An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Reg »


Image

THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 30652)IWM Non Commercial Licence
A close shave for a Fairey Barracuda of 812 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm that was operating from HMS VENGEANCE during exercises off Manus, Australia, when the pilot decided to go round again instead of landing on. The aircraft can be seen pulling up sharply and turning away just in front of the carrier's island, part of which can be seen in the foreground. He made a perfect landing the next time.


Attachments
large.jpg
large.jpg (47.24 KiB) Viewed 60 times
Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Terminus »

I wish people would stop calling the Barracuda ugly. Nobody ever talks about how ugly the Helldiver or the Vengeance were.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Sardaukar »

I wonder why he pulled up that way. More logical and for right-handed pilot easier would have been to turn left while pulling up, I think.

Maybe he was left-handed. [8D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by wdolson »

I find the Baracuda to be so weird looking it has it's own charm.

The Helldiver was too short with the rear cockpit almost into the tail (which contributed to a lot of bucking when diving), but otherwise I don't think it was that bad. The Vengeance didn't win any beauty prizes, but both are elegant compared to the Brewster Buccaneer and Consolidated Sea Wolf. There's just something about them that look wrong.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Erkki
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:03 am

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Erkki »

Notice how the carrier has just turned - it could be side wind from the left(a cross/side wing landing exercise?) pushing the plane to right and/or its a Griffon(counter-clockwise rotating propeller) engine one where prop torque, P-factor and prop wash yaw the plane to right instead of left as usually(clockwise-rotating) when the pilot decided to floor it and go around. I think Barracuda had a pretty high power to weight ratio, on par with most fighters.

edit: I didn't mean to say that the aircraft is in that position only because of the propeller and gyroscopic phenomena. Probably that's the direction the plane wanted to go and it became easier for the pilot to evade the island structure from the right instead of carrying on directly ahead.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Terminus »

Also, what about the Firefly? That was another aircraft that traced its lineage back to the Battle and the Fulmar, and that wasn't good looking either.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by wdolson »

If the Firefly was a dive bomber, it would have been fairly good looking. Unfortunately it was a fighter. Other navies did away with the two seat fighter concept in the mid-30s. I think the FF was the last USN two seat fighter.

The Fleet Air Arm didn't get a decent looking, home built fighter (ignoring lend lease aircraft here) until the Sea Fury came into service.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by btd64 »

Well nobody thought the F4U would get off the ground because of its Gull wings...GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If the Firefly was a dive bomber, it would have been fairly good looking. Unfortunately it was a fighter. Other navies did away with the two seat fighter concept in the mid-30s. I think the FF was the last USN two seat fighter.

The Fleet Air Arm didn't get a decent looking, home built fighter (ignoring lend lease aircraft here) until the Sea Fury came into service.

Bill

Seafire, Sea Hurricane.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Reg »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I wish people would stop calling the Barracuda ugly. Nobody ever talks about how ugly the Helldiver or the Vengeance were.

Geeeze, you try to make the title a little interesting.......

As for why the pilot turned toward the island, maybe he aborted because he was already drifting right. [&:]

I'm sure in hindsight he would agree it wasn't the best option.

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Terminus »

All other stuff aside, it's a very good photograph. Seriously looks like the next frame is the aircraft crashing into the island.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If the Firefly was a dive bomber, it would have been fairly good looking. Unfortunately it was a fighter. Other navies did away with the two seat fighter concept in the mid-30s. I think the FF was the last USN two seat fighter.

The Fleet Air Arm didn't get a decent looking, home built fighter (ignoring lend lease aircraft here) until the Sea Fury came into service.

Bill
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Seafire, Sea Hurricane.

I meant to add purpose built to that. The Sea Hurricane and Seafire had the graceful look of their land based cousins, but they were not designed for carrier use and they suffered high ops losses.

Due to politics within the British government the FAA got the short end of the stick until well after the war started and by then British naval aircraft designs were obsolete with most flawed designs in the pipeline. The Americans and Japanese had put a lot of emphasis on naval aviation and some of the best aircraft designers had a lot of experience with carrier aircraft design by the time the war started. The first war generation of US fighters (Wildcats) were not on par with land based fighters, but the next generation was and those designs were in the pipeline with Pearl Harbor happened.

The specs that produced the Corsair and Fairey Firefly were issued in 1938. Work on the Hellcat didn't start until 1941 (when it became obvious the Corsair was having problems). All three entered service in 1943. The specification that produced the Albacore was issued while the TBD was nearing the end of its development and just starting production.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I wish people would stop calling the Barracuda ugly. Nobody ever talks about how ugly the Helldiver or the Vengeance were.

Alright, I will. The Helldiver and Vengeance were ugly too. Doesn't prevent the Barracuda from joining the discussion.

I hear that the Barracuda was so ugly that it's mother had to tie pork chops to its ears to get the dog to play with it. It was two bagger ugly. Coyote ugly.
Image
User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by dcpollay »

If I were those guys on the deck, I would be at least as uncomfortable as the pilot.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by AW1Steve »

He might have actually made it. He cleared the netting , will probably clear the guns, and with full flaps and a relatively decent angle of attack he might not stall. If he did crash , I'm betting he missed the ship and went swimming.

All dive bombers look ugly. And should. Warthog ugly and mean. Most airplanes have barely enough wing span. The Barracuda looks like it had too much. Ground affect must have been tremendous on that bird. I'm betting it flew like an Albatross. Great in the air , a comedy on the ground. [:)] [8|]
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Dili »

Due to politics within the British government the FAA got the short end of the stick until well after the war started

They certainly did, but they don't helped themselves with those designs. Skua, Albacore (crews still prefered the Swordfish), Fulmar. Then there was the Roc turret fighter, but that was a general establishment disease.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by wdolson »

Every major power was experimenting with various designs between the wars. The Russians had the T-35 tank, the US Army had the YFM Airacuda, the USN the XF5F, etc.

By the outbreak of the war, most of the failed experiments had been retired, though some experimental ship designs were still in service like the USS Ranger. Some of these experimental designs proved to be successful like the P-38, but most were crackpot ideas that are footnotes of history. Some experiments were still ongoing in the early part of the war and saw combat like the Boulton Paul Defiant. The FAA had been so starved for so long it was still deep in the experimentation phase until the war was essentially over. British tank design suffered from a similar lack of foresight. By Korea the British army had some good tank designs, but the WW II stable were based on flawed premises and they were slow to adjust to the lessons of combat.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I wish people would stop calling the Barracuda ugly. Nobody ever talks about how ugly the Helldiver or the Vengeance were.


Yeah well, there is "ugly" and then there is "barracuda ugly." You know, when she fall asleep on your arm and you would rather have a barracuda chew it off than have to wake her up. Now that is ugly....[8D]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

He might have actually made it. He cleared the netting , will probably clear the guns, and with full flaps and a relatively decent angle of attack he might not stall. If he did crash , I'm betting he missed the ship and went swimming.

All dive bombers look ugly. And should. Warthog ugly and mean. Most airplanes have barely enough wing span. The Barracuda looks like it had too much. Ground affect must have been tremendous on that bird. I'm betting it flew like an Albatross. Great in the air , a comedy on the ground. [:)] [8|]

Steve, the caption on the original image explains that, in fact, the pilot was successful in his evasive maneuvers and subsequently landed safely.
Image
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2786
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: An ugly plane in an ugly situation......

Post by Reg »


I'm just looking at the picture which is from an angle you don't normally see and I'm quite intrigued by the design of the Barracuda's undercarriage.

It has that interesting right angled undercarriage leg but despite appearances appears to be rather well designed.

One of the aims of a designer is to place the undercarriage leg hinges as close to the centerline as possible. This reduces the length of the heavy duty load bearing spars between the port and starboard hinge points reducing overall aircraft weight and provides less inertia to rolling motion about the aircraft axis.

This is related to the second desirable characteristic of the undercarriage track width. Designs such as the spitfire (Seafire) and Bf-109 swing their undercarriage outwards from narrow spaced hing points. The generally results in fragile landing/ground handling characteristics (the Bf-109 was legendary in this regard) and is most undesirable in a carrier environment. The Sea Hurricane with its inwards swinging and much wider undercarriage track was much better suited to carrier operations but suffered the penalty of greater weight/lower performance.

The Barracuda seems to have gotten the best of both worlds with narrow spaced hinges and a wide undercarriage track provided by it's right angled undercarriage leg. Note also how the right angle support arm fits nicely against the fuselage side when retracted and places the strut and wheel into the underside of the wing.

Another design criteria is the length of the undercarriage leg. Undercarriage struts are heavy and long legs require extensive (and heavy) bracing. The Corsair's gull wing was a device to shorten the strut length by lowering the undercarriage attachment point. The Barracuda has halved it's undercarriage strut length and retained the high wing design by using the right angled undercarriage leg design saving weight in both strut length and anchor point bracing.

There is also the fact that shorter strut length allowed the dead weight of the retracted wheel to be closer to the fuselage than would have been the case of a longer strut length. Retraction even brings the heavy support brace closer to the centerline. The P-40 and F6F achieved something similar by retracting their undercarriage backward and not allowing the weight of the retracted wheels to travel any further outboard from the centerline.

All in all there appears to have been some serious thought and engineering done on this design and I'm sure if you look at other aspects of this aircraft you will come to the same conclusion. It may not have been the most elegant design ever produced and form probably wasn't even mentioned in the design criteria - but this was a wartime design. However the design is certainly functional.

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”