FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[RCAFson]

I rather doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn't have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn't suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.

There were no USN carriers at Salerno.

All carrier fighters required a minimum amount of wind over the deck to reduce the stress of arrested landings and to allow the tailhook time to grab a wire. The greater the differential between carrier effective speed (speed through the water and wind over the deck) the greater the stress on the airframe and LG upon landing. The Seafires flew 713 sorties, for a peak of 4.1 sorties/day per aircraft, which was a very high operational sortie rate especially given the low winds.

 

[pbehn]

While I agree a 17 knot headwind over deck is challenging I doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn't have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn't suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.

As I understand it at times they weren't even sailing at 15kts, if you continue to make 15kts all day in that area you hit land or go out of range.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G

No mention of the variant, but here's an account of Hellcats vs. Bf 109s When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe

 

[Koopernic]

As I understand it at times they weren't even sailing at 15kts, if you continue to make 15kts all day in that area you hit land or go out of range.

They order of battle in wiki suggests all of the escort carriers were the Attacker Class, supposedly capable of 18 knots but probably less in reality. I had thought the USN carriers had participated because there were Hellcats at Salerno. The USN was there but non of its carriers.

There is a good review of the Seafire Development and problems here:
Armoured Aircraft Carriers (armouredcarriers.com)

Had development commenced earlier some of the issues could probably have been dealt with earlier, particularly the structural and undercarriage issues.

Apart from much greater overall strength the Seafire needed a larger rudder area, perhaps a larger tail area with much stronger undercarriage and shock absorbing oleos.

The poor visibility would be insoluble unless the cockpit was raised or some more effective flap was found.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The poor visibility would be insoluble unless the cockpit was raised or some more effective flap was found.

I think every British fighter would present this issue, given their placement of fuel tanks between the engine and the cockpit. It may have a much too fast landing speed, but the best RAF single seat monoplane fighter for view of the deck is the Whirlwind. Though looking at this pic iDK.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Didn't Whirlwinds have a high landing speed?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Didn't Whirlwinds have a high landing speed?

Yes, I did my very best to mention that above, but evidently failed.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, I did my very best to mention that above, but evidently failed.

You did fine -- my reading skills, not so much.

I'd think that could be a problem trapping on a small deck, but it was a good airplane imo all the same.

 

[Koopernic]

Below you can see a Hellcat hooked up to a catapult. Note the Fowler flap system (edit these are actually NACA slotted flaps) which are more effective than the split trail flaps used on the Seafire. These flaps have a mechanism that moves them back slightly to create a slot. Perhaps such a device might have either slowed the Seafire down on landing or allowed it to land at lower angle of attack and thereby enjoy better visibility.

To navalise the Spitfire I would be inclined to move the cockpit forward by reducing fuel tank volume to 2/3rds and also move the cockpit up slightly to give a better over the nose visibility. I would replace the lost fuel volume in either a tank below or behind the pilot. I would add a fowler or slotted flap system and a robust undercarriage and shock absorbing oleos.

I would add a P-51D style spine to the vertical tail to improve lateral stability with the enlarged rudder of the Mk VII/VIII. Ideally a coaxial contra rotating prop would be developed to cancel out any of the effects of torque, P factor, gyroscopic precession etc.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Had development commenced earlier some of the issues could probably have been dealt with earlier, particularly the structural and undercarriage issues.

Give the Seafire of 1941 folding wings and robust undercarriage, along with the greater internal fuel of the later Spitfires and IMO the FAA will have a killer for the MTO. The Fulmar can be dedicated to bombing, the Skua retired and the Hurricanes passed over entirely.

 

[Koopernic]

Give the Seafire of 1941 folding wings and robust undercarriage, along with the greater internal fuel of the later Spitfires and IMO the FAA will have a killer for the MTO. The Fulmar can be dedicated to bombing, the Skua retired and the Hurricanes passed over entirely.

Not the ideal aircraft but certainly starting early would have meant the seafire was more mature and were ready when needed. You would still have the visibility problem and the problem of the seafire "floating" presumably from a wing in ground effect.

Adapting a land plane to a carrier is probably not a good idea.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Adapting a land plane to a carrier is probably not a good idea.

True. It's not often that ever works out. The Sea Fury is one I can think of, but it may have been significantly worked over once the RAF declined it.

Of course postwar there is the SHAR, I suspect after the Fulmar it's the FAA's 2nd or 3rd highest scoring fighter of all time.

 

[RCAFson]

The Seafire LIIC/III head to head with the F6F and 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)

 

[Koopernic]

The Seafire LIIC/III head to head with the F6F and FM1/FM2:

Operation Dragoon (Invasion of southern France) Aug 1944.

CVE carrier sorties:

1073 Seafire Sorties / 252 F6F sorties / 347 FM1/2 sorties.

Operational 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)

Im inclined to reference Disraeli's quip on statistics. The loss rate would depend on type of mission.

A Hellcat sortie would have nearly twice the range and endurance. They performed missions the spitfire couldn't (high altitude, long range, deep penetration).

The statistics are not inaccurate but they are incomplete. What is going on.

 

[RCAFson]

Im inclined to reference Disraeli's quip on statistics. The loss rate would depend on type of mission.

A Hellcat sortie would have nearly twice the range and endurance. They performed missions the spitfire couldn't (high altitude, long range, deep penetration).

The statistics are not inaccurate but they are incomplete. What is going on.

These are combat losses, and losses through flight deck accidents and mechanical failures. (edited)

 

[Koopernic]

These are not combat losses, but losses through flight deck accidents and mechanical failures.

I think "operational losses" refers to all losses in the combat zone, accidents and by enemy action. Most F6F combat losses were from FLAK.

 

[RCAFson]

I think "operational losses" refers to all losses in the combat zone, accidents and by enemy action. Most F6F combat losses were from FLAK.

Yes, you're correct. Seafire operational losses from landing and flight deck accidents alone constituted ~1/2 (1.6% of all sorties) of the operational losses with combat resulting in a 1% sortie loss rate and engine failure making up the rest for a total of 2.8%.

 

[Koopernic]

I think every British fighter would present this issue, given their placement of fuel tanks between the engine and the cockpit. It may have a much too fast landing speed, but the best RAF single seat monoplane fighter for view of the deck is the Whirlwind. Though looking at this pic iDK.

View attachment 615275

How would one "navalise" the whirlwind?

Increase wing area by 21% to decrease stall speed at least 10% (likely more due to increased flap area) from 95mph to about 85.5 to perhaps 80.

The flaps of the Whirlwind are pretty interesting.

 

[Koopernic]

Yes, you're correct. Seafire operational losses from landing and flight deck accidents alone constituted ~1/2 (1.6% of all sorties) of the operational losses with combat resulting in a 1% sortie loss rate and engine failure making up the rest for a total of 2.8%.

I expect these were Seafire III given the use of bombs, rockets a folding wing and would have been a refined product.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How would one "navalise" the whirlwind?

I don't want to cause a threat derailment, so I suggest we continue Whirlwind talk here, Westland Whirlwind revisited

To my eye, the Corsair just looks badass, and I imagine the pilots that flew it came to like its speed and power, forgiving its poor view forward when landing.