Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We'd need to compare them to the biplanes of the time. For example, when the precursor D.371 (and for that matter the parasol PZL P.11) first flew the Brits were flying the Fairey Flycatcher, the USN the Curtiss F11C Goshawk and the IJN the Nakajima A1N. I give the Dewoitine strong odds. The Nakajima, for instance was woefully slow compared to the D.371 - the IJN truly took a massive leap ahead of everyone with the introduction of the superlative A5M.Were any of the parasol fighters worth a hoot?
There were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.Swordfish, though not a biplane fighter had folding wings
Ok.Swordfish, though not a biplane fighter had folding wings
Yes there were bi-planes, and two and three seaters with folding wings before the 1937 introduction of the D.376. For example, here's the Short Folder of 1913.There were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.
I never knew that, thanksThere were bi planes flown off submarines between the wars and the Blackburn Skua first flew in 1937.
What was the Skua? I thought the "topic" was just declaring wonderful French technology and pointing to crap British technology like most of your jingoistic threads. There were 29 Dewotine 376's built so the French must have had a similar opinion to me, it wasn't very good. Try drinking some tea without salt for your next thread. Making wings foldable isn't that difficult.Ok.
The topic of discussion is single-seat monoplane carrier fighters.
I am scrambling around in the dark trying to find what the point of discussion is, apart from the British werent as good as anyone else at any time, a regular theme with the "Admiral". I wasnt questioning your post, just adding to it with information most already know (I am certain you did).I never knew that, thanks
It was a twin-seat fighter-bomber. One of my favourite pre-war carrier aircraft. When it was withdrawn from FAA service in 1941, all of them should have been transferred to the RAF and deployed as CAS in Malaya, giving the RAF in the Far East a dive bombing capability that they wouldn't have until the Vultee Vengeance in 1943. Imagine this as RAF Seletar in early 1941 when the first RAF transfers arrive.What was the Skua?
I would think to agree with you, which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.Making wings foldable isn't that difficult.
Folding the wings backwards doesn't create more space though it may be more convenient for some things, it seems to block any access to the cockpit t.o my un trained eyeIt was a twin-seat fighter-bomber. One of my favourite pre-war carrier aircraft. When it was withdrawn from FAA service in 1941, all of them should have been transferred to the RAF and deployed as CAS in Malaya. But I digress, I should be writing on the single-seat naval fighters with folding wings.I would think to agree with you, which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.
Here's USS Langley's (CV-1) hangar. This space is just crying out for more compact aircraft stowage.
View attachment 563383
When the Hawker Nimrod replaced the Fairey Flycatcher the FAA's fighter wingspan increased by four feet. That's a sizeable increase in needed stowage space. Did the British Air Ministry see the D.376 and decide folding wings wasn't worth the trouble?
When I look at this pic of HMS Argus, I cant help but think backward folding Hurricanes would have created more space, though vertical fold perhaps more so.Folding the wings backwards doesn't create more space though
Were any of the parasol fighters worth a hoot?
which makes one wonder why no one else bothered to make a folding-wing single-seat fighter, of any wing configuration until the 1940s.
Like the Spitfire-derived Seafire, I don't think many naval aircraft conversions presented any performance gain over their often lighter land-based brethren. Though come to think of it, such fighter conversions were rare. I can think of the Sea Hurricane, Bf 109T, Bell Airabonita and Reggiane Re.2001.I've read where the D 376 as a result of being "navalised" was inferior to the D 371.
Thoughts on the D.376?
What would you rather send after a JU 88 or FW Condor? 1 Hurricane or 10 Dewotines?When I look at this pic of HMS Argus, I cant help but think backward folding Hurricanes would have created more space, though vertical fold perhaps more so.
View attachment 563385
Here's Argus with folding aircraft.
View attachment 563386
If service dates are irrelevant, I'll take Hawker Sea Furies please.What would you rather send after a JU 88 or FW Condor? 1 Hurricane or 10 Dewotines?