The Vindicator never saw service with the Raf in contary to the clue i was given. It did however serve with the Fleet air arm.

Yes, the image given on one of the Vultee websites now turns out to have been mis-labelled as a Vindicator, and I took that as gospel. It goes to prove that not everything on a website is correct.

The Vultee Vindicator was the SB2-A, The Brewster Buccaneer was the SB2-B and the Curtis Helldiver was the SB2-C.

The Vindicator was known as the Chesapeake in the Fleet Air Arm.

The Buccaneer was known as the Bermuda and the Helldiver as the Cleveland.

The Helldiver was found to be a poor aircraft by both the US Navy and Fleet Air Arm, though only the Fleet Air Arm was smart enough to reject it for service.

Anyone whose tried to divebomb with a Helldiver in "Battle Stations Pacific" will have experienced just how crap they are as a divebomber, requiring a lot of height in order to pull up, unlike the SBD Dauntless. The poor to non-existant rear defence, clumsy handling, lack of speed, poor rate of climb, easy to stall, etc. are all accurately modelled in the game.

As the Buccaneer (Bermuda) was even worst than the Helldiver, having the worst recorded divebombing hit to miss ratio ever recorded in trails, the Vindicator was the remaining choice available for service with the Fleet Air Arm and Australian Naval Forces.

The Buccaneer saw no combat service and most were either scrapped straight off the production lines or launched into the sea from carriers as unmanned catapult test aircraft.

The Buccaneer was the US's most heavily gunned divebomber (6 x Fixed and 2 x Rear Defence).

Finland had an order for Buccanners but the entry of the US into the war, in 1941, and the fact that Finland was allied to the Axis powers against the Soviets ended the order. With Fins flying them, the aircraft would have probally have shone brightly as a ground attack aircraft.

Ironically, Fleet Air Arm and Commonwealth Vindicator pilots would have trained on Buccaneers. The same went for US Naval Helldiver pilots.

I don't know what that is, and I know I'm not really playing, but wtf is this thing?

http://verydemotivational.com/wp-con...4080443594.jpg

Avro Shackleton,

Nice, thanks vulcan.

You're playing now! Welcome to the funnest thread in the forum :-P

Nice pic BTW.

SAAB Lansen??


Reminds me of a hawker hunter for some reason.

Try this one....

Clues:

This aircraft was a stop gap fighter for the US Army in early 1942 to defend the west coast from immagined Japanese air attack.

In 1942, when P-40 production was increased they were given to the Canadians, who used them as trainers. Because of this suitability, a two seat trainer was derived from it and built by another company. This trainer was called the T-6 Texan in the US and the Harvard in the UK.

The Candians gave their aircraft, in turn, to the Chinese airforce for use with the Flying Tigers. It had reasonable success and produced at least one Ace who managed to down four Ki-21 Helen bombers in rapid succession during a raid.

Described as mediocre, in performance as a fighter, it was arme with 2 x 12.7mm. nose guns and 4 x 7.62mm. wing guns. Top speed was 340 MPH.

From the ground, this aircraft exactly resembles the Japanese Oscar fighter leading to many unfortunate AA accidents with friendly fire. It also later had a long all glass cockpit canopy the same as the trainer, though it was only a single seater.

In the film "Tora, Tora, Tora", several of these fighters were converted and rebuilt to resemble Japanese A3M Val diver bombers and Kate torpedo planes.

These aircraft were used agian for the film "Battle Of Midway" for the same purpose.

Today there are three of these film aircraft that tour the airshows in the US.

The first picture is of the original prototype with an inline engine. The second picture is with the production radual engine and improved cockpit.

So....

1 Point for the manufacturer.

1 point for the "P" number.

1 point for the service name.

I thought the same thing, but when I looked at a couple o' Hunter pics it's actually quite different. Great minds working alike or just 2 fools thinking the same thought? :-P