Yes i can actualy understand why an under belly defence position would be a
disaster on a flying boat.
But the other a/c such as the heavy bombers i think should have had some
form of under belly guns, but instead they got rid of them, and the
underside of a bomber was the most vulnerable part of a bomber, especially
in the dark.
Still, the air force will have had their reasons for this at the time.
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
M. H. Greaves wrote:
yes it was one of the better self defended aircraft, but like many of the
british aircraft, there was no under belly defence!

To be fair, under-belly defence is difficult to achieve in a flying
boat without distressing consequences on landing.

The Sunderland was a quick-and-dirty adaptation of an airliner,
and as such did suprisingly well as a warplane.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)