Author Topic: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"  (Read 3899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 27983
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2017, 12:21:13 am »
Spitfires/Seafires were notorious because of their loooong noses in front of the pilot.  They developed a "side-slip" approach, with the aircraft nose off-centre to allow the pilot to see the carrier's deck before he straightened up to engage the arrestor wire.   I understand the Corsair did similar tricks for the same reason.

Yup. The RN pilots developed a kind of "crab walk" landing, appoaching the deck more or less sideways, so that the pilot could see along the side - otherwise the landing area was not visible at all.


Land based Spitfires tend to do a similar approach too, even now.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 9350
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2017, 12:50:13 am »
Spitfires/Seafires were notorious because of their loooong noses in front of the pilot.  They developed a "side-slip" approach, with the aircraft nose off-centre to allow the pilot to see the carrier's deck before he straightened up to engage the arrestor wire.   I understand the Corsair did similar tricks for the same reason.

Yup. The RN pilots developed a kind of "crab walk" landing, appoaching the deck more or less sideways, so that the pilot could see along the side - otherwise the landing area was not visible at all.


Land based Spitfires tend to do a similar approach too, even now.

Claimed to be developed by Jeffrey Quill and Eric Brown.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Offline Dizzyfugu

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8514
    • Lots of works in my FlickR gallery
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2017, 12:33:30 am »
I wonder how the Sea Shrew would look with either a raised cockpit (like the Sea Fury), or with the whole cockpit moved forward, closer to the engine? Got me thinking and itching...  :rolleyes:

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 35235
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2017, 03:30:55 am »


Yes , it took the Royal Navy to operate it from carriers first and smaller carriers than the US ones too.

And we clipped it's wings  ;)
Decals my @r$e!

Offline Dizzyfugu

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8514
    • Lots of works in my FlickR gallery
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2017, 12:43:08 am »
Unthinkable for Kit...  :rolleyes:

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 27983
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2017, 01:29:17 am »

Unthinkable for Kit...  :rolleyes:


Ooer, I guess I'd NEVER build a Fleet Air Arm Corsair then.  ;D
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Dizzyfugu

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8514
    • Lots of works in my FlickR gallery
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2017, 04:51:25 am »
Well, there are double-folding mechanisms (e .g. on the Firecrest and the Gannet), I I think they were introduced by the Royal Navy...?
That would even leave some room for extended wings!  ;)


Offline Captain Canada

  • "but this time it's different. I was drunk when I agreed to it."
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28597
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2017, 04:56:54 am »
That's gorgeous. Love the rear 3/4 shot....what a mean looking machine ! Would have made an excellent carrier fighter.

 :wub:
CANADA KICKS arse !!!!

Long Live the Commonwealth !!!
Vive les Canadiens !
Where's my beer ?

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 27983
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2017, 05:41:21 am »
Well, there are double-folding mechanisms (e .g. on the Firecrest and the Gannet), I I think they were introduced by the Royal Navy...?
That would even leave some room for extended wings!  ;)



I've thought of having a quadruple or quintuple folded wing on one of my 'extended wing' projects, but I'd always be worried about them breaking in transit to a show.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Air21

  • Out of the Whiffing Closet
  • **
  • Posts: 41
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2017, 08:33:23 am »
Id think extra long wings with multiple folds would be pretty unstable on a carrier too.  Lots of linkages for an oscillation to pass back and forth in.  I imagine the sailor solution would be to stow the folded wings with pillow blocks between the segments...

Just an idea ;)

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 27983
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2017, 08:42:25 am »
I'm not sure about the AEW Gannet, but the AS versions had struts between the inner folding sections and the fixed sections of the wings when they were folded.

Somewhere I've seen a pic that shows this, but can I find it now? NO, darn it!   :banghead:
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline darthspud2

  • Kitbasher
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2017, 09:20:37 am »
seem to recall a German Navy Gannet with red 'scaffold-poles' locking the wings in the closed position. Must have been 1984 @ Dusseldorf Airport.
I think I'm gonna need a bigger display cabinet!!

Offline Librarian

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2408
  • NOT a Monkey!
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2017, 10:03:48 am »
WOW!! :wub: :wub: :thumbsup:.

I like the Spiteful...but now I LOVE the Spiteful...or is it the Seafang :o.

Gorgeous paintjob too..10/10.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 27983
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2017, 12:08:11 pm »


Somewhere I've seen a pic that shows this, but can I find it now? NO, darn it!   :banghead:


Found it.  :thumbsup:

Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Offline Scotaidh

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Supermarine Type 224N " Sea Shrew"
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2017, 05:00:49 pm »
The Corsair was so awful to land that it only flew from land bases until very late in the war.

That was because of the "bounciness" of the undercarriage, not the visibility from the cockpit.  The British proved it could be done about IIRC 12 months before the USN did it.

Spitfires/Seafires were notorious because of their loooong noses in front of the pilot.  They developed a "side-slip" approach, with the aircraft nose off-centre to allow the pilot to see the carrier's deck before he straightened up to engage the arrestor wire.   I understand the Corsair did similar tricks for the same reason.

Quote
<snip>

IIRC, one of the main problems with the Seafires was the narrow-track undercart.  Every tail-wheel aircraft has forward-visibility problems - try seeing over the nose of a Cessna 180 sometime.  Also, because the base design was a land-based aircraft, the airframe wasn't really stressed to handle carrier landings.
The Corsair, OTOH, was designed from the outset as a carrier aircraft, with long-stroke oleos and wide-track undercarriage. 
As for who used it first at sea, well, there are a couple of factors.  Look at the legacy aircraft of the respective forces - the US Navy  wasn't used to long-nose aircraft, whilst the Royal Navy was.  Also, the RN really needed a first-class fighter, and couldn't afford to not use what they had. Yhey also didn't have many alternatives.  The USN had the Grumman line, and first pick of the 'cats, including the Hellcat - a contemporary o the Corsair, IIRC - and, the RN had to wait for the USN's needs to be filled before they got a shot at the Hellcat.
Ancient Ogre Proverb:
"It's dark in the dark when it's dark."