Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HiWere Avengers too big to fit in the early British carriers?
But this, in my sincere opinion, is just a rationalization based on desperately cherry-picked data (having been part of several discussions about this). I know I may come across that way, but I'm really not one of those "battle of the Atlantic" WW2 aircraft nationalist types! I just refuse to accommodate the illusions of those who are. And that applies to people on both sides of the pond.
Aside from deck handling problems, which were worse than you are implying there, the real problem with the Seafire was range and endurance. The same traits that gave it that wonderful climb rate made it a poor carrier fighter. An interceptor is not what you want on a carrier. Though I'll admit they were somewhat useful against Kamikazes!
There's this interesting data on Seafire operations during Dragoon:
The Seafire LIIC/III / F6F / FM1+FM2:
Operation Dragoon (Invasion of southern France) Aug 1944.
CVE carrier sorties:
1073 Seafire Sorties / 252 F6F sorties / 347 FM1/2 sorties.
Operational and combat loss rate: 2.8% / 4.4% / 3.4%
This campaign was notable as the Seafires were also used extensively as fighter bombers (~300 sorties) , typically carrying 500lb bombs, but occasionally using 250lb bombs when winds were light or there was a shortage of 500lb bombs.
(Data from The Seafire by D. Brown)
Regarding its performance as a fighter-interceptor, you need to stop thinking American for a second. Following Pearl Harbor, US operations were designed for the open expanse of the Pacific. The Seafire was designed for British operations in the Med and the North Sea, where on a good day, you can see the coast of France across the Channel. A high rate of climb is a necessity given decreased operational response to threats. Also, you are forgetting that Task Force 57 utilised the Seafire in the Pacific to good effect because of its high rate of climb against kamikaze aircraft. The requirement for a high rate of climb was directly applied to development of the F8F, so yes, a superior rate of climb was much needed and desired by the US Navy.
Again, regarding performance, the Seafire first appeared in 1942, the primary US carrier fighter was the F4F, of which, comparing trial data produced by the A&AEE, the Seafire II was superior in performance in all aspects, except range.
Against the F6F, the Seafire III, which appeared a year later was inferior in performance in every aspect except rate of climb, but the differences are not marked, only around 1,000 feet in maximum ceiling and 20 or so mph in speeds, although the Seafire III had a faster cruise speed. Here's the thing, the Hellcat, despite being bigger and heavier had a much more powerful two-speed two-stage supercharged engine giving out a far greater power output than the Seafire's single-stage two-speed engine (I'll never understand why the Seafire III never received the 60 Series Merlin). Once the Seafire XV appears with the Griffon the balance swings in the opposite direction again, it is superior to the F6F in every respect with the exception of range and ceiling, its performance is akin to that of the F4U, with a little variation here and there.
Bearing all this in mind, the fact that the Seafire was only a stopgap and not a purpose-built naval fighter, that's not bad.
Define 'BIG'.
Fit on the carrier lift?
Fit in the hanger?
Get off the deck with the existing catapult and not nose dive into the sea?
Land without tearing out the arresting cables and crashing into the crash barrier/superstructure?
To fix the last two usually requires a dockyard refit.
I disagree completely. First of all, the Seafire was not "designed for operations in the North Sea" - it was adapted from a land based interceptor designed to defend England from German bombers.
Range was a big one. Seafire could not escort friendly strike aircraft on air raids, unless the carrier was extremely close to the target, and they could not remain on CAP for long durations. Which are both major limitations.
I don't buy that the Seafire XV was better than a Hellcat at the main tasks needed for a carrier fighter.
So the RN was skipping a Spitfire generation (Merlin 61) to get an interceptor with an excellent low level performance (single stage Griffon VI) in mid-1944.
The only clear statement I have come across is in David Brown's book "The Seafire. The Spitfire that went to Sea" where he notes:-It still doesn't make sense from a performance standpoint; the FAA went for the lesser-performing option. 60-Series Merlin variants were optimised for low-level operations. The Seafire III was essentially the same airframe (with subsequent naval mods) as the Mk.V/Mk.IX and that demonstrated a leap in performance over the Mk.V, so comparatively the Seafire III could have demonstrated the same, although its performance was better than the Mk.II.
Spitfire VIII would seem to be a much better basis.
The FAA seemed to have an obsession with low-altitude rated engines which I think was a mistake, generally speaking. It worked well against Kamikazes though.
The only clear statement I have come across is in David Brown's book "The Seafire. The Spitfire that went to Sea" where he notes:-
"Adaptation of the two-stage Merlin 60-series engined Spitfires Mark IX or VIII was impractical because of foreseeable structural deficiencies which could not be overcome by strengthening which would further increase the weight of the aircraft."
Your fighter is a big bird.Also could Avengers even carry British torpedoes?
This is also an interesting French naval fighter
The Spitfire VIII's fuselage was the basis of the Griffon-engined Mk.XII and Mk.XIV so it effectively was the basis of the Seafire XV. The Seafire IIs and IIIs were based on the V and IX fuselages, the IX essentially being a V fuselage, but with a different powerplant.
Again, the low altitude fixation is for good reason, a very different operating scenario to the Pacific Theatre, where you had plenty of time to assemble large formations of fighters in the air before you can even see your enemy, but in European waters you have far less reaction time, so speed and acceleration is critical. Let's also not forget that from our performance figures the Seafire III's maximum altitude is only a thousand feet less than the F6F's, so a better performance at low altitude is matched by a high operating ceiling and greater rate of climb. The performance margins were not as much as you might think, the term "low altitude" refers to performance optimisation, not limitation.