Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Agreed. We have this impression that on fleet carriers the FAA would lose half its Seafires on any mission.Spitfires were somewhat better on carriers than the common reputation which is skewed by Salerno.
This can open up a huge cafeteria size can of Merlin "what if"This is true but Merlin XX engined MkIII's were a much better aircraft than Merlin 45 engined MkV's up until the second half of '42, I wonder if the performance from the XX would have sped up interest in the two stage development?
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
'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.
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.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?
What about the Buffalo?
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).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.
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.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).
Only the rear of that contraption was any good at all.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...
View attachment 741914
Well you say that, but as usual for our beloved forum, this is another thread dominated by thread creep.The whataboutism refers to Pat dragging in the F4U when the thread is about Brit escort fighters. I had thought that would be obvious.
Allow me to try this again. The Spitfire Mk III9. The long range fighter perfected.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.
Allow me to try this again. The Spitfire Mk III9. The long range fighter perfected.
View attachment 741918
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.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.
I can't think of any fighter that didn't show flaws once the shooting started, war has a habit of exposing them.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.
Are you keeping the 37mm in the nose or going to 20, or dare I say the mighty Browning point five oh?.Allow me to try this again. The Spitfire Mk III9. The long range fighter perfected.
View attachment 741918
British had about a year (and a bit more) get some the flaws out of the Spitfire and Hurricane before the war started.I can't think of any fighter that didn't show flaws once the shooting started, war has a habit of exposing them.
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.Are you keeping the 37mm in the nose or going to 20, or dare I say the mighty Browning point five oh?.