SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Look up Drachinifel's video on the Graph Zeppelin. He even has a somewhat recent image of it.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not because of the width of the track but the way the suspension worked.Dunno. May be because USSR cut Graf Zeppelin into little pieces?
So, you say that Spit's narrow track is not that bad as Bf 109's narrow track?
"It would seem wooden constructed aero planes are unsuitable for this kind of treatment."I recall reading that Brown's success in landing the Seafire contributed to its adoption, but the AM and FAA didn't take into account that Brown was a superlative carrier pilot and could probably land a Whirlwind (high stall, high landing speed, etc.) on a carrier if needed. Heck, he landed a Mosquito. The Seafire qualifications needed to be made with greener, or more average FAA pilots.
To prove or disprove that we'd have to compare it to other, contemporary, naval fighters.
This F4F sank in less than 8 seconds:
F4F Wildcat – History, at Random
I read an account from a pilot who did ditch a Hurricane, against all advice, who reckoned that it sank in 'one and a half seconds'. Obviously he wasn't counting, what he meant was that it sank almost as soon as it hit the water.
Thanks. It would be useful if we could find something like a comparative survival rate for aircraft ditchings.
Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.I read an account from a pilot who did ditch a Hurricane, against all advice, who reckoned that it sank in 'one and a half seconds'. Obviously he wasn't counting, what he meant was that it sank almost as soon as it hit the water.
What is there to float? The rear is covered in dope, the front is an engine and the centre has a water scoop to fill the area from the inner wings and cockpit area.Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.
Which airfields were grass when the Spiteful was in service or even designed? The late model Spitfires were hugely different in landing gear to the first, they telescoped out to give more clearance for the propeller and they retracted outwards not inwards. Supermarine were restricted to using as many parts as possible from previous designs.Besides track distance, how did the Seafang's undercarriage, flaps or landing characteristics differ from those worst elements of the early and late Seafires? This was Supermarine's chance to get it right, but it's still based on the grassfield-intended Spiteful.
View attachment 602483
So, you say that Spit's narrow track is not that bad as Bf 109's narrow track?
Good points on the Bf 109. This experienced pilot looked to be facing a tail that wanted to lead as he took off.The Bf 109's track was wider than the Spitfire's and as Stona pointed out it was the geometry of the Bf 109's legs that made it awkward. The legs were angled forward from the fuselage to the wheel axle and because the legs splayed outwards when viewed from the front, the wheels themselves were angled outwards. Another issue that affected the Bf 109's handling on the ground was that it was tail heavy, which meant that with an increase in power caused the tail to 'lead' when taxying, which was a constant source of trouble for inexperienced pilots. The tailwheel could be locked into place for take off. The fact that there is very little fin area to speak of and a rudder that is completely ineffective on the ground meant the lot was a real handful and even experienced pilots had to be ready for any sign of trouble.
View attachment 602492DG200 front
View attachment 602494Spitfire running-1
This experienced pilot looked to be facing a tail that wanted to lead as he took off.
Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.
Yes, and the late interwar Air Ministry made available the funds and manufacturers to give the FAA the opportunity to make their own bespoke fighter, made exactly to their specifications and the specialized needs of carrier ops. And they made the Fulmar.....The British would have been better designing a single seat carrier fighter from scratch, addressing all the aerodynamic issues as well as endurance etc.
Could it have been the same "not invented here" attitude that hobble so many decisions? A rhetorical question.Yes, and the late interwar Air Ministry made available the funds and manufacturers to give the FAA the opportunity to make their own bespoke fighter, made exactly to their specifications and the specialized needs of carrier ops. And they made the Fulmar.....
There's no reason the British couldn't look around at the F2A, F4F, A5M and landbased fighters then in service and made the Fulmar a single engined carrier fighter.
I don't think so, since when the Fulmar was made the home designed Spitfire and Hurricane were already flying. What fighter did the Fulmar's designers expect to be fighting? Mitchell and Camm built the Spitfire and Hurricane with an exact role in mind, huge eight-gun armament (when the IJAF's Ki-27 and the like were armed with two or at best four mgs), high speed and ROC, with relatively short range, with the aim to shootdown fast, medium German bombers. They were tailor made for the Battle of Britain... which is why neither were that great in the FAA, especially the Seafire we're discussing here.Could it have been the same "not invented here" attitude that hobble so many decisions? A rhetorical question.