Why airplanes were designed the way they were. (2 Viewers)

[swampyankee]

I thought everyone would remember the iconic North American O-47A

We're not allowed to teach historical American failures, except the Bell FM-2

 

[Shortround6]

We're not allowed to teach historical American failures

It did lead to the more well known Fairey Barracuda.
Just fit Merlin engine, fold the wing and sling torpedo underneath

Just about everybody's "observation" planes of the late 30s were operational failures. Actual combat had changed a lot faster than the requirements. And in many Air Forces one airplane (due to budgets?) was being asked to do too many different missions. And often without support (fighter escort).

Wither they were flight failures (didn't fly well) or had structural problems may be a different story.

 

[MikeMeech]

It did lead to the more well known Fairey Barracuda.
Just fit Merlin engine, fold the wing and sling torpedo underneath

Just about everybody's "observation" planes of the late 30s were operational failures. Actual combat had changed a lot faster than the requirements. And in many Air Forces one airplane (due to budgets?) was being asked to do too many different missions. And often without support (fighter escort).

Wither they were flight failures (didn't fly well) or had structural problems may be a different story.

Hi
I think the Westland Walrus (three-seater carrier-borne spotter reconnaissance bi-plane of the 1920s) trumps both:

(Source: 'Westland Aircraft since 1915' by Derek N James)
Mike

 

[marathag]

We're not allowed to teach historical American failures, except the Bell FM-2

This one is allowed, too,

Everything is enclosed. USN loved that angled torpedo in 1934

 

[HP52]

Good points. IMO, the Gloster F5/34 suffered in prototype trials due to the Mercury engine they were obliged to use instead of the not ready Perseus. Stick a Kestrel onto the Spitfire prototype and see how it goes.

Just like Willy did on the prototype BF109! Gimme more horses!