PDA

View Full Version : Curtiss SC 1 Seahawk



Snow_Wolf_
01-10-2005, 05:16 PM
http://www.uss-la-ca135.org/CurtissSC-1Seahawk-2.jpg

http://www.highgallery.com/Curtiss-SC_2.jpg

Type: SC-1
Task: reconnaissance
Year: 1944 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1007kW Wright R-1820-62
Wing Span: 12.50m Length: 11.09m Height: 3.89m Wing Area: 26.01m2
Empty Weight: 2867kg Max.Weight: 4082kg
Max. Speed: 504km/h Ceiling: 11400m Max. Range: 1000km
Armament: 2*mg12.7mm, 340kg bombs

Anyone know anymore on this plane

Snow_Wolf_
01-10-2005, 05:16 PM
http://www.uss-la-ca135.org/CurtissSC-1Seahawk-2.jpg

http://www.highgallery.com/Curtiss-SC_2.jpg

Type: SC-1
Task: reconnaissance
Year: 1944 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1007kW Wright R-1820-62
Wing Span: 12.50m Length: 11.09m Height: 3.89m Wing Area: 26.01m2
Empty Weight: 2867kg Max.Weight: 4082kg
Max. Speed: 504km/h Ceiling: 11400m Max. Range: 1000km
Armament: 2*mg12.7mm, 340kg bombs

Anyone know anymore on this plane

berg417448
01-10-2005, 07:00 PM
More here;

http://www.highgallery.com/military-aircraft-sc-1.html

PBNA-Boosher
01-10-2005, 07:11 PM
Looks like a USN Rufe

SkyChimp
01-10-2005, 07:45 PM
Whatch wanna know? I've got the new Naval Fighters #38 that features this plane. It tells you just about anything you'd want to know.

http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF38.jpg
http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF38B.jpg

Jungmann
01-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Instantly obsolete. The Navy wasn't building battleships anymore. The smaller, lighter, faster postwar Navy needed ship-board helicopters, and it got them--46 Sikorsky H02S, acquired in 1947.

But it looked cool.

Skarphol
01-11-2005, 08:26 AM
Looks like a T-28 Trojan on floats...

Skarphol

SkyChimp
01-11-2005, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jungmann:
Instantly obsolete. The Navy wasn't building battleships anymore. The smaller, lighter, faster postwar Navy needed ship-board helicopters, and it got them--46 Sikorsky H02S, acquired in 1947.

But it looked cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They sure weren't operating helicopters off ships in WWII, so the need for a floatplane with good performance, recce, patrol and rescue capability was very much needed.

Skarphol
01-12-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

They sure weren't operating helicopters off ships in WWII, so the need for a floatplane with good performance, recce, patrol and rescue capability was very much needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that by 1944 all american naval ships large enough to carry a catapult was in some sort of taskforce that included at least one jeep-carrier, thus making a floatplane unnessesary? (may have spelled that quite poor)
The PBY and submarines could do the rescuemissions..

Skarphol

necrobaron
01-12-2005, 11:11 PM
I have that book too. It'd be a great resource for any modeller who was willing to model the SeaHawk.