Search this Topic:
Jul 7 17 10:48 PM
Jul 7 17 11:29 PM
TOS1956 wrote:We even have "in betweens" like the Grumman Duck, is that a strutless floatplane or a flying boat ?, IMO "amphibian" belongs with landplane and seaplane not floatplane and flying boat I believe most amphibians were flying boats as it's not easy to fit a weeled undercarriage in the floats.
Jul 8 17 5:25 AM
jlyons97 wrote:TOS1956 wrote:We even have "in betweens" like the Grumman Duck, is that a strutless floatplane or a flying boat ?, IMO "amphibian" belongs with landplane and seaplane not floatplane and flying boat I believe most amphibians were flying boats as it's not easy to fit a weeled undercarriage in the floats.
Odd how the dozens of ducks produced could 'do' wheeled underacarriage, and retractible undercarriage at that. Retracting into the float, as it happened.
Jul 8 17 12:04 PM
Razor wrote:SR.A/1 was not a seaplane it was a flying boat and there was no way it could take off from a battle ship I dont think it had wheels so it could not take of from a carrier either .
The Walrus (Shagbat) was by 1939 hopelessly antiquated and should have not been in service though it did do some useful work looking for the enemy and spotting for the guns
Jul 9 17 12:30 AM
ChrisPat wrote:Floatplane to me means the floats are separate to the fuselage, whether single or twin, flying boat has a fuselage that is meant to float. I believe this is a case where US aero induatry and UK had different understanding of the terms. Grumman Duck is a bit of a question mark for my definition.
I've read an account of a FAA pilot doing just that from a Spitfire on D
day. Or he meant to anyway, his "own" cruiser shot him down as he
tried to establish comms despite two warnings acknowledged by the ship.
Razor wrote:To me a Seaplane is the same as a Floatplane a flying boat is something else if that is incorrect well hey ho
Jul 11 17 4:00 AM
F106Delta wrote:The best performing battleship floatplane was without a doubt the Curtis SC-1 Seahawk, with a top speed of 313 mph. With 2 forward firing .50 cal MG it probably would have made an acceptable fighter in a pinch. However, whether it best met the Navy's needs is open to debate. It was a single seat scout with no observer, so it was likely not as effective as a gunfire spotting or search and rescue aircraft as the older and much slower Vought OS2U Kingfisher or Curtis SOC Seagull. However, it was a much better aircraft than its immediate predecessor, the Curtis SO3C Seamew, which was something of a failure. Range was also less than the Kingfisher, Seagull or Seamew. The SC-1 did have some limited search and rescue capabilty since it was able to carry one additional person in a bunk behind the pilot. There were also 9 protoype SC-2s built with a second seat. The SC-1 entered service too late in the war to have much of an impact, and was quickly replaced postwar by helicopters.
Jul 11 17 4:14 AM
Jul 12 17 1:52 PM
TOS1956 wrote:Seems like towards the end of the war the USN believed single seaters were a great idea, the single seat Skyraider replaced a twin and a three seater. Apart from the nuclear bombers they seem ro have stuck with the idea until complex electronics brought the "other guy" back with the A6 and F4.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.