Britain's Carrier Planes

[Dr Zhivago]

Fairey Swordfish

[RRAM]

Originally posted by cajun


I have found my sources for CR42 many places and they all list it as 314 MPH

Nice!

Now, could you list those sources, please?. Because EVERY and EACH book I own wich includes the C.R.42 lists it with a top speed of roughly 270mph@6000m, and the Gloster Gladiator as 257mph@4500m

and as for P40/A6m out manuvering a biplane! HA! Biplanes were by far the most manuverable planes in the war

I never said a P40/a6M would outmaneouver a biplane. Read carefully what I said.

I said that NO biplane ever outperformed Hurricanes, P40s or A6Ms, and that if you really believed that they did, then I wanted to know what kind of pot were you smoking .

infact in mongolia the I-16 mono plane was replaced by the much more agile (and actuelly faster!) I-153biplane which was sometimes fitted with 2x20mms!

I153 faster than I16?

Now that would be quite an achievement! (again)...because the soviet engineers designed the I153 to be a turner and the I16 to be a "speeder"...so if they got the I153 to be faster than the I16 why did they kept on building the Rata?

Methinks you've got many, many things wrong, my friend

besides the fact the early war planeset just wouldnt be complete with out a few biplanes, especially when many like Hs-123 which served up untill 1944 in combat and fairey swordfish served untill the end of the war!

Ok, I agree with that. But don't come here saying that a CR42 would outperform a Hurricane, because then I'll spill my monitor with coffee...again

[straffo]

Originally posted by RRAM


Ok, I agree with that. But don't come here saying that a CR42 would outperform a Hurricane, because then I'll spill my monitor with coffee...again

You would better stop coffee

[gatt]

Yep, top speed of the CR42 was about 270mph at about 15K. The Macchi C.200 had a top speed of about 320mph at 16-17K.

[Sabre]

On a historical note, the reason the Royal Navy air arm was equiped either with antiques or more modern designs of the US Navy (rather then producing modern naval aircraft of their own) had to do with who controlled acquisition of aircraft.  The RAF controlled what aircraft were produced indigenously for the Royal Navy! Unbelievable, but true.  Even the naval varients of the Spit and Hurricane were poorly adapted for carrier duty, but the best the RN could get until US naval aviation aircraft came along.  Neither aircraft had the range to operate effectively from carriers; neither were they structurally strong enough, especially in the landing gear area.  Finally, the lack of folding wings on many of the British-built naval aircraft contributed to the smaller air wings they could embark.  It is a pitty that the best built aircraft carriers in WWII were forced to make do with RAF cast-offs and handouts.  It's also amazing the RN accomplished what it did during the period before the US lend-lease naval fighters and attack planes became available in greater numbers.

[cajun]

Originally posted by RRAM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cajun


I have found my sources for CR42 many places and they all list it as 314 MPH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nice!

Now, could you list those sources, please?. Because EVERY and EACH book I own wich includes the C.R.42 lists it with a top speed of roughly 270mph@6000m, and the Gloster Gladiator as 257mph@4500m


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and as for P40/A6m out manuvering a biplane! HA! Biplanes were by far the most manuverable planes in the war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I never said a P40/a6M would outmaneouver a biplane. Read carefully what I said.

I said that NO biplane ever outperformed Hurricanes, P40s or A6Ms, and that if you really believed that they did, then I wanted to know what kind of pot were you smoking .



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 infact in mongolia the I-16 mono plane was replaced by the much more agile (and actuelly faster!) I-153biplane which was sometimes fitted with 2x20mms!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I153 faster than I16?

Now that would be quite an achievement! (again)...because the soviet engineers designed the I153 to be a turner and the I16 to be a "speeder"...so if they got the I153 to be faster than the I16 why did they kept on building the Rata?  

Methinks you've got many, many things wrong, my friend  



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides the fact the early war planeset just wouldnt be complete with out a few biplanes, especially when many like Hs-123 which served up untill 1944 in combat and fairey swordfish served untill the end of the war!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok, I agree with that. But don't come here saying that a CR42 would outperform a Hurricane, because then I'll spill my monitor with coffee...again

Ok I worded that wrong not Out preform hurri or spit in speed I meant out preform in manuverablility and that they did by far.

You can find top speed of I-153 at http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/aircraft/i153.htm
(Length:  20' 3"
Height:  9' 8"
Wingspan:  33' 5"
Empty Weight:  3,201 lb
Gross Weight:  4,321 lb
Maximum Speed:  285 mph
Service Ceiling:  29,527'
Range:  546 miles
Powerplant:  One Shvetsov M-62 1,000 hp 9 cylinder radial
Armament:  Four 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns plus six RS-82 rockets
External bombload:  Two 165 lb bombs )

And when I said it was faster I was refering to first version of it the top speed of the I16 (1) was 224 mph if you want to compare the first biplane and first mono plane, then they are the same speed. or at least thats what I have in my book.

[cajun]

Originally posted by Dr Zhivago
Fairey Swordfish

That is beutifull!

PS. I thought u didnt like biplanes Dr Zhivago?? but thanks for the pic

[superpug1]

I want the the SWORDFISH:mad:

[oboe]

Now that I've seen that pic, I want it to!

Let's see, we've got the Baltic terrain for the invasion of Norway,
we've got the Channel terrain for the Scharnhorst's Channel Dash, we've got a Sicily terrain for th attack on Taranto.    Hmmm, we just need the Bismarck and a North Atlantic terrain...

[Angus]

What is this biplane fobia?
A biplane in the MA of AH is a slow target, that's all. Well, the fastest of them might be useable against slow (and fixed gear) monoplanes like the Oscar, Nate, Ju87 and so on.
It is important to realise that top speed is not all Cajun, as soon as the Biplane starts maneuvering its lack of acceleration will first start to show. A lot of drag, but also a lot of lift.
I however must confess that I support the entrance of biplanes into AH. Later. If they come, it would be best to have a few, so they have something to fight with! And they would probably be best used in the CT.
An idea though is to enable Biplanes from the Vehicle bases as spotter planes/attackers. Useable as M-3 killers...
Anyway, - this thread was about RN planes. I see that one RN plane has barely been mentioned, if at all. That is the Fairey Barracuda, which was a divebomber. I would love to know more about that plane, and see some pictures.
Now, what would probably be HTC's easiest additions in this department would be a better Seafire, and then a Sea Hurricane of a late model. Those were not bad carrier planes at all. The Hurricanes had their stellar moments in the Med, sometimes butchering whole Stuka raids on the TG's, and especially the later model Seafires were quite capable planes. Although critisized for their drop-out rate at Anzio (if I remember right) due to landing and takeoff problems, the aircraft was not to blame. It was the usage of small and slow escort carriers that caused it, - now there would have been the right place for the Sea Gladiator!!