Gee fill the float with fuel and it would probably help quite a bit with the range. Should be able to still catch a swordfish though.Is this as silly as it looks?
docfl
Gee fill the float with fuel and it would probably help quite a bit with the range. Should be able to still catch a swordfish though.Is this as silly as it looks?
I’ve no knowledge on the Spitfire version's performance, but it does give you the impression of someone trying to perform Swan Lake while wearing Welly Boots.
I cant find it now but I have seen a picture of a US Navy float plane being recovered by a cruiser at speed. The ship lowered a mat on to the water that the plane taxied on to. The mat was then dragged alongside the ship and the crane winched it up. I know the ship was moving but don't know how fast.
docfl
Edit, Found it.
http://www.usslittlerock.org/Armament/SC-1_Aircraft.html
Well that sounds rather unpleasant; weren't more Me-109s disabled during the Battle of Britain due to landing accidents than by the RAF?It would have still born all the horrible take off and landing features of the land version coupled with trying to land on a pitching carrier deck rolling at 25 knots into the wind.
Well that sounds rather unpleasant; weren't more Me-109s disabled during the Battle of Britain due to landing accidents than by the RAF?
I can't speak to that; but somewhere (depending on source) between 6.3 and 8.9 percent of all ME-109 pilot casualties where in take off and landing accidents; and that is not taking into account the hundreds of accidents where the pilot wasn't injured but the aircraft was still in an accident
The FW-190 was less than 1 percentand yet somehow they still kept the 109 in service till the bitter end
Another source told me that 5.1% of Me 109 aircraft were destroyed in landing accidents.
Still, the Fw-190 was a lot more expensive.
It was more expensive because it didn't get the DB engine that was already in production and had reasonable unit costs since it was being supplied in a number of frames
an early inline FW-190 would proportionally have been cheaper (especially when you take into account the huge savings in not losing so many pilots)
So, something like this?
![]()