Sweetened ?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sweetened ?Just a black coffee for now, thanks!
Blue Ribbon winner from Biscarosse to NYC, 5 875 km including half with one feathered propeller.
A kitchen, barroom, saloon, sleeping rooms... What do you need ?
However there was the slight problem of plenty of naughty Germans and Italians who needed something dropped on them from something. All the Blenheim were needed for the task however weak they might be. In the Middle East they were dropping bombs from Vickers Valentias and in the BoF Hawker Hectors over Calais and dive bombing tanks with Swordfish.We want the pilots and other crewmembers to train in a safe aircraft.
Blenheims were ill suited for daylight tasks against the German opposition, and used 4-8 times as much of pilots per ton of bombs delivered than the better bombers RAF had in service.
However there was the slight problem of plenty of naughty Germans and Italians who needed something dropped on them from something. All the Blenheim were needed for the task however weak they might be. In the Middle East they were dropping bombs from Vickers Valentias and in the BoF Hawker Hectors over Calais and dive bombing tanks with Swordfish.
I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.Until the mid-1930s most flying boats were biplanes with somewhere high up to mount the engines and props away from any sea spray. The move to monoplanes generally meant accepting a deep and therefore draggy fuselage to achieve the same effect e.g. the Sunderland (Consolidated got round the problem with the PBY parasol wing layout)
Can't really see how. Look at the performance improvement between the last generation of biplane maritime recce aircraft in the shape of the Short Singapore and Saro London in comparison with the Sunderland. Just about everyone else was moving to monoplane flying boats in the same timeframe.I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.
Wasn't RN using their light carriers - Hermes/Argus/Eagle - more/less as seaplane carriers interwar? Additionally there are the dedicated seaplane carriers: Pegasus and Albatross.This is another example of the difference between USN and British practice in the maritime aviation sphere. The RAF flying boat bases were generally in sheltered locations adjacent to land masses and the RN made little use of seaplane carriers interwar, and when they did the RAF aircraft supplied were no larger than the Walrus. This is unlike the USN where it used a significant number of AV/AVP/AVD from the 1930s, starting with converted 4 stack destroyers and minesweepers to support their flying boats often in much more open waters.
Well yes and no. The facilities were there but the question is how much use was made of them.Wasn't RN using their light carriers - Hermes/Argus/Eagle - more/less as seaplane carriers interwar?
After 1923 Pegasus (Ark Royal until Dec 1934) was variously used as an aircraft ferry & minesweeper depot ship until 1930. After that she was used for early catapult trials and then periods in Reserve mixed with training seaplane crews in catapult launches (destined for capital ships and cruisers). Those activities continued into WW2 when she also saw service for a while as a fighter catapult ship with Fulmars.Additionally there are the dedicated seaplane carriers: Pegasus and Albatross.
Maybe not as many interwar as you might think given that Coastal Command was the poor relative in the RAF in this period.That the Commonwealth had more flying boat bases than USA goes without saying.
Note: RN didn't make as much use of Destroyer or Submarine tenders either - advantage of the sun never setting on the British Empire.
Another odd format is the Sikorsky S-40.Can't really see how. Look at the performance improvement between the last generation of biplane maritime recce aircraft in the shape of the Short Singapore and Saro London in comparison with the Sunderland. Just about everyone else was moving to monoplane flying boats in the same timeframe.
From late 1943 on, there was nothing wrong with the Napier Sabre other than availability. They did investigate Griffon engined mosquitos, but Hornets and Vampires were more important.The Halifax like the Manchester was originally supposed to be a twin and there was a proposal for a Sabre engined Mosquito. The problem was with the Sabre and Vulture engines.
Biplanes are a very clever solution to adequate structural strength and rigidity in a low-speed aircraft. As your cruising and do-not-exceed speeds go up, you ruggedize the airframe, making it no longer light-weight. You might as well stick with cantilever wings. I think more light general aviation aircraft should be biplanes.I wonder if a modern take on a biplane flying boat would be useful.
Missed this point yesterday. Again you might be surprised. Some of the old WW1 ships served until the end of WW2 (Titania, Lucia).Note: RN didn't make as much use of Destroyer or Submarine tenders either - advantage of the sun never setting on the British Empire.
Maybe biplanes are set to make a comeback, see the so-called Truss-braced wing concept. Idea being to have a very high aspect ratio wing that overcomes the extra drag caused by the trusses.Biplanes are a very clever solution to adequate structural strength and rigidity in a low-speed aircraft. As your cruising and do-not-exceed speeds go up, you ruggedize the airframe, making it no longer light-weight. You might as well stick with cantilever wings. I think more light general aviation aircraft should be biplanes.
I'm not surprised; I would have added Greenwich and Woolwich to your DD depot ships (at >8k tons they weren't exactly small) and SS depot Wuchang (far east conversion mid war) & Bonaventure (ii) <midget SS>:Missed this point yesterday. Again you might be surprised. Some of the old WW1 ships served until the end of WW2 (Titania, Lucia).
Depot Ships
Submarines were relatively small compared to most oceangoing vessels, and generally did not have the ability to carry large amounts of food, fuel, torpedoes, and other supplies, nor to carry a full array of maintenance equipment and personnel. The tender carried all these, and periodically met...rnsubs.co.uk
In the late 1920s/1930s the RN embarked on a renewal programme:-
Fleet repair ship:
Resource 1928
Sub depot ships:
Medway - completed 1929 to support new classes of subs being built for service in the Far East. Until 1940 spent her time at Hong Kong.
Maidstone
Forth
Adamant
Destroyer depot ships:
Tyne
Hecla
Then when WW2 broke out various merchant ships were acquired for use as destroyer or submarine depot ships (or for other vessels) or as fleet repair ships from 1940 onwards, something that gathered pace from early 1942 with the loss of the Singapore dockyard and then again from late 1943 with the requirement to build a fleet train for Pacific operations. Four of the bigger vessels used as depot ships:-
Blenheim
Philoctetes
Montclare
Wolfe
It's a shame that Armstrong-Siddeley through either a merger or investment-driven expansion (they were owned by Hawker since 1935) couldn't find the funding, talent or Air Ministry attention to pursue their best potential.Wither the Armstrong Siddeley engines were good or bad in the 1920s may be up for argument. The Problem in the 30s was that A-S didn't make any significant improvements over the 1920s engines while most of the rest of world (or British companies) did. The A-S engines were OK for trainers but high power eluded them. 1939 engines were much improved over 1931 engines and A-S was stuck in the early 30s.