Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Since we're in the Skua thread, can we make a single seat fighter out of the Skua design?
Every single dedicated fighter (sorry Skua, you don't count) on British carriers since the onset of naval aviation with the exception of the Fulmar and Firefly and the postwar Venom, Vixen and Phantom was a single seater. The British were not twin-obsessed, and operated far more single seat fighters on their carriers in WW2 than twin seaters.Great stuff, Thomas. I'm trying desperately to dispell the ever present myth that the admiralty had no interest in single-seat fighters on its carriers at the outbreak of war and then scrambled to get them once it realised its mistake and that the Fulmar and Firefly are evidence of this - that ole' chestnut.
I'd like to have seen a prototype flown to test these assumptions. If must, just add concrete or lead weights into the wings to simulate the added mass of a folding mechanism. Then test against a Fulmar for speed, roll and rate of climb.
I wonder what the second highest scoring FAA fighter was? Perhaps the Sea Harrier, with 20 kills against Argentina in 1982?
Operating from land? Definitely. RNAS' 10 Naval Squadron's all Canadian flight in their olive-black painted Sopwith Triplanes led by ace pilot Raymond Collishaw claimed 87 German aircraft in three months.Can we include the RNAS, whose totals would, I'd imagine be quite high?
I'd like to have seen a prototype flown to test these assumptions. If must, just add concrete or lead weights into the wings to simulate the added mass of a folding mechanism. Then test against a Fulmar for speed, roll and rate of climb.
If the Hurricane IIC with its heavy quad 20mm cannons and two 250 lb or 500 lb. bombs was considered a useful combat aircraft, then surely it's worth flight testing to review the ROI of the added weight of a wing fold? Here's HMS Argus. I'm sure whatever RN warships or allied convoy she's escorting would be pleased to have triple the number of folding wing Sea Hurricanes in this hangar, no matter the weight penalty.
Total waste of time. You are lugging around too much wing and dive brake, bigger wing than a P-47. Bigger than a Corsair. You have an engine about the diameter of a Corsair engine with about 45% of the power, You can change the canopy all you want, this thing is simply too big for the available power.Since we're in the Skua thread, can we make a single seat fighter out of the Skua design? Four mgs is equal to the Ki-27 and A5M of the time. Toss out the rear seat, improve the streamlining, etc?
Again, this sentence needs to be quantified. You are attempting to apply something to a situation in hindsight. Let's not forget that the modern aircraft carrier was invented by the British, in Furious, Argus and a handful of seaplane tenders during the Great War, which gave the RN a vast amount of experience in the operation of aircraft at sea, unmatched by any other navy in the world. To be short, Britain wrote the rule book, applied the innovations and experienced the experience, so going into WW2, how can Britain be behind the curve in 'modern operational practises or equipment on the carriers' as you put it?
No. The Skua only had a radio-telegraph, not voice. The second crewman was almost always a Telegraphist/Air Gunner (TAG) who sent and received messages by Morse code, which was impractical for a single-seater. Since the Skua was used for ASW patrols and surface search, this was essential (the Skua's speed made it much more useful for surface search than the Stringbags). The TAG also operated the carrier homing system (homing on the carrier's rotating radio beacon). Since the RN system required the use of a watch and constantly watching the timing of the signal, it was also completely impractical for a single-seat aircraft. The beacon was essential for long-range escort missions if a fighter was separated from the rest of the formation.Since we're in the Skua thread, can we make a single seat fighter out of the Skua design? Four mgs is equal to the Ki-27 and A5M of the time. Toss out the rear seat, improve the streamlining, etc? Keep the 500 lb. bomb capability that started this thread.
Roger that, I agree with everything you posted above. Got you covered earlier.Because the USN and IJN had passed them. The RN lacked crash barriers until 1938, took years to use them for allowing the landing aircraft to sit on the deck ahead of the crash barrier for some time, and took years to finish equipping all of their carriers. The RN catapults were beyond awkward, so launching aircraft took far longer than it should have (four times as long as for the USN. The four belly hooks on their aircraft added drag (lousy turbulence patterns behind them). The RN crippled itself by adopting a requirement, based on experience in the Great War, that all aircraft must be able to use the catapults on cruisers and destroyers, thus the absurd catapults on their carriers.
The result was that Furious could not safely have more than 18 of its aircraft in the air at any one time. Courageous needed an hour to launch her aircraft and two hours to land them.
Finally, RN tactical doctrine was that carrier-based fighters could not intercept incoming enemy aircraft, while anti-aircraft fire was believed to be highly effective. This was overwhelmingly wrong and dangerous.
You seem to want to convince us that the USN was better. If it'll settle you I'll agree to anything.
Because the USN and IJN had passed them. The RN lacked crash barriers until 1938, took years to use them for allowing the landing aircraft to sit on the deck ahead of the crash barrier for some time, and took years to finish equipping all of their carriers. The RN catapults were beyond awkward, so launching aircraft took far longer than it should have (four times as long as for the USN. The four belly hooks on their aircraft added drag (lousy turbulence patterns behind them). The RN crippled itself by adopting a requirement, based on experience in the Great War, that all aircraft must be able to use the catapults on cruisers and destroyers, thus the absurd catapults on their carriers.
The result was that Furious could not safely have more than 18 of its aircraft in the air at any one time. Courageous needed an hour to launch her aircraft and two hours to land them.
Not at all! The RN was very good in some areas, but it also had critical weaknesses in doctrine, organization, and culture.I also suspect that by not answering previous critiques to your earlier statements, you won't be swayed and have it nailed that the RN is rubbish regardless. Am I right?
Not at all! The RN was very good in some areas, but it also had critical weaknesses in doctrine, organization, and culture.
More importantly, I have been working on multiple projects, dealing with a very upset little girl, getting her dinner, spending time with my wife, and watching baseball with them. Your ad hominem attack is unbecoming.
.However, I am sorry that you are having personal difficulties, but to be frank, under the circumstances around the world there are lots of us who are - best not to bring those to the forum.
I am blunt however
I'm not having "personal difficulties;" I am not at your beck and call. You're not blunt, you're snotty.