FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[Dawncaster]

Below you can see a Hellcat hooked up to a catapult. Note the Fowler flap system which is more effective than the split trail flaps use on the Seafire. Perhaps such a device might have either slowed the Spitfire down on landing or allowed it to land at lower angle of attack and thereby enjoy better visibility.

To modify 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 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.

View attachment 615292

The Hellcat did not have Fowler flap system, it was NACA slotted flap. The Corsair also had the NACA slotted flap system, it's efficiency for lift cofficient was better than Hellcat's. Corsair had a lower stall speed and landing speed than the Hellcat, in landing condition. Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.

The Corsair's landing performance gradually improved, and the F4U-1D(FG-1D) was considered to have equivalent or even better landing performance than the F6F-5 in several evaluations and reports. Although there was also evaluation that the Hellcat had better all-around carrier characteristics.

It is possible that powerful flap system will not provide better landing performance always.

 

[Koopernic]

The Hellcat did not have Fowler flap system, it was NACA slotted flap. The Corsair also had the NACA slotted flap system, it's efficiency for lift cofficient was better than Hellcat's. Corsair had a lower stall speed and landing speed than the Hellcat, in landing condition. Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.

View attachment 615334

The Corsair's landing performance gradually improved, and the F4U-1D(FG-1D) was considered to have equivalent or even better landing performance than the F6F-5 in several evaluations and reports. Although there was also evaluation that the Hellcat had better all-around carrier characteristics.

It is possible that powerful flap system will not provide better landing performance always.

Thanks for clearing up what type of flaps were used on the corsair and hellcat. The NACA slotted flap does move backward, somewhat like the Fowler flap. They just move back nowhere near as far, only so much as to develop the slot hence my mistake when looking at extended Hellcat flaps. I imagine the close to the ground flaps caused the Corsair to float when deployed too far?

 

[RCAFson]

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

There were 97 Seafires at the start of operations of which about a quarter were Seafire LIIC and LRIICs, with the rest being LIIIs. It seems that by Aug 1944 there was sufficient operational experience with the Seafire to result in much safer decklandings and improved carrier handling, and there was moderately more wind available in the ops off Southern France. Additionally, minor mods such as cropped propeller blades resulted in a much reduced incidence of propellor and CSU damage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.

I wonder if a taller tailwheel would help to alleviate the contact with the deck.

This bounce must have been scary, even without the hokey music.




The Brits seem to be landing fine though, as shown below. A big benefit of the Corsair vs. the Seafire was the former's power folding wings. A lot easier than this.

 

[RCAFson]

The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.

That would mean no Fulmar and no Seafire. There's no way that a Seafire could be designed and produced before the BofB, and then not till 1941, so then no Fulmar and no Seafire either.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That would mean no Fulmar and no Seafire. There's no way that a Seafire could be designed and produced before the BofB, and then not till 1941, so then no Fulmar and no Seafire either.

Toss the Fulmar for certain. When Supermarine presents the Spitfire to the Air Ministry in March 1936 the AM says, also make one for the FAA, but with folding wings and suitable undercarriage.

 

[Shortround6]

The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.

We have been over this before.
Production contract for 127 Fulmars was placed in Mid 1938, soon raised to 250 aircraft.
Canceling that contract and trying to design folding wing Spitfires in 1939 would definity mean no Fulmars and no Seafires in 1940/41.
Only 159 Fulmars were completed in 1940.

Lets not forget that the Specification that lead to the Firefly was issued early in 1940 but that was the result of a number of talks going back a year or more and the "estimate" that the Griffon engine would produce 2000hp in production form. It would eventually get there but not for 3-4 years.
The Firefly was ordered off the drawing board in June of 1940, it took until Dec of 1941 for the prototype to fly and until Dec of 1942 for all three prototypes and 20 production aircraft to be built. Not saying the Firefly was a great airplane, just pointing out how long it took to go from an "idea" to actual production aircraft. Granted a folding wing Spitfire would be easier but it is not a couple of weeks or even a couple of months job. Especially if there is no overwhelming for it. The Firefly and the Griffon engine were both delayed at times due to RR concentrating on the Merlin in Aug 1940 and other production priorities.

Quite a few engine and aircraft programs were put on hold during the summer and fall of 1940.

I would also note than in Jan of 1940 the home fighter squadrons of the RAF (not counting the ones in France or Mid east) had only 13 squadrons of Spitfires and one more squadron had one flight. Something like 18 fighter squadrons had Bristol Blenheims and 2 had Gladiators (two more Gladiator squadrons were in France and four more were in the Mideast).

Anything delaying production of Spitfires at this point would be critical. Castle Bromwich didn't get sorted out until mid summer of 1940. Setting up another Spitfire production line and getting it sorted out would have taken how long?
Another production source might have come in very handy in Sept, Oct, Nov of 1940 after the main Supermarine plant was bombed but then I doubt production would have gone to teh RN.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We have been over this before.

You have, yes. I'm suggesting the Seafire contract is requested in 1936, when the Spitfire is first flown for the AM. Thus no Fulmar, the Fulmar is not canceled, it never exists.

 

[RCAFson]

Toss the Fulmar for certain. When Supermarine presents the Spitfire to the Air Ministry in March 1936 the AM says, also make one for the FAA, but with folding wings and suitable undercarriage.

That's completely unrealistic. The Supermarine design team had it's hands full just refining the basic design and barely did that in time for 1939.

 

[Shortround6]

Then why all the talk about Churchill in 1940 or when he was first sea lord in 1939?

As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.

The first 310 Spitfires were actually ordered a few weeks before the Blackburn Skua. It is not like they didn't know it existed. However the Spitfire might not have meet requirements for what the RAF was looking for when it came to planes for the RN.
The First Seafires were modified MK Vb aircraft with Merlin 45 engines and constant speed props. Using Merlin IIIs with even two pitch props (not fitted until about 3 years after first flight) might have made for rather exciting take-offs. I believe the MK Vbs also had modified landing gear from the MK I and II?
The Spitfire I was rather short ranged for a naval aircraft of the mid to late 30s. It's ability to perform search/recon missions given the equipment of the late 1930s is certainly subject to question. It was not enough to be a good fighter, with the RNs small air groups they were looking (rightly or wrongly) for multi purpose aircraft and a Sea Spitfire I with Merlin III engine and questionable propeller was unlikely to fulfill more than one role.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Fulmar needed more power. With a mix of Hindsightium and Handwavium the Royal Navy give Rolls-Royce a contract to develop a Buzzard sized version of the Merlin. Rolls-Royce put the effort they wasted on the Vulture, Peregrine and Exe into the new 36.7 litre engine. If the RN can prevent the RAF hogging all production of course.

A 1500hp engine in 1940 can't be too far out there. Fulmar will still be slower than a single seater but with +12psi boost should still be competitive in 1941/42.

 

[pbehn]

Between 1936 an 1939 there was more talk about cancelling the Spitfire contract than expanding it to include a Seafire

 

[fastmongrel]

Between 1936 an 1939 there was more talk about cancelling the Spitfire contract than expanding it to include a Seafire

Wasn't the plan to build no more after the order for 310 had been fulfilled.

 

[pbehn]

Wasn't the plan to build no more after the order for 310 had been fulfilled.

I am sure an historian could point to many plans, cancellation was certainly considered more than once. Basically production was ridiculously low, not all Supermarines fault. Also it was already clear that the Spitfire was a better aircraft than the Hurricane. There were only 300+ produced with 100-120 in service when war was declared but by that time investment and commitment had increased a lot with a dedicated factory being built etc. Hindsight is a marvellous tool. Despite it being now obvious to everyone what was needed it wasn't at the time. The first Spitfires to be used for photo recon were delivered one month after war was declared.

 

[Shortround6]

We have mentioned this before, both the Sea Gladiator and the Fulmar were interim aircraft. They were not what what the FAA/RAF of the time wanted (they wanted something like the Firefly) but they were what they could get based on equipment (engines/props etc) availability and production schedules. The Fulmar was based of the P.4/34 tactical bomber so they even had a flying prototype in late 1937 early 1938, still took until early 1940 to get production aircraft. Unless the basic requirement was changed the Spitfire wasn't going to meet the perceived need. Fulmar could stay in the air for 4 hours without a drop tank and carried double the ammo of a Spitfire or Hurricane. a lot less frequent landings to maintain a CAP.

according to Wiki on the Seafire.

"During late 1941 and early 1942, the Admiralty again assessed the Spitfire for possible conversion. In late 1941, a total of 48 Spitfire Mk Vb were converted by Air Training Service Ltd. at Hamble to become "hooked Spitfires". This was the Seafire Mk Ib and would be the first of several Seafire variants to reach the Fleet Air Arm. This version of the Seafire was mainly used to allow the Royal Navy to gain experience in operating the Spitfire on aircraft carriers. The main structural change was made to the lower rear fuselage which incorporated an A-frame style arrestor hook and strengthened lower longerons.[1] It was soon discovered that the fuselage, especially around hatches, was too weak for carrier operations. In an attempt to alleviate this condition, reinforcing strips were riveted around hatch openings and along the main fuselage longerons"

Now none of the modifications were really that difficult but we aren't to the folding wing yet. But think about that for moment. The RN had in 1941/42 a large number of Spitfires doing, for lack of a better term, operational testing.
also from wiki" A further 118 Seafire Mk Ibs incorporating the fuselage reinforcements were modified from Spitfire Vbs by Cunliffe-Owen at Eastleigh and Air Training Service. These aircraft were equipped with Naval HF radio equipment and IFF equipment as well as a Type 72 homing beacon. " these were the aircraft that would go to sea in the first operational squadrons. yes the naval bits and pieces could have been fitted earlier.

There was a long road between having the idea for a folding wing Spitfire and having said folding wing Spitfires actually show up on carriers and be able to conduct operations. It probably could have been speeded up but the idea that all that had to be done in 1936-37 was design the folding wing and put it into production may need a rethink. (Castle Bromwich was bitching about constant changes in the production drawings for the MK I and MK II in the spring/summer of 1940).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Then why all the talk about Churchill in 1940 or when he was first sea lord in 1939?

My idea was that the Seafire was already underway or in service when Churchill becomes FSL in 1939, and having been briefed on the RN's new fighter, may encourage him not to cancel it when he becomes PM in 1940. Without the Fulmar, what's Churchill's alternative, return to Gladiators?

Unless the Seafire is developed in 1937 and production begun in 1938, I don't see it getting into service any earlier than historically. If it's not flying and in service by 1939, the government or AM will cancel or postpone production to make room for Spitfires, which if there's no Fulmar presents the FAA with big problems. And I see this as possible, a Seafire prototype, with folding wings and naval-spec undercarriage successfully lands on a carrier in 1937, impressing the RN, FAA and AM and putting the kibosh to any talk of the Fulmar or the dual seal fighter concept.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Corsair was quickly withdrawn from FAA service, why? Perhaps lend lease required them to be returned?

 

[pbehn]

The Corsair was quickly withdrawn from FAA service, why? Perhaps lend lease required them to be returned?

They were literally thrown over the side in some cases. LL may have required them to be returned but the USA was already full of planes being scrapped.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They were literally thrown over the side in some cases. LL may have required them to be returned but the USA was already full of planes being scrapped.

I expect the French got some former British ones.

 

[pbehn]

I expect the French got some former British ones.

Dunno but on another forum thrown up by a Google search a guy said his father was on HMS formidable and they also threw Barracudas over the side to make hangar space for the clear up in Singapore.