![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Another stinker worth mentioning is the C-87 Liberator Express. This aircraft was based on the stalwart B-24D but had technical problems that caused fatal crashes. Some 280 were built and they were in service for much of the war; notably flying over the Hump and as VIP transports. I first learned about this beauty when I read Ernest Gann's classic Fate Is The Hunter.
Last edited by secretone; 03-06-2013 at 02:20 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have often thought how often planes fail because their engines just aren't powerful or reliable enough. such a shame. This was an interesting read. Much appreciated.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I just realized that the Curtiss Seamew is classified as "bad but useful" - what was it useful at? Does anyone know? I've read a lot about the bad qualities, but nothing about the "useful" ones.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Obviously, the SOC and the OS2U were much better planes, and the Japanese float planes were even better than those, but SO3C was just barely "good enough." Certainly, in many cases it was better than no airplane at all. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So you mean it was useful, because it was pressed into service (even though it basically was unfit for the job), and the fact it saw service, made it useful.
I'll have to think about that. Admittedly they aircraft didn't fall out of the sky all the time when spotting, but they earned the nickname "Sea Cow" and were pulled from service after a good year, not meeting the requirements. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
He means the SO3C was 4mph faster in cruise and had nearly 50% more range than the OS2U and although it had a 10mph cruise speed deficit to the SOC (it had a 7mph top speed advantage) it had nearly double the SOC's range. The range being the most important thing the navy was after at this point in time. The unfit part really comes into play with the SO3C's engine (the crappy stability having been *mostly* worked out). Though it wouldn't normally cause problems that would interfere with the completion of any given sortie it required constant work and parts and difficulty was found in maintaining serviceability. The SO3C was withdrawn and the SOC was recalled from training units, the navy trading away range for lawn mower like reliability. As a side note the SO3C couldn't make a water takeoff at full fuel load, but then it was expected to be catapult launched. Last edited by zipper; 03-17-2013 at 08:16 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't think he meant that, but the good range is indeed a valuable attribute. I wasn't aware that the SO3C was so much better in that regard than the alternatives.
Still, it's something you only appreciate if the aircraft is in service, and judging by the service history and with the benefit of hindsight, putting it into service wasn't the best idea. Anyway, I see what you and Pursuivant are getting at. I'd at least agree it wasn't useless once put into service, and if that warrants the attribute useful is a matter of perspective. I wouldn't call it that, but I now understand how others would. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Curtis tried to rescue the situation with the SO3C by building a lighter version with a more powerful engine, and it had a limited production run, but no one was interested. Poor Curtiss. They started off brilliantly with the Hawk and P-40 series, then it all went downhill from there. At least they continued to build very good propeller and hub systems for a long time, used by many other aircraft, and they could be proud of that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() Another Curtiss aircraft ..the SB2C Helldiver is lambasted in some of the short histories of aircraft... it seems that any more in depth reading suggests that after some modifications and changes that it ended the war with a good reputation and a solid combat record (more shipping sunk than any other USN type). I'm sure the Hispano cannons and HVAR rocket attachments on later models were very appreciated.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I worked with an engineer who had worked for Curtiss until he joined the Navy in 1943. He's still alive btw. He worked on the X-55 and the X-75 mockup. When the X-55 was determined to have no significant speed increase over the P-51 it was dropped. The X-75 was a twin with a 75mm gun made to shoot proximity shells at Japanese bombers. I think that they would have run out of Japanese bombers before it could get operational.
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|