I know, but I didn't know that they had to be written in chronological order.
Worst Possible Name For A Combat Aircraft.
- Thread starter oldironside
- Start date
I know, but I didn't know that they had to be written in chronological order.
I give you the Blackburn Blackburn - I case you forgot who had built it:
Best,
Christ, I wouldn't take bla... er... credit for it once, much less twice.
That's not the worst of it. They built a floatplane version...
If this is indicative of Blackburn's understanding of aerodynamics, it would go a long way to explaining the Skua and Roc.
TFSmith121
Banned
True, but interservice stupidity in peacetime (more or less)
True, but interservice stupidity in peacetime (more or less) is one thing; interallied silliness in time of war (existential threat and all that) and with an ally that speaks (more or less) the same language is another.
Hey, some of the early helicopters that ended up being adopted by all three services before the unified system had THREE names and designations. Nothing like the Cold War US military to focus on what's important...
I can say that because I was there, of course.
Best,
True, but interservice stupidity in peacetime (more or less) is one thing; interallied silliness in time of war (existential threat and all that) and with an ally that speaks (more or less) the same language is another.
Hey, some of the early helicopters that ended up being adopted by all three services before the unified system had THREE names and designations. Nothing like the Cold War US military to focus on what's important...
I can say that because I was there, of course.
Best,
Saphroneth
Banned
I wonder if it would have gone better to get Tony Blackburn to design an aircraft...
Actually, that'd be a fun one. The Blackburn Tony.
Actually, that'd be a fun one. The Blackburn Tony.
TFSmith121
Banned
There was even a Blackburn Blackburn II
There was even a Blackburn Blackburn II...
The portholes are a nice touch; very nautical.
Best,
There was even a Blackburn Blackburn II...
The portholes are a nice touch; very nautical.
Best,
Well, he knew elegantly proportioned when he saw it. You can't say that about the plane company.
I think we are being hard on an early 1920s aeroplane that was designed for spotting and reconnaissance.
It's rival the Avro Bison doesn't look that much better.
Though it is hard to belive that this was built by the same firm that would produce the Buccaneer 40 years later.
It's rival the Avro Bison doesn't look that much better.
Though it is hard to belive that this was built by the same firm that would produce the Buccaneer 40 years later.
TFSmith121
Banned
Okay, but here's the Curtiss equivalent:
Okay, but here's the Curtiss equivalent - came along two years later, but still:
Best,
Okay, but here's the Curtiss equivalent - came along two years later, but still:
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
It's lik RA-INN, on your massed strike day...!
It's like RA-INN, on your massed strike day...!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Best,
It's like RA-INN, on your massed strike day...!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Best,
Saphroneth
Banned
Not low altitude, the wrong position. Zeros can climb fast, what mattered was that they were way over the wrong side of the formation. (Shattered Sword.)
Not the only plane they built to that shape...
It could carry a 21" torpedo in 1921, mind you!
And it might have been better in 1942 if it had been developed like the Dauntless was.
The last Devestator was delivered in 1937 and had a 900hp engine. The Northrom XBT-1 which became the SBD Dauntless flew a year later than the XTBD prototype. Both had engines in the 700-800hp classes.
If the TBD had still been in production in 1942 it might have a 1,200hp engine like contemporary Dauntlesses they might have performed better at Midway.