Most Beautiful Aircraft

As the picture alludes the Lockheed was pretty but rather lacking in fin and rudder area which made a critical engine out at less than cruse speed
“fascinating”.
A go around with a dead stbd engine was throwing dice with the grim reaper if all was not in your favour, I’m told.

Port engine critical for RH rotation, shirley...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Tbh, In-flight refuelling probably helped put an end to most military use of seaplanes and flying boats. As land based aircraft could reach most places for prolonged periods.

Though they probably still are handy for reaching areas a plane or helicopter can’t land I suppose.
Very useful for search and rescue.
 

chrismcd

Old-Salt
Sandys was Winston Churchill's son-in-law and was head of the V2 'Crossbow' committee. RV Jones thought he was an idiot who was bonkers on missiles from early on.
"In October 1940, an experimental Z Battery became operational at Cardiff in South Wales under the command of Major Duncan Sandys, Churchill's son-in-law.[a] Trials against a radio-controlled Queen Bee target aircraft were successful, although the Director of Artillery at the Ministry of Supply suspected that the results were "fixed"

Subsequent events show Jones knew of whom he spoke.


 

Yokel

LE
A line would be only one of three methods of fuel supply, it could be left at a set of coordinates in advance by the submarine.

Any object is at risk of radar, a flying boat near the surface or touched down would be visible only by the enemy within horizon distance, less than 20 miles ( the submarine would also be a bit of a deterrent if suspected to be nearby).

Leave the fuel in floating containers - which have to be delivered by the submerged submarine? Also Western defence strategies rely in submarines being stealthy, but you want to try everyone know roughly where they are?

What problem does this flying boat solve? Does the cost take into account the need for building new submarines to support them?

There is nothing to stop a sea plane from being refuelled by another aircraft, including another sea plane.

The US Navy's reasoning for rejecting the SeaMaster based on submarine refuelling ignores the cost of ditching of land or carrier based aircraft, along with their crew and payloads, something that still happens regularly from the other threads on here.

The Sea Master may have had its uses - but was it as large as a land based maritime patrol aircraft or as manoeuvrable as a fighter or other tactical aircraft?

Tbh, In-flight refuelling probably helped put an end to most military use of seaplanes and flying boats. As land based aircraft could reach most places for prolonged periods.

Though they probably still are handy for reaching areas a plane or helicopter can’t land I suppose.

Seaplanes were the preferred option until experience during the First World War showed the time taken to lower them into the water and launch, and the problems encountered in heavy seas. I believe the Convair Sea Dart was one of a number of experiments conducted by the Americans to deal with the problems on jet aircraft on small carriers.

Angled decks and larger carriers were the answer - or STOVL.
 
Very useful for search and rescue.
And either standard or with minor mods, firefighting.





(I forgot about the Canadair 415, used around Marseille this time of year)


Canadair.jpg
 
Leave the fuel in floating containers - which have to be delivered by the submerged submarine? Also Western defence strategies rely in submarines being stealthy, but you want to try everyone know roughly where they are?

What problem does this flying boat solve? Does the cost take into account the need for building new submarines to support them?



The Sea Master may have had its uses - but was it as large as a land based maritime patrol aircraft or as manoeuvrable as a fighter or other tactical aircraft?



Seaplanes were the preferred option until experience during the First World War showed the time taken to lower them into the water and launch, and the problems encountered in heavy seas. I believe the Convair Sea Dart was one of a number of experiments conducted by the Americans to deal with the problems on jet aircraft on small carriers.

Angled decks and larger carriers were the answer - or STOVL.

If you look closer into the infighting between the US Air Force and the US Navy of the day it was clear the rejection of flying boats was about keeping face and top brass income, both of which the navy lost.


Larger carriers had already been proposed, the United States having been scrapped a week after constuction began.

The SeaMaster was a pawn, sacrificed to give time for something that could be fitted on a floating hull, based solely on ;
1) being prone to running out of fuel, and
2) submarines were the only vessel able to refuel a stricken SeaMaster.

No other alternatives for refuelling were put forward, since they didn't want the budget for super carrier construction to be under scrutiny a second time.

(Tbh I don't know how thirsty the protoype might have been with ramjet engines, the atomic powered proposal might have been another nail in its coffin, for entirely different reasons).

Yes it was larger than maritime patrol craft of the era, designed to satisfy specific criteria issued by the govenment of the day, beating the Convair alternative which would have been similar in size, (nothing to do with Sea Dart, a sea-based interceptor and not a nuclear weapons delivery system).

Slightly off toipic - there was this little curiosity waiting in the wings that might have banjaxed submarines as well.


I would propose Polaris just happened to came along at the wrong time for the Air Force and the right time for the Navy.
 
Last edited:

Yokel

LE
By larger carriers I mean larger than those operated during World War Two and into the fifties - I am thinking of the Forrestal and successive classes. Irrespective of size, they needed things like angled decks to make jet operations feasible.

Carriers were and are needed for sea control - particularly in the NATO theatre.
 
Last edited:
By larger carriers I mean larger than those operated during World War Two and into the fifties - I am thinking of the Forrestal and successive classes. Irrespective of size, they needed things like angled decks to make jet operations feasible.

Carriers were and are needed for sea control - particularly in the NATO theatre.
The United States predated Forrester by a good five years. It was also somewhat bigger.

Angled decks are the result of separating, thereby maximising the efficiency of takeoff and landing.
As a biproduct they improve the ability to retrieve, store, repair and deploy aircraft from the hangars. They also assist the discarding of planes that crash on the deck. Jet operation feasibility does not factor.

Much of which is irrelevant with a flying boat force ;)
 
Yes it was larger than maritime patrol craft of the era, designed to satisfy specific criteria issued by the govenment of the day, beating the Convair alternative which would have been similar in size, (nothing to do with Sea Dart, a sea-based interceptor and not a nuclear weapons delivery system).
Ah, it may have been the NX-2, Convair used one of their C133 prop craft as a test bed.

 

Yokel

LE
The United States predated Forrester by a good five years. It was also somewhat bigger.

Angled decks are the result of separating, thereby maximising the efficiency of takeoff and landing.
As a biproduct they improve the ability to retrieve, store, repair and deploy aircraft from the hangars. They also assist the discarding of planes that crash on the deck. Jet operation feasibility does not factor.

Much of which is irrelevant with a flying boat force ;)

Actually I was referring to normal carrier aircraft operation versus experiments like the Sea Dart.

The angled deck was an innovation originally intended to improve landing safety by allowing landing aircraft that missed the wires to launch again and not crash into the barrier or aircraft crashed on deck, and this did become an issue as the landing speeds increased with the advent of more powerful jet engines.
 

Latest Threads

Top