The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I wonder which the FAA rejected faster, the Bermuda or Chesapeake. The latter might have been useful in Malaya with the RAF as a CAS bomber.
That would be the I-180. canceled in prototype stage and factory used to make the lagg-3I wonder if they could have 'fixed' the I-16 by just stretching it out about three feet and maybe putting an enclosed cockpit.
TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.The Chesapeake was the better of the two, being marginally functional vs. a complete non-starter like the Bermuda. Vindicators (Chesapeake) were actually used at Midway, though it's unclear if they got any hits.
TSR biplanes and retrofitted Fulmars aside, I suppose, after the Skua was removed, any decently competent monoplane, retractable undercarriage dive-bomber would have been welcome on RN carriers.
Still probably better than the B-229 or Hawk 75 that the Finns liked so much. The I-16 had similar performance and maneuverability but was much more heavily armed and had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.
I think the small CAG needed multipurpose types, so Stringbags and Applecores that could partially dive bomb and also carry a torpedo was deemed best.Doesn't seem lke RN got a lot of SBD's, do you know why? Maybe they thought their range was too short...? Those were the by far the most effective early war navy strike planes.
P-11 doestm meet criteria of retractable undercarriage and closed cockpit. As for armament P. 11a and b had only two MGs. P11c (and not really built g variant) had 4 but 2 of them were field removed to Save weight andimprove speed.Guns of the top 6 candidates:
EDIT: corrected armament of the Bloch
MiG-3 - Started out with a heavy armament of 2 x LMG and 3 x HMG, this was reduced on some aircraft to save weight to 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG or even 1 and 1, but it didn't help much.
LaGG-1/3 - Also started with heavyish armament of up to 5 machine guns, ended up with 1 x hub 20mm ShVAK hub cannon and 1 or 2 x HMG or LMG. Still fairly potent by early war standards.
MS. 406 - One hub mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two LMG
Bloch 150 / 152 - Two wing-mounted Hispano 20mm cannon (60 rounds) and two or four x LMG
Fiat G.50 - Two HMG
PZL P.11 - Two to four LMG
So of those, I would say the P.11 and G.50 were the least heavily armed, though not necessarily the worst fighters of the group. The I-16 by the way, was armed with just two LMG in the Spanish Civil War but most variants that faced the Germans had 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannon plus 2 x LMGs, all in the wings. Soviet cannon were quite good, their HMG were good, their ShKAS LMGs were superb. The Breda HMG in the Fiat were considered pretty bad, slow firing and relatively lightweight ammo for the caliber.
Could the Boulton Paul Defiant have been made less awful by removing the turret or was the production run over when realized it stunk?
So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.Removing the ton or so of turret and its drag wouldn't hurt performance, but it would still be far too much airframe for its role.
I think "turret fighter" was one of those concepts which made some sense on paper but the Defiant, like its closest US counterpart, the FM-1, was an idea which was intrinsically flawed. If anything, the Defiant was, at least, a competently designed airframe.
So a simple "chopping off" a length for balance wouldn't have helped (center of gravity)? I was thinking of improving a bad plane by taking stuff out and using less critical materials.
I never knew the FM-1 was not an improvement.
I think you just explained the reason for most of the awful aircraft ever built.The Defiant wasn't a bad plane. It was a good design that met a flawed specification.