Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's a shame they didn't go with the Seafang/Attacker wing on the Seafire. Just look at the robust, wide track, and I assume the fold is narrow enough for the Illustrious class' lifts.At the hobby shop I work in, we had a customer in a few years back who was ex-Fleet Air Arm. He said the Seafire was lovely in the air but a horrible thing to land on a carrier. He'd also flown Sea Furies and Attackers.
I understand, but is there anything from post-war Seafang that is evolutionary and technically challenging?Time machine required
When I was going to the Reno Races in the 70s I made up a t-shirt "SPITEFUL XV Racing Team"It's a shame they didn't go with the Seafang/Attacker wing on the Seafire. Just look at the robust, wide track, and I assume the fold is narrow enough for the Illustrious class' lifts.
Keep the rest of the Spitfire tooling, but change to this wing design for the early Seafires onwards. Wing production may be slowed down at first, as I assume Seafire wings were much the same as Spitfire wings, even with the fold.
View attachment 561581
Time machine required
Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation for the USA not having Bearcats in in service 1941?
Best go to 1936 and order a few hundred F-4 phantoms just to make sure.
Job done, it is so easy when you put your mind to it I wonder why everyone isn't as clever as like wot we is.
I think the captain of the airfield was sailing the good ship HMS United Kingdom at about 45 degrees to the prevailing wind and had forgotten to smooth out the bumps on his lawn, it looks like a cross wind landing on a bumpy grass airfield to me.
A clearer vid here shows the landing was perhaps not as hard. I imagine the soft grass helped. What do you pilots say happened here, a sudden drop in wind speed?
.