Well the Seafire III had leading edge and slipper tanks fitted as well as P40 drop tanks that were found in Australia to increase loiter time over the task groups, like the Spitfire MkIII it had lots of improvements over the previous models and was regarded as a sweet handling aircraft, it's ironic that the FAA did more to addressed the Seafire/Spitfire's lack of range than the RAF did, both aircraft had many improvements I would have used in my ''what if'' escort Spitfire.'Whataboutism'....
Can someone explain to me the relevance of a debate on Seafire unsuitability for carrier ops in the context of a thread titled British escort fighter--what might it have been like???
You lot really are an eccentric bunch.
British escort fighter--what might it have been like? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter BarnOwlLover
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. We have this impression that on fleet carriers the FAA would lose half its Seafires on any mission.
Not all Seafire landings are prangs
Despite its reputation, here are some vids of Seafires landing onto their carriers without tearing off their legs. But the oleo bounce is still frightful to watch.
ww2aircraft.net
Shortround6
Major General
This can open up a huge cafeteria size can of Merlin "what if"
There were experimental Merlin two speed single stage engines with either intercoolers or water injection with higher gear ratios. They gave 1150hp at 23,000ft and 1250hp at 12,500ft both at 9lbs of boost. Dates not given.
There was also a 2 speed version with a very cropped impeller.
I could be way off but the ability to use more than 9lbs of boost at the lower altitudes may have cut into the need for such engines. You can only spin an existing supercharger so fast before the system hits flow limits or supersonic shock waves inside the supercharger housing. And if you can use 12-15lbs of boost at low altitudes even with the single speed engine you have cut into the need for low gear. Not eliminate it but definitely cut into it.
A two speed drive with a Merlin 46 supercharger doesn't seem to have been tried
One of those with an intercooler might have been very interesting.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Talk about a blinkered view, the ensign eliminator was designed as a carrier aircraft yet it took how many years and how many modifications to get it right?, the Spitfire on the other hand was never designed as a naval aircraft so to level criticism at it considering that fact and likewise the fact that before the Seafire III all of them were more or less converted Spitfire V's I don't think you have a leg to stand on in this argument.
All of this impacts the sheer unsuitability of the early Corsairs for carrier operations.
How the Navy Tamed the “Killer Corsair”
A little piece of aluminum solved the WW2 fighter’s vicious behavior problem.www.smithsonianmag.com
Forgive my relaying their criticisms of your darling Spitfire, but pointing out the flaws of other types will not make the Seafire any better, all this hand-waving aside.
Also, I'm not "arguing". I'm pointing out that the Seafire was not, repeat not, a good carrier fighter, and even its own pilots disparaged its deck-handling. I'll take their words over yours, thank you.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
'Whataboutism'....
Can someone explain to me the relevance of a debate on Seafire unsuitability for carrier ops in the context of a thread titled British escort fighter--what might it have been like???
You lot really are an eccentric bunch.
The whataboutism refers to Pat dragging in the F4U when the thread is about Brit escort fighters. I had thought that would be obvious.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
What about the Buffalo?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
About two years, which was about the same length of time for the P-38, which also had several post introduction issues to be worked out.
buffnut453
Captain
Now we're talking. Great plane. Vastly underrated. Could've taken the P-51's mantle if only it had been given a chance.
What? Time for my meds again? Not now, nurse. I'm chatting on my favourite forum about aeroplanes 'n' stuff.
Those Supermarine chaps were pretty clever. I'm sure if they were charged with making a long range spitfire they would at least developed an integral large capacity tank in the belly of the fuselage, moved the engine to the center to alleviate cg issues, built a Gatling style machine gun around the propellor shaft, done a new clean wet wing and maybe added winglets because they make you faster. Probably call it a spitfire mk III (3x3).
There are many things they could have done but as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all of its own. The best versions of the Spitfire were not produced or produced in low numbers in favour of higher numbers of aircraft that were almost as good, coupled with a better Hurricane.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It appears that everyone is missing the key performance aspect that could have made the Spitfire a world class fighter (including but not limited to long range, top speed, shooting down droves of enemy aircraft or [insert wonderwaffe criteria here]):
Balkan Crosses...
Balkan Crosses...
Only the rear of that contraption was any good at all.
Well you say that, but as usual for our beloved forum, this is another thread dominated by thread creep.
I was being a tad sarcastic - if dragging in the F4U is whataboutery, then so, surely, is an ongoing critique of the Spitfire's suitability as a carrier fighter?
(and what happens to 99% of the threads here?!)As far as I can see, the relevance of mentioning the Seafire was the extent to which the FAA extended its range over and beyond the Spitfires they were modified from. That at least is germane to the topic, isn't it?
buffnut453
Captain
Both types were operated by the FAA, you threw criticism at the Seafire which never had naval operations as part of it's intended use when designed, the Corsair, on the other hand was prinsibly designed as a carrier aircraft yet it had every traite a naval aircraft shouldn't have. As pointed out the Seafire III was a very different aircraft to the earlier converted Spitfire MkV's so your statement that the Seafire wasn't worthy of mention doesn't stack up.
I can't think of any fighter that didn't show flaws once the shooting started, war has a habit of exposing them.
Are you keeping the 37mm in the nose or going to 20, or dare I say the mighty Browning point five oh?.
Shortround6
Major General
British had about a year (and a bit more) get some the flaws out of the Spitfire and Hurricane before the war started.
Hurricane
2 blade wooden prop gone.
Fabric wings gone.
At least the need for protection was identified and work was being done.
Spitfire
2 blade wooden prop gone.
At least the need for protection was identified and work was being done.
IFF would start to show up in 1940.
Actual combat would show more changes.
Well, my thought is you could get really creative and wrap a multi barrel gun (think Vulcan) around the propeller shaft. Four blade, four barrels or three blades three barrels. I'm kind of a fifty cal kind of guy.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
