Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That's a big ask in 1936-38. Even in Sept 1939 no SE fighter existed anywhere that could meet those requirements.
 
Admiral Beez said:
My thinking is that it would be a pre-war Specification, but would not enter service until 1940 or early 1941.
Click to expand...
The AM/FAA issued specification N.8/39 in 1939:


 
RCAFson said:
Read the bottom half of the quote.
Click to expand...

And which domestic single-seat proposal was taken in hand? I'm struggling to think of any single-seat FAA fighter that wasn't a converted RAF fighter or purchased from America. His hypothetical service date of "1940-41" narrows the window a lot. What project do you sacrifice in order to get this hot-shot operational in the FAA by 40-41?
 
There was no way to get such an aircraft into series production in less than two years.

Fairey proposed a single seat fighter and the Blackburn Firebrand was accepted and built to that spec. The Hawker Sea Fury originated from that proposal as well.
 
RCAFson said:
There was no way to get such an aircraft into series production in less than two years.
Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I think mentioning that spec isn't really apt. Beezy's kinda asking for the Moon in that time-frame, I think. Took us Americans near the end of 41 to get the Wildcat operational, and the Japanese around the middle of that year(?) to get the Zero operational, and neither of those meet all his specs.
 
The Zero reached the front line from July 1940 initially with a trials unit. By Sept they had two units flying them in China alongside the A5M.

The carrier capable A6M2 Model 21 version went into production in Nov 1940 and began to reach the carrier squadrons from early 1941. Over 350 were in service by PH.

The Martlet I entered front line service in Oct 1940 and the first squadron went aboard the escort carrier Audacity to work up in July 1941.
 

An even more disappointing Blackburn Firebrand?

Check out the responses to Specification N.8/37, which called for development of a carrier-based single-seat fighter for the Fleet Air Arm, capable of at least 380mph at 15,000ft and armed with 8 Mags.

EDIT: d'oh, beaten to the punch.
 

So they're on the early side of his timeline (40-41) but still don't fulfill his stipulations ... which was my point.
 
So lets see how the 2-3 contenders do, P for Pass and F for fail.

Requirement....................................................................................................Martlet I.........................F4F-3......................................A6M2

1) Single seat.........................................................................................................P.....................................P................................................P
2) Single engine....................................................................................................P.....................................P...............................................P
3) Monoplane.......................................................................................................P......................................P...............................................P
4) Retractable undercarriage..........................................................................P......................................P...............................................P
5) Fitted with 8 mg.............................................................................................P......................................P...............................................P
6)with possible upgrade to four 20mm or combo................................F.......................................F...............................................F
7) 330 mph or faster..........................................................................................F.......................................P..............................................P
8) with competitive rate of climb.................................................................F.......................................F...............................................P
9) 900 mile combat endurance.....................................................................F.......................................F...............................................P
10) Foldable to less than 20ft wide and 12ft high................................F........................................P..............................................F
11) Wide robust undercarriage with good forward view...................F.......................................F...............................................P
12) Good low speed handling.......................................................................P......................................P...............................................P

I gave everybody a pass on the eight .303 requirement. I am not going to argue about four .50s vs eight .303s or two 20mm vs six .303s
The upgrade to four 20mm is fail, I am assuming since this was a British spec (hypothetically) that the 20mm intended was the Hispano gun.
Martlet I fails the speed requirement.
The Martlet and F4F-3 fail the range/endurance requirement. it says combat, not ferry.
Martlet and F4F-3 both fail the WIDE undercarriage requirement, it may have been sturdy (?) but it was narrow and tippy.

The Zero has the best record after the first 4 requirements (which could have been passed by anything designed after 1938)
however the A6M2 had a few problems in late 1940 and early 1941.
1 was the no folding wing to start, Folding was introduced in production with the 67th airframe.
2 there was a back and forth with fitting a tab on the Aileron for better roll response.
3 there was an early crash with one of the A6M1 prototypes that lead to a number or restrictions on the first 50 aircraft built and modifications to later ones.
4 a second crash in April 1941 was traced to wing failure due to overstraining the wing by lowering speed at which the wing began to flutter due to the aileron balance tab which had not been part of the original design.
Solutions used on all Zeros built after May of 1941 include.
1. Increase thickness of outer wing skin
2, Install longitudinal stringers to increase torsional strength
3, add external balance weights to ailerons pending redesign of ailerons to use internal weight/s.
4 Pilot confidence in the balance tab system was ruined and the tab system was removed until early 1943.

edit> this decreased the roll response of the early Zero's. <edit

The Zero was used in China in 1940 but it was not quite the Zero of late 1941. ALL Zeros used at Pearl Harbor had been built between May and Nov of 1941.

BTW the list does not include either armor or fuel tank protection. None of the candidates had it.
 
Last edited:
SaparotRob said:
I'm a fan of the A6M but does that wing tip fold look a bit ridiculous lame unimpressive to anyone else?
Click to expand...
It did what was required.
Made it easier to get the planes on and off the lift/elevator with the least amount of weight gain possible.

Be careful what you ask for. The designers just may give it to you.......................and nothing more.
 

Because it was British????

Ducking now!!
 
Admiral Beez said:
The Japanese ditched it on later variants. The tip fold didn't do much to help with stowage.
Click to expand...
It wasn't intended to help stowage.
It was intended to reduce the chances of wing tip damage when transporting the aircraft on the carrier lifts/elevators.
The Early Zeros had wing spans nearly identical to the width of the elevator shafts on certain carriers.
Later Zeros had the wing tip shortened (A6M3) and left square or shortened and rounded (A6M5).
Neither did anything for stowage but made handling aboard carriers easier.
 
Shokaku
The forward elevator was larger than the others to allow aircraft that had just landed to be moved below without folding their wings and measured 13 by 16 meters (42 ft 8 in × 52 ft 6 in). The other elevators were narrower, 13 by 12 meters (42 ft 8 in × 39 ft 4 in)
A6M2 wing span 39ft 4 1/2in.
D3A Val

Pretty much the same deal. Enough fold to get up and down the elevators.
 
Similar reasoning to the T shaped lifts on early British carriers. In an era without barriers or deck parks forward for aircraft just landed. Roll them forward onto the lift, strike them down into the hangar, and fold the wings as the aircraft is pushed off the lift into the hangar itself. Helps speed up the landing cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
don4331
D
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
Replies
12
Views
375
Shortround6
S
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
3K
Denniss
D
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
1K
cammerjeff
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
1K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register