swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,030
- Jun 25, 2013
It was the Bell FM-1, a bomber destroyer that was slower than the bombers it was supposed to shoot down. It doesn't fit the criteria for this thread, as it had a crew of five
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 thought you meant the GM built Wildcat. I forgot about the Aircuda. It was called the Aircuda, right?
At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.I think it was Airacuda, but no matter.
The Defiant was a good design to a bad spec; the Airacuda was a poor design to a bad spec.
No.Could the Bismarck and Tirpitz be included? heavily armed and good at low level with advanced RADAR?
I'll have to dig out my Bloody Shambles, but IIRC even the Buffalo had good kill ratios against the Oscar. Of course a few dozen Bufffaloes would be overwhelmed by the number of Oscars. I suppose any aircraft in this category is deadly.
This vid of the Oscar is well done. I'll do some reading on the Buffalo and see if I can find any references to Oscar kills.
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.
And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.
That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.And yet, somehow the Japanese managed to pull it off. Just too late to turn the tide of the war.....View attachment 585138
Touche!That's a Yamato-class ship. Not a Bismark class.
And there are <500 of either class, nor do they have retractable landing gear.
No.
<500 built, and no retractable undercarriage.
At least with both the Defiant and Roc, you ended ended up with some useful target tugs.
I don't think it's an apt comparison really, "Airacuda" considering two pusher engines, high caliber guns, 5 crew etc. etc. , was a much more radical experiment as a fighter (or 'bomber destroyer') and a much bigger aircraft, but it (almost literally) never got off the ground. It was little more than a weird experiment, which nobody was dumb enough to put into regular production, only 12 were made and it only ever equipped a single experimental squadron. It was considered so unreliable they never flew without chase planes. Defiant was much more widely used, until 1942, and they built 1,000 of them...
It was still, in my opinion, a poor design. Why? Leaving aside the armament, the idea of using a single APU to power all the electrical systems on the aircraft, including the electric fuel pumps needed to keep the engines running, was, at best, misguided and tends to approach the blatantly stupid.
I don't know which they made more of.Well if that is the case why are they talking about the I-16? Most of them were open cockpit.
View attachment 585137