April 1942 Alternate Indian Ocean

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
MatthewB

MatthewB

Banned
Glyndwr01 said:
http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files...ine-Spitfire/Supermarine-FloatSpitfireMk9.htm
Spitfire Floatplanes (types 355 and 359)[edit]
Click to expand...
I've always thought that Spitfire Floatplane did it all wrong. A central float would have allowed for more speed, and catapult use.

e914923b621c11b17e3c6c96e85c0dfc.jpg


N1K1_in_biwalake.jpg
 

1Big Rich

MatthewB said:
I've always thought that Spitfire Floatplane did it all wrong. A central float would have allowed for more speed, and catapult use.
Click to expand...

Twin floats didn't preclude catapult use, Matthew. The Float Swordfish was a twin-float configuration.

1280px-A_Fairey_Swordfish_being_hoisted_aboard_HMS_MALAYA-_October_1941-_A5694.jpg


And they were used from ships, most famously Warspite at Second Narvik, where her float Swordfish sank U-64.

I would imagine all the catapult would need would be a cradle that could accommodate the twin floats for launch....

My thoughts,
 
MatthewB

MatthewB

Banned
Of course, thanks. I wonder if the two big floats add more or less drag and weight than one central large float and two smaller outriggers.
 

1Big Rich

MatthewB said:
Of course, thanks. I wonder if the two big floats add more or less drag and weight than one central large float and two smaller outriggers.
Click to expand...

I have wondered that myself; I've never encountered an answer. I would imagine the single central/two small outriggers would be the lighter configuration, which may have been a driver for so many aircraft to use it.

I do know the twin float configuration on the float Swordfish allowed them to retain the ability to carry a torpedo. The float Vindicator and Helldiver I mentioned earlier also used a twin float configuration to retain their bombing ability.

Regards,
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
MatthewB said:
Of course, thanks. I wonder if the two big floats add more or less drag and weight than one central large float and two smaller outriggers.
Click to expand...
"Winkle" Brown said they did not affect performance in dogfighting too much and not too much on performance; and he is the authority on flying WW2 aircraft!
 

sonofpegasus

Jeffrey Quill seemed quite complacentry about the handling as well and he most definitely new what he was talking about regarding Spitfires.
 

sloreck

To reduce drag you can have the two outrigger floats retract and line up on the wingtips, several flying boats did this. You'd have to see if the weight of a retraction mechanism made the aerodynamic gain worthwhile or not.
 
MatthewB

MatthewB

Banned
Captain Seafort said:
Never mind WW2. Winkle Brown is the authority on anything with wings from 1940-1970
Click to expand...
He approved the Seafire, I think because it was easy for "him" to land it on a carrier. In about 2,000 carrier landings he never once crashed a plane. They should have had a pilot with only a few hundred hours try to land the Seafire, and see if he can do better than this lad below.

 

sonofpegasus

Jeffrey Quill the Head test pilot for Supermarine on Spitfires and 'Winkle" Brown as the FAA test pilot had a very famous difference of opinion on the safest standard method of landing a spitfire on an aircraft carrier, 'Winkle's' preferred system was to crab the aircraft in so that he could spot the flight deck over the left hand side of the engine. Meanwhile Quill advocated a curving left hand approach enabling the pilot to keep a clear view of the deck. Quill's method prevailed as it was easier for the average pilot.
 
MatthewB

MatthewB

Banned
sonofpegasus said:
Jeffrey Quill the Head test pilot for Supermarine on Spitfires and 'Winkle" Brown as the FAA test pilot had a very famous difference of opinion on the safest standard method of landing a spitfire on an aircraft carrier, 'Winkle's' preferred system was to crab the aircraft in so that he could spot the flight deck over the left hand side of the engine. Meanwhile Quill advocated a curving left hand approach enabling the pilot to keep a clear view of the deck. Quill's method prevailed as it was easier for the average pilot.
Click to expand...
Goodness, even these "good" landings where the Seafire doesn't break its undercarriage look scary enough.



Compare to the Fulmar landing.


Even the ditching is uneventful enough.

 

jlckansas

One thing I was not able to find out was how possible it was to use the floats on the C 47 seaplane for fuel. Given the size of them I can imagine they might add somewhat to the range of the aircraft but the problem would be how much of the cargo load it would loose then.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Jellico said:
Doesn't a float have to be full of air to... float?
Click to expand...

No. Anything less dense than water (like nearly all petroleum products) will provide some flotation. You (i.e. the entire aircraft) just have to end up weighing less than the displacement of the bits that get wet. Think about loading a ship with cargo. You can put some heavy stuff within a a waterproof shape, but a solid rectangular block of iron on it's own won't float.
 
Reader mode
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top