Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
JRF Goose - A real/genuine small amfibI wouldn't bother replying that totally silly comment, but I shall.
Name me another small twin engine amphibian that's been in service as long and is as versatile ?
I'll wait.
Yes, as Mikesh's book says (and I have my own copy) the Atukan Zero arrived in San Diego in August 1942. But it did not fly until Eddie Sanders took it up on 16 September, period, end.
I suspect a misunderstanding, I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that the book stated it arrived in August and based on your reaction perhaps I should have made that clearer. It was certainly not intended to confuse you, R.Leonard, so apologies if it did.
Any air cover would have been better than none i suppose
Would have been great to see the Hellcat get a four bladed propeller like the Corsair, but she already could do the job so we didn't get to see that as grumman didn't change things very much if the plane was already good enough for the the job.
I don't think it was a matter of "engine precedence" and although the 417 mph top speed is thrown around in many publications ,there seems to be no flight test or performance charts indicating this unless Mike Williams has them stashed somewhere. One of our members mentioned in an old post about this that there is also a Grumman report that indicated the XF6F-6 made 425 mph at 25,000, (July 1944, flown by Grumman test pilot Pat Gallo) but as it was a prototype this might not be representative of the performance of a combat laden aircraft.
Geoff Fisken, an inexperienced pilot, became an ace flying Brewsters in Singapore. While he was inexperienced, he had more time in the Brewster than most of his companions as he had done test flights on airplanes after their assembly. He also mentioned that they lost a lot of pilots learning what they should and shouldn't do. No primary source but I recall a comment that Marion Carl said he could have done as well at Guadalcanal with Brewsters as with Wildcats.
I'm reading the book "Jolly Rogers" by Capt Tom Blackburn (VF-17 fame) and he felt the F2A was inadequate for combat but good for fleet training especially as a transition into the F4F.
Someone who flew worn out F2A's in training said he would have been more confident taking an SNJ into combat. That's probably an exageration but a worn out R-1820 might not compare well with a new R-1340. Exactly which version of the Buffalo someone flew could have affected their opinion as well.
I believe Blackburn got some pretty decent ships into his unit despite being fleet rejects. He was in VF-2 when they first got the Buffalo and was the unit's maintenance officer so I think he somewhat knew what he was doing. Now - "worn out R-1820s"? In what capacity? How do you know they were "worn out" or do you have proof of this? There were support organizations who overhauled engines (for individual squadrons) as they came due based on manufacturer requirements so I'd like to know where you think these engines were "worn out" or if individual squadrons were flying aircraft with engines beyond TBO? Additionally, what makes you think the any of the F2A-2s operated by VF-2/3 were "worn out" when they only been in service between 18 months and 2 years in peacetime conditions?
Maybe, the Brewster were too fragile for carrier operations thus the F4F was clearly better in that situation, though I imagine there would have been more damage on Henderson landings as well but to a lesser degree. Buffalo was also less well armed as the wildcat. Carl was an expert pilot so posssibly true for him but lesser pilots would likely not have done as well
Your source? And the pilots using them in training were just transitioning out of advanced trainers (N2S/ SNJ) so what would they compare them too??
