The Seafire was never completely invented and was quite fragile for carrier operations.
I don't understand the first part of the comment. On that basis should we discount all corsair land based operations? I can accept the argument that the Seafire was not a spitfire. As time went by it became less and less a Spitfire, and more and more a new design. The post war development of the seafire bore only passing resemblance to the land based versions of the spitfire. To be fair, the early versions of the Seafire, introduced in 1942 are consistent with everything you are saying. I don't consider them true versions of the seafire, really they were spitfires with a hook. They suffered from weak landing gear, endurance of just over an hour, no folding wings, outdated gunsights, limited drop tank capability. Operated mainly from escort carriers in still air conditions, operational techniques not worked out properly, inexperienced crews, results were predictably poor
Seafire III was virtually a different aircraft. Redesigned wing, revised armament, three point wing folding, moved CG, strengthened landing gear, strengthened hook, onboard comms, revised and improved armouring. Revised armament, far superior to the corsairs, low blown for performance where it mattered. Increased fuel capacity, which increased endurance to well over 3.5hrs. still short of the corsair but not by much.
Seafire went from probably the worst accident rate in 1942, with the I and II subtypes to easily the best, in both navies in 1945. They were universally recognized within the BPF as the best type with sufficient performance and firepower to deal with Kamikazes
What part of the seafires development do you consider as "never completely invented"
That from many sources over many years. Yes, it got used, but no, it wasn't really suitable.
True for the desperate days of 1942-3, but not true for the sdubtypes fielded from 1945 and after the war.
The Spitfire airframe is MUCH lighter than a comparable Naval fighter airframe in all-metal and, while it COULD be operated from carriers, the structural repairs would take a toll since it was never stressed for carrier operations that require "dropping" it onto the deck to snag a landing wire from full stall above tailhook heights.
Seafire I and II were basically spitfires with hooks, and suffered some catastrophic structural failures in those early days, especially when operated in conditions of low wind and from small slow CVEs in the med. As a direct result of those experiences, and following extensive further testing, the redesigned LF MkIII incorporated a strengthened landing gear (also redesigned) arrester hook and "A" frame assembly from the production line, beginning in April 1944. Further testing revealed this to be a vast improvement in the structural adequacy, but it was still considered necessary for further modifications. Extra strengthening was added to counter the sideways load induced by the rolling of an aircraft carrier's flight deck while at sea. The resulting aircraft deployed to the BPF bore little or no resemblance to the earlier lash up conversions. Sure, it still had land based legacies, but to say it was never stressed to undertake carrier operations is just plain wrong.
changes to the CG in the Seafire III improved its landing characteristics.
From the redesign resulting in the LF II , there were significant changes to performance, mostly at the critical low altitude. Spitfire/Seafire differences ended up concentrating the latters peak performance at low altitude compared to the emphasis of the spitfire being at higher altitudes. . The Merlin 32 was capable of putting out 1645hp at 1759ft, and 1640hp at 3000ft. At full emergency boost, the L Mk IIC could climb at 4600ft per minute to a height of 6000ft. This was 1500ft per minute better than the Hellcat and Corsair. The 'low-rated' LF IIC could even reach 20,000ft some two minutes ahead of the earlier F IIC, though its performance at height was lacking.
Seafires fitted with the Merlin 32 produced a maximum sea-level speed of 316mph (506km/h, rising to 335mph (536km/h) at 6000ft (l850m). On the surface this may look worse than the F-IIC, but the heights quoted are not direct comparisons. What the data represents was a significant boost in low-level speed, acceleration and responsiveness.
Such was the turnaround in performance experienced by the LF IIC that the decision was made in late 1942 to convert all Merlin 46 F Mk IIC's to the LF standard.
Captain Brown was very impressed with this Seafire:
"
With this engine change, the fighter became the Seafire L Mk IIC… the most exciting aircraft that I had flown to that time.
Its initial climb rate and acceleration were little short of magnificent and at maximum boost it could maintain 4600ft/min up to 6000ft.
Another result of the installation of the Merlin 32 was a quite dramatic reduction in take-off distance and, in fact, the L Mk IIC without flap could get airborne in a shorter distance than the standard Mk IIC using full flap!
Later, some Seafire L IICs were to have their wingtips clipped to boost roll rate and incidentally, add another four knots to maximum speed, although these changes were to be obtained at some cost in take-off run and service ceiling.
My enthusiasm for this new Seafire variant was such that, one afternoon, in sheer exhilaration, I looped it around both spans of the Forth Bridge in succession – court-martial stuff nowadays, but during a war nobody has the time to bother with such formalities."
Radials have good performance at high power (and corresponding high fuel consumption) but low cruising speeds (decent economy). Inlines generally cruise much faster. So, I would not expect Corsairs and Spitfires to operate alongside each other much and, if they did, one or both would be out of their normal flight operations.
The BPF used the corsair Hellcats and Seafire LF Mk IIIs simultaneously. They found ways to extract the best from each type. The relatively light armament of the corsair, combined with its relatively low performance (in areas like acceleration and rate of climb) made it more suitable for deep cover operations, whilst its extra range and better bomb carrying capabilities made it more suitable for offensive operations. But the two types actually worked well together, covering for each others weaknesses quite well.
Seafire IIs had undergone various redesign changes such that the CG had moved considerably and the type's landing characteristics vastly improved. Whether it was this 'beneficial' drag or simply better trained and less fatigued pilots, Implacabe's Seafire accident rate was the best of any carrier in either navy.
Principal source;
Supermarine Seafire: Variants