Sea/sand

[Daryl J.]

Would a carrier-ready aircraft be more easily converted into a desert theater machine than a standard USAF-type?   As an example, would the Hellcat, Wildcat, or Swordfish be better suited, airframe wise, to the Sahara than a P-38, Spitfire, Mustang, or P-47?

Yes, it's a rather odd question, but I don't know where else to ask it w/o getting seriously futzed answers.

In plain whiffery, could a fixed gear Gruman F3F-1 be desert service appropriate?


TIA,
Daryl J. rather offbeat tonight....and I've sipped no port

[Maverick]

For myself, I'd reckon filters are the obvious must.  Whether the airframe's corrosion resistant qualities would help it in a desert environment, well??? Not so sure there..

Mav

[jcf]

Hi Daryl,

Sure, the F3F would do fine in the desert, its predecessor the FF-1/Model G-23 served in Spain (originally with the Republicans)  from 1938 until 1955. The last unit to use them, Grupo 5W, was based in Spanish Morocco. The aircraft was called the Delfin in Republican service and nicknamed  Pedro Rico after the war.

Cheers, Jon

[elmayerle]

Fixing the gear on a F3F could be challenging if it's a permanent configuration.  I'd probably try and use the same structural attachments for the struts and legs of the gear and then go with spatted gear along the lines of that fitted to a F11C-2 (in 1/72, if you've got a F3f kit and can find the old Monogram F11C-2 kit, you've got it).

[Nigel Bunker]

Just as a note, an FAA squadron was based in the desert using Wildcats with non-folding wings (the ones ordered by Greece.

I believe there was an article about it in SAM about a year ago

[Jennings]

The desert really is pretty easy on airplanes, except for ingesting sand into the engine.  That's why AMARC is in the desert.  It's dry (wet is the enemy of airplanes), and the conditions don't change very much (changing conditions are the enemy of airplanes).

If you're operating off a paved runway, the desert is a great place to fly, as long as you have the performance to account for the high density altitude caused by high temperature air.

J

[ysi_maniac]

... (changing conditions are the enemy of airplanes) ... high density altitude caused by high temperature air.

Just two comments:

Temperature changes a lot between day and night in desert.

You probably mean "low density"

Carlos    

[elmayerle]

For storage conditions, the level of temperature changes in the desert are liveable since those are likely to be 'bout the only changes.  Changes in humidity followed by or accompanying changes in temperature are far more problem for stored aircraft.

By high density altitude, he was saying that the high-temp gives a lower density as you would find at a higher altitude under normal conditions.  "High density altitude" is the proper term, here, confusing as it may sound at first.

If I remember my atmosphere tables correctly (and I don't have them right to hand) the density at sea level for ISA standard+30 deg.C day is the same as that for some thousands of feet above sea level on an ISA standard day.

[Daryl J.]

Thanks for all that; it's much more than hoped for.  

The mechanical basis for the question was to check for longer term survivability of an aircraft in the Sahara, landing gear mechanisms, avionics, control cables/pulleys, and the like given the sand storms they have.   I was curious whether the additional weather proofing a naval aircraft had any additional benefit over something such as a Desert Hurricane, Stuka, or Apache (or the like.)

The fictional basis for the question is that of using a small ecclectic group of aircraft for mercenary work sponsored unofficially by the US in the late 1940's through the late 1950's in N. Africa against  communists, smugglers bringing African treasures into undesireable governments, and the like. . Although anything is possible in whiffery, having some foundations in fact would be helpful for the story line.

One proposed aircraft on the idea list is the Grumman F3F-1.  Why?   Oh, just because.   To me it has bags of character and the A.M kit is wonderful and I won't abandon modeling if I futz the build (Tamiya's Swordfish II fit my ideal better but that is a pretty pricey piece of styrene..... ).  Furthermore, as much as yellow wings appeal, something just a tick off center just seems even better.    

Other aircraft potentially in the mix:
Hs-123...already under way for the spat build
Macchi Mc-202 or Fiat G-55
Stuka
Spitfire Mk.IX
Cr.42
D.520

None of the aircraft being American made makes them more difficult to trace back to the US if lost (which the F3F-1 was...the fallout from that was socially unacceptable).    All of them potentially could have been old war relics if the debris field was checked should there be a crash (there was).    So sand, greed, power, deception, submarines, gold....you know....the typical story line just with a few neat aircraft tossed into the stewing pot.

TMI?      

Again, thanks for the info; it's quite useful.
Daryl J.

[Jennings]

Low air density (ie: high ambient temperature) = high density altitude  

Changing temperatures are a lot less of a problem for metal airplanes than widely fluctuating humidity (as in airplanes flying off of boats, as silly as that very idea may be).


J

[Daryl J.]

Would temperature changes affect fabric covered aircraft more or even adversely?  IE:  Take off at 6 in the evening [temp 44 degrees C], return at 11 (extra fuel on board) at night after dark landing and it is 5-10 degrees C.....



TIA,
Daryl J.

[jcf]

None of the aircraft being American made makes them more difficult to trace back to the US if lost (which the F3F-1 was...the fallout from that was socially unacceptable).   

Hi Daryl,
in the 'Red Scare' climate of the late forties and through the fifties its doubtful that the loss of a US made aircraft involved in sub-rosa anti-Commie activities would raise any eyebrows, cause any societal angst or governmental embarrassment. Remember that was the age of US orchestrated overthrows of "unfriendly Socialist" governments, vis. Mossadeq in Iran and Guatemala. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was only an embarrassment because it didn't work.

Plus with an aircraft that old deniability would be dead easy:
"An old F3F? Really? Where the hell did they get that old bucket, the Navy sent all of those to be scrapped years ago. I'm surprised any are still in one piece."

Cheers, Jon

[Jennings]

The Bay of Pigs fiasco was only an embarrassment because it didn't work.

I disagree - even if it had worked, it would be an embarrassment.  You should read a new book called "Legacy of Ashes" about the history of the CIA.  Even the (very, very few) CIA black ops that "worked" were pretty embarrassing.

J

[jcf]

The Bay of Pigs fiasco was only an embarrassment because it didn't work.

I disagree - even if it had worked, it would be an embarrassment.  You should read a new book called "Legacy of Ashes" about the history of the CIA.  Even the (very, very few) CIA black ops that "worked" were pretty embarrassing.

J

Now, yes. Then?, not likely.

In the context of the time a successful Bay of Pigs invasion and Cuban counter-revolution would have been seen as a vindication of US policy and a victory for Truth, Justice etc. etc. There would have been no embarrassment felt by the US policy makers and the majority of citizens of 1961.

In hindsight the CIA ops are embarrassing and foolish, no argument there, however, in the socio-political context of the forties, fifties and early sixties there would have been little public reaction if the 'truth' of the various CIA ops had been revealed.

Cheers, Jon

[Daryl J.]

And now stepping back into the question at hand---->  B) ....


A reasonable progression for a covert Marrakeshi Mercenary is:  F3F-1, HS-123, Stuka, F4U-1D all with reasonable sand filtering and protection for landing gear from desert abrasives?



Daryl J.