Yep..been through a few changes, lol.
Which aircraft would you cancel?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep..been through a few changes, lol.
Where are they coming from. Forget the UK based ones, they were going nowhere. You can free them up with hindsight, but that was a luxury unavailable to those responsible for defending UK airspace at the time.
Cheers
Steve
Once you're done with enlarging the Bf 109, the DB-601/605 won't cut it, the described aircraft is almost a Fw 190, a fighter aircraft no one would realistically cancel. The slats were not that draggy in the 109, plus they serve the purpose in tight turns.
The Tempest offered not just a bigger wing, it was much thinner.
I like the 200 mm cannons, make it 8 in/203 mm?
There was nothing to defend from after the attack on the USSR started. By that point British intelligence (especially R V Jones) knew where any unit was in the west. He told them that he could guarantee at least a couple of months warning before any new bombing attacks started and then proved it later. Heck he predcted to the day when the V1 campaign would start.
it was just Douglas and Mallory being dicks basically and it took Churchill's personal intervention to change that. Shades of it taking Roosovelt's personal ineterventon to finally get more than one squadron of VLR B-24s for the battle of the Atlantic in the teeth of opposition from the USN and USAAF....
You read the history and then you sometimes wonder what side some of the 'air barons' (UK US) were on.
parsifal
Colonel
hi Steve
regarding the seafire
There is no denying the aircraft was not an ideal choice for carrier operations, but you are being very unfair in your appraisal in some respects.
Seafires first went to sea in in the med, aboard substandard CVE platforms for the most part. Aboard ships that could barely make enough speed to get air under the wings, which in turn made demands on the aircraft that US high performance types were never asked to meet. The type went to sea with grossly inadequate development and extremely green aircrews aboard ships unsuited to their performance, in conditions that brought out the worst faults in their conversion.
The overwhelming majority of Seafires during their wartime service were forced to operate from the woolworths carriers, whilst US types mostly operated from their big fleet types, leaving escort carrier ops up to their Wildcats and SBDs
In BPF service in 1945, some of these faults were addressed. The BPF operated mostly fleet carriers, had vastly more experienced aircrews, in weather conditions where headwinds existed and using mostly seafire IIIs. The Seafire was loperated alongside both Corsairs and Hellcats, and in these ops suffered the lowest operational loss rates of the three types by a wide margin.
in addition, it was found the range differences, so often toted as a major reason for the types failure were far less than might be expected. operating with the BPF, Hellcats were found to have an effective operational range of just over 200 miles, whilst the seafire IIIs had effective range of 185 miles, hardly a significant difference. The Corsair did have a worthwhile range advantage, it must be conceded, at 240 miles. But then the seafire was found to be a vastly superior point defence interceptor with its heavy cannon armament and good performance low down, it was ideal as a kamikaze killer
im not saying this aircraft was ideal, or good, or without serious problems, but your critique is highly selective and not representative of what the type actually did achieve. postwar the Seafire XV and 47s were both classy a/c.
regarding the seafire
There is no denying the aircraft was not an ideal choice for carrier operations, but you are being very unfair in your appraisal in some respects.
Seafires first went to sea in in the med, aboard substandard CVE platforms for the most part. Aboard ships that could barely make enough speed to get air under the wings, which in turn made demands on the aircraft that US high performance types were never asked to meet. The type went to sea with grossly inadequate development and extremely green aircrews aboard ships unsuited to their performance, in conditions that brought out the worst faults in their conversion.
The overwhelming majority of Seafires during their wartime service were forced to operate from the woolworths carriers, whilst US types mostly operated from their big fleet types, leaving escort carrier ops up to their Wildcats and SBDs
In BPF service in 1945, some of these faults were addressed. The BPF operated mostly fleet carriers, had vastly more experienced aircrews, in weather conditions where headwinds existed and using mostly seafire IIIs. The Seafire was loperated alongside both Corsairs and Hellcats, and in these ops suffered the lowest operational loss rates of the three types by a wide margin.
in addition, it was found the range differences, so often toted as a major reason for the types failure were far less than might be expected. operating with the BPF, Hellcats were found to have an effective operational range of just over 200 miles, whilst the seafire IIIs had effective range of 185 miles, hardly a significant difference. The Corsair did have a worthwhile range advantage, it must be conceded, at 240 miles. But then the seafire was found to be a vastly superior point defence interceptor with its heavy cannon armament and good performance low down, it was ideal as a kamikaze killer
im not saying this aircraft was ideal, or good, or without serious problems, but your critique is highly selective and not representative of what the type actually did achieve. postwar the Seafire XV and 47s were both classy a/c.
Last edited:
You can't escape the basic unsuitability of an aircraft designed for grass field operations for operations from a carrier deck. Many of the problems were intrinsic to the design of the aircraft. The development of the later Marks did overcome this to an extent, but they bore little resemblance to the aircraft operating throughout most of the war. 30 Wing set of for the Pacific with Seafire IIIs in March 1945, 24 Wing was already out east with the same type. The first three MK XVs arrived in the PTO (actually in Australia) in November 1945.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
Hi LisaM,
The political attitudes of the time being what they were, there was NO WAY a foreign aircraft would be accepted into the inventory as a main fighter. Sure, we flew a few out of interest and they made good mounts, but the U.S.A. at the time was firmly nationalistic. The only reason the Packard V-1650 came about was because it was intended for the UK. Serendipity helped make it into the P-51B and they were smart enough to take it from there, but we would never have made any foreign aircraft a main asset ... at the time.
We still don't. The T-45 Hawk the Navy flies is made by Boeing. The B-57 we flew was made by Martin. Ditto the T-6 is made here, too.
It might have been a good move, and I don't dispute that, but it was never going to get approval in WWII.
The political attitudes of the time being what they were, there was NO WAY a foreign aircraft would be accepted into the inventory as a main fighter. Sure, we flew a few out of interest and they made good mounts, but the U.S.A. at the time was firmly nationalistic. The only reason the Packard V-1650 came about was because it was intended for the UK. Serendipity helped make it into the P-51B and they were smart enough to take it from there, but we would never have made any foreign aircraft a main asset ... at the time.
We still don't. The T-45 Hawk the Navy flies is made by Boeing. The B-57 we flew was made by Martin. Ditto the T-6 is made here, too.
It might have been a good move, and I don't dispute that, but it was never going to get approval in WWII.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The USAAF did use several British types:
Spitfires: 4th FG (former VIII FC)
Beaufighter: 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th NFS - 12th AF/9th AF
Mosquito: 416th and 425th NFS, 653rd and 645th BS - 25th BG, 492nd BG, 8th recon/8th WRS - 802nd RG
and the Horsa Glider...
And more recently, the Harrier. While some Hawker/BAE were used for evaluation, the U.S. built version may have been domestic, but it was afterall, a British design...
The B-57 was a license-built English Electric Canberra complete with J65 engines that were license-built RR Avons. Even though it was built in the U.S., it's still British.
And here's a little bit of fun trivia: the Lockheed U-2 was based on a Canberra and guess who Lockheed had help with the modifications? English Electric.
Let's look at the Seafires at Salerno.
11 Squadrons totaling 106 aircraft were available on the first day. I won't go into details of all operations day by day, just a summarry.
In four days the Seafires flew 713 sorties, shot down 2 enemy aircraft (and 1 P-51) and damaged 4 more.
In this period 32 were destroyed in deck landing crashes, 17 suffered undercarriage failure, 24 suffered distortion of the rear fuselage and 4 suffered engine failures. The first category is a reflection of the aerodynamic unsuitability of the Seafire for carrier operations, the second two reflect the inherent weakness of a light weight interceptor, designed for grass field operations, operating from carriers. The final category could have happened to any aircraft. The problem is that this amounts to a total of 77 of 106 aircraft (near enough 75%) rendered unservicable in four days of operations.
On the fourth day of operations all 26 available Seafires (not sure what happened to the other 3) left the carriers for the now ready airfield at Paestrum.
Whatever the Seafires did or did not achieve at Salerno they were obviously incapable of long term operations from the available RN carriers at the time. A return of 2 for 77 isn't going to win a war.
The best the Seafire did was probably covering 'Dragoon'. Same carriers but better conditions and,crucially, better training, meant that the deck landing crash rate fell to 1 in 50 landings, better than twice as good as the 1 in 22 of Salerno.
The inherent weakness of the undercarriage and fuselage, with the need to make almost perfect landings at 3 knots above the stall was never overcome on war time Marks.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
A minor correction as it doesn't change the point you are making one bit.
The J-65 was a licenced Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire, although modified,(and could be traced back to a Metrovick project) and not an Avon.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
TELL US MORE!?!?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The story of the U-2 is really a cool evolutionary story...as it was the highly modified B-57 (licensed Canberra) that got the ball rolling. With EE's help, B-57 (RB-57D) project saw the max altitude increase from 48,000 feet to reach nearly 70,000 feet.
Once Lockheed got involved, the U-2 went from the B-57 platform to the (then develping) F-104 platform.
Anyway, the story of the U-2 concept, from start to finish is a great one filled with all sorts of political posturing, arguing between service branches, intrigue and stuff that would make a great movie. It was also the failure of project Rainbow that launched project Oxcart.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Ahhh, OK - now I remember reading the same. I believe the U-2 actually flew before the RB-57D as well
The U-2 first flew in Aug. 55, the RB-57D first flew in Nov. 55.
The RAF long wing version of the Canberra, PRmk9, was doing missions in 1953, but it had just a 4 ft. extension in wingspan..
I just don't see much evidence of any technology transfer. Two radically different approaches to the same problem.
The RAF long wing version of the Canberra, PRmk9, was doing missions in 1953, but it had just a 4 ft. extension in wingspan..
I just don't see much evidence of any technology transfer. Two radically different approaches to the same problem.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There wasn't a "tech" transfer but the quest of the USAF to obtain a high-altitude PR platform through the RB-57 program caught the attention of Kelly Johnson, who set out to create his own version...
If you want to ditch the P40 in the desert, why not replace it with a P39 that has a 20mm cannon in place of the 37mm, remove the wing guns and some of the armor and turn up the boost on the Allison so it can fight below 12,000 feet just like the Russians did. The Russians thought it was superior to the P40 and the Hurricane. In tests it was considered the equal of the Spitfire below 15,000 feet.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually the U-2 was based on the same specification that created the RB-57D. Now I remember hearing this at a Lockheed Management Club meeting in the early 80s when Johnson was a guest speaker. Learning about the RB-57D, he knew he could build a better aircraft tailored for the mission for both the USAF and CIA.
I thought that the canberra was designed with stubby wings because of the designers previous experience of long thin wings.
Cancel? None! In fact I would approve for production a number of one-offs and also rans. Why? So we would have more kits to build, books to read and pictures to look at! 
Kryten
Senior Airman
In WW2 I would cancel the Stirling and make more Wellingtons, the He177 and make anything else!
Post war the Starfighter and save a lot of grief and lives!
Post war the Starfighter and save a lot of grief and lives!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
