also think the F-6B w Malcolm hood looks good. As an aside, the British made the request for a similar sliding hood for the F4U-1A, which made it easier on the 'neck' in searching the sky.
I understood the Mustang and Corsair were refitted with bubble hoods by the British R Malcolm & Co company for the RAF and FAA did they become factory fitted at a later date.[/QUOTE
REsp:
I do not know how many the Malcolm Co actually provided, as I've read that with all the canopies required . . . they had to have some help. As for the F4U Corsairs, they were made and fitted in the U.S.. It is likely that the USAAF may have retro fitted more of their Mustangs with the Malcolm hood than those furnished to the RAF. I have seen no documentation of an Allison engined RAF Mustang was ever fitted (except for testing) with the sliding hood, while the USAAF retro fitted their F-6B (still looking for F-6A so fitted), P-51B/C and F-6Cs.
Resp:
If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.
Probably not, but it was a pure waste inre to Seafire pilots. The Corsair guys were flying repeated missions with little time in between. They got the brunt of combat. Just think if the carrier fighter compliment had only been Seafires; who would been available for bomber escort on Island targets? The Japanese were fierce adversaries.Was it common practice to have military aviators cross-trained to fly different types in combat, while deployed?
Resp:
If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.
Resp:re The bolded section. Exactly which books or articles did you read because I have also read about the British Pacific Fleet and Seafires flew hundreds if not thousands of CAP sorties. The most Seafires ever carried was iirc HMS Implacable which had 2 squadrons if as you claim they could only do 1 landing that would mean Implacables 330 Seafire sorties over 5 days would need 300 plus Seafires when she only carried at maximum 48.
The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, 2017, page 104;
More Seafires would be written off in deck landing accidents than against enemy fire
the main culprit being an undercarriage that would crumple in rough put-downs.
Probably not, but it was a pure waste inre to Seafire pilots. The Corsair guys were flying repeated missions with little time in between. They got the brunt of combat. Just think if the carrier fighter compliment had only been Seafires; who would been available for bomber escort on Island targets? The Japanese were fierce adversaries.