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

IDK. I expect the firms to fail to deliver on the performance specs, especially in the early variants, but I think whatever is chosen would be both interesting and competitive for the MTO and later PTO. Something like a Spitfire with a Mustang's internal fuel, Fulmar's wing fold and robust undercarriage and the Barracuda's excellent landing characteristics (as far as those flaps and wings can work on a fighter without hurting performance) would be a start.

The Barracuda may be ugly, but did you ever see another British-designed monoplane carrier aircraft land with so little drama?


View: https://youtu.be/tnNpUk-6VGo?t=501
 
Admiral Beez said:
but did you ever see another British-designed monoplane carrier aircraft land with so little drama?
Click to expand...
No camera's but the Hurricanes that landed on Board off Norway without arresting hooks?
One Spitfire had problems going to Malta ( Flaps?) and had to return to the carrier, after burning off fuel it landed back aboard, also without arresting hook. Granted it was not a 17kt escort carrier in a flat calm.
 
There were two Spitfire incidents.

1. During Operation Bowery in May 1942, one of the Spitfires launched from USS Wasp, serial BR126, was recovered by the ship after its drop tank refused to draw.

2.During Operation Bellows, part of Operation Pedestal in Aug 1942. It took off from Furious and landed on Indomitable, before she was damaged. Contrary to some reports it was returned to Gibraltar It appears in a couple of IWM photos as final aircraft in the range.

OPERATION PEDESTAL, AUGUST 1942

12 August: The bombing of HMS INDOMITABLE: Detailed photograph of the damage to HMS INDOMITABLE's flight deck.
www.iwm.org.uk
 
I would suggest those are examples of dramatic, fingers crossed landings. I was suggesting the opposite.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I think the more apt comparison is the speed advantage or lack thereof the Barracuda offered over its predecessors; Swordfish and Albacore.
Click to expand...
In post #9 I quoted data from the 3 April 1944 strike leaders report:

'Over Norwegian territory,
they flew for 12mins at 165 knots true, then slowly reduced
height while increasing speed to 195 knots true. When no
fighters appeared, Rance ordered the wing into two
columns at 210 knots true to aid flak evasion...'

These speeds are well above the maximum level speed of the Albacore.
 
Just like motor racing the crashes are more spectacular and make more exciting viewing than the rest of the time the cars spend on track.

During the Korean War HMS Glory with an airgroup of Sea Furies and Fireflies produced the following deck landing stats.

First tour Apr-Sept 1951 with 9 patrols.
Firefly deck landings 1,053; accidents 6
Sea Fury deck landings 1,818; accidents 3

They succeeded in having a run of 1,115 accident free deck landings.

Second tour no data on accident numbers

Third tour Nov 1952 - May 1953. 11 patrols.
Firefly deck landings 1,869; accidents 4
Sea Fury deck landings 2,871; accidents 11

This time the best accident free run was 888 deck landings.

The film footage is from HMAS Sydney. I doubt her performance off Korea was significantly different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
9K
GregP
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
A
Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
don4331
D
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register