Admiral Beez
Major
Can you imagine the value today if those aircraft had been preserved? Well, no one wants a Barracuda, but a Seafire.... yes please.
https://www.historicandclassicaircraftsales.com/seafire-3
FAA Seafire vs Corsair
- Thread starter aircro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
https://www.historicandclassicaircraftsales.com/seafire-3
Well I suppose if they preserved a lot of them they wouldn't be worth much, there are stories that some scrap planes in US were valued on the fuel in the tank. Here is a picture of RAF Thruxton in May 1945 (from Wiki) The race circuit was made from the perimeter taxiways. Look how many planes are parked up, it says they were to go to USA, whether they did or not is another matter.
Theoretically, Formidable wasn't operating Barracudas at the end of the war.
A little bit of background on the FAA single-seater and specifically the RAF option. In the mid-30s, before even the Skua had entered service the Admiralty questioned the lack of a single-seater and in 1937 a meeting was held outlining what to do about it. The following is a clipping from an article I wrote for a local aviation magazine:
"Meanwhile, following the issuing of O.27/34 [Skua] and O.30/35 [Roc], the wisdom of the lack of a single-seat fighter was being questioned within the Admiralty in louder terms and in a meeting held on 22 October 1937, all in attendance agreed that the Skua and Roc would be obsolescent within two years. Three different scenarios were proposed that could resolve the problem; 1) conversion of an existing RAF fighter for carrier operation, 2) design and build a new 6 to 8 gun biplane fighter off the drawing board, or 3) continue with existing types until conversion of an existing RAF type could take place. No 3 was ruled out immediately, although agreement was met on the possible suitability of converting the Hawker Hurricane into a carrier fighter. Following this point, one admiral in attendance was heard to quip sardonically, "Any single-seater is better than nothing."
The Hurricane was being discussed around the time it was entering RAF service. The Spitfire was soon to follow. A year later Richard Fairey was summoned to the Admiralty for a meeting about Swordfish production and the issue of building Spitfires under licence was raised. Again from the same article:
"At a meeting held with Richard Fairey in May 1938 it was put to him that his firm could possibly help in producing as many Sea Spitfires as possible by March 1940. Fairey, without any hint of surprise at the request, explicitly stated that it was not possible as his factories were busy with existing orders and that he only intended on building his own designs. After pressing, Fairey then stated that if he was to accept an order for Spitfires he would have to abandon work on types in production at the time, which would delay matters. The Admiralty representative then advised Fairey that the Fulmar would not receive any future orders, stating that the Spitfire was smaller and wouldn't require as much effort to build. By the end of the meeting Fairey had stood his ground – there would be no Fairey built Spitfires."
This was the Sea Spitfire concept that Joe Smith of Supermarine had thrown together at the behest of the Admiralty, powered by a Griffon. As we already know, this wasn't pressed ahead with because the Air Ministry believed that Spitfire production was best served being for the RAF at that stage.
"Meanwhile, following the issuing of O.27/34 [Skua] and O.30/35 [Roc], the wisdom of the lack of a single-seat fighter was being questioned within the Admiralty in louder terms and in a meeting held on 22 October 1937, all in attendance agreed that the Skua and Roc would be obsolescent within two years. Three different scenarios were proposed that could resolve the problem; 1) conversion of an existing RAF fighter for carrier operation, 2) design and build a new 6 to 8 gun biplane fighter off the drawing board, or 3) continue with existing types until conversion of an existing RAF type could take place. No 3 was ruled out immediately, although agreement was met on the possible suitability of converting the Hawker Hurricane into a carrier fighter. Following this point, one admiral in attendance was heard to quip sardonically, "Any single-seater is better than nothing."
The Hurricane was being discussed around the time it was entering RAF service. The Spitfire was soon to follow. A year later Richard Fairey was summoned to the Admiralty for a meeting about Swordfish production and the issue of building Spitfires under licence was raised. Again from the same article:
"At a meeting held with Richard Fairey in May 1938 it was put to him that his firm could possibly help in producing as many Sea Spitfires as possible by March 1940. Fairey, without any hint of surprise at the request, explicitly stated that it was not possible as his factories were busy with existing orders and that he only intended on building his own designs. After pressing, Fairey then stated that if he was to accept an order for Spitfires he would have to abandon work on types in production at the time, which would delay matters. The Admiralty representative then advised Fairey that the Fulmar would not receive any future orders, stating that the Spitfire was smaller and wouldn't require as much effort to build. By the end of the meeting Fairey had stood his ground – there would be no Fairey built Spitfires."
This was the Sea Spitfire concept that Joe Smith of Supermarine had thrown together at the behest of the Admiralty, powered by a Griffon. As we already know, this wasn't pressed ahead with because the Air Ministry believed that Spitfire production was best served being for the RAF at that stage.
The lend lease agreement required that at the end of the war any aircaft that hadn't been lost in operations be either purchased, retuned or destroyed. They were usually sold at somewhere between 10%-50% of book value if the British wanted them or could afford them.
The best use would have been scrap metal. Not sure if scrap for parts was allowed. I assume the USA didn't want these weapons spoiling the market place.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
isn't that a Firefly?For the what-iffers, why not put a Griffon in the Fulmar...
No, the Firefly was a completely different design with a different design team.
Nah, I meant a Griffon engined Fulmar. The Fulmar was by Fairey's long-standing designer Marcelle Lobelle, who left and went to form ML Aviation after leaving a design to the spec for the Firefly, but Fairey's new designer "Charlie" Chaplin no less (that's Herbert Chaplin), redrew the entire thing and the Firefly was based on his work.
Last edited:
To be fair, the Corsair was the better fighter compared to the Hellcat. That's why it was the longest produced U.S. piston engine fighter - 11 years. Granted, the Corsair had some early landing issues on carriers which arguably limited deployment to Marine squadrons during the war (Navy pilots generally did not use land bases). Some of the longevity of production was likely due to the Navy's issue with the new jets, taking off/landing on a carrier. However, looking at a mid-1943 Corsair compared to a 1943 F6F-5, the Corsair was faster and had a superior roll rate than the Hellcat. Hellcat was better at diving. I'm not at all implying the Hellcat was a bad fighter, just that the Corsair was better. Both used the same R-2800 engine, but Vought's design of a slimmer fuselage, closer cowled engine, cooling ducts in the wing and flush riveting throughout made the difference. Just my humble opinion.
Admiral Beez
Major
At that meeting Fairey should have been told, if he won't make the Seafire, we want a single seat Fulmar then. Make your two seaters to fill the immediate demand and then switch over to a single seat version.
But May 1938 was too late. The Fulmar program was already well underway. We need the Air Ministry to see the Spitfire in 1936 (shown below) and say ah ha we also need one for the Fleet Air Arm. We must kill the Fulmar in its conception phase.
Why the focus on Fairey anyway? Supermarine was owned by Vickers-Armstrong, one of the UK's largest military suppliers. If not them, there are other players. Get the wing designed and CC&F or Canadian Vickers can have a go. But again, if this isn't underway by 1937, I'd say it dies on the Exchequer vine in 1939/40.
Last edited:
Because Fairey and Blackburn were the leading suppliers of aircraft to the Admiralty. Blackburn was busy with the Skua, which the Admiralty was beginning to not like, even before it entered service and Fairey already had the Fulmar, which, incidentally was ordered by the Air Ministry, not the Admiralty, Swordfish, Applecore etc, so it was busee. Perhaps Blackburn, although it'd be late, overweight, too complicated and too poor performing...
Admiral Beez
Major
Why didn't the Seafire ever have power folding wings like the Sea Fury, Corsair, Hellcat, etc?
Last edited:
The original design and F4F-4 prototype had power folding wings but they were deleted due to pilot concerns that the aircraft was underpowered and already overweight, The fact is that the Seafire wing folding mechanism was readily powered by the Armstrong method.
Admiral Beez
Major
You mean the strong arm method? I jest, but what is the tech you're referring to.
Just watch all these chaps clamouring over the wings at 6:36 to get this Seafire folded and sorted.
Here you can see the FAA's Corsair's wing unfolded without the engine running. I imagine the deck hands much preferred the auto fold aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
We keep going over some of the same stuff.
The likelihood of a "single seat" Fulmar beng any good is about zero.
That meaning a single fighter using much more than the instrument panel out of the Fulmar.
Leaving the rear seater on the ground, shortening the canopy and plating over the hole does NOT change the performance of the aircraft much.
If what is meant is single seat fighter instead of the Fulmar with all the expected performance of a single seat fighter than you are talking about an entirely new airframe and all the time and effort that that entails (10s of thousands of draftsmen hours to start with).
A Fulmar used a bigger wing than the P-47 or F4U or even a P-38. There is no good way to cut it down to single seater size.
For your early Seafire please consider the engines, props and perhaps the radios in service in 1937-38 vs what was in service in late 1941 and early 1942 (and the fuel).
The RN/FAA was barely using two pitch props, The land RAF was NOT using two pitch props on fighters. 87 octane was the fuel of the day. Were they even using HF radios?
Or I may be confusing things? Later land Spits getting VHF radios?
Just because something was done in 1942 doesn't mean all the other bits and pieces that made it work were available in 1937.
The likelihood of a "single seat" Fulmar beng any good is about zero.
That meaning a single fighter using much more than the instrument panel out of the Fulmar.
Leaving the rear seater on the ground, shortening the canopy and plating over the hole does NOT change the performance of the aircraft much.
If what is meant is single seat fighter instead of the Fulmar with all the expected performance of a single seat fighter than you are talking about an entirely new airframe and all the time and effort that that entails (10s of thousands of draftsmen hours to start with).
A Fulmar used a bigger wing than the P-47 or F4U or even a P-38. There is no good way to cut it down to single seater size.
For your early Seafire please consider the engines, props and perhaps the radios in service in 1937-38 vs what was in service in late 1941 and early 1942 (and the fuel).
The RN/FAA was barely using two pitch props, The land RAF was NOT using two pitch props on fighters. 87 octane was the fuel of the day. Were they even using HF radios?
Or I may be confusing things? Later land Spits getting VHF radios?
Just because something was done in 1942 doesn't mean all the other bits and pieces that made it work were available in 1937.
It seems to take little effort and all of about 20-30sec to fold the wings manually. Hydraulic wing folding will add weight on an already overstressed arrestor and LGs, and will add extra maintenance. It would probably have delayed the Seafire III's introduction into 1944.
Admiral Beez
Major
What was the Armstrong method you were referring to?
Forward visibility is a big issue for a carrier fighter and the raised cockpit did that, no slimmer fuselage, and we've seen RCAFsons stats on how damaging accidents can be. Interestingly out of Corsair, P-51, Hellcat, P47 the Hellcat had the higher climb rate. It might have been possible to improve the roll rate, probably just a matter of modifying the ailerons and their spring tabs. Perhaps the chin intercooler of the Hellcat could have been moved to the leading edges as per the Corsair by fitting the R-2800-8.
There is a nice comparison here:
http://acversailles.free.fr/documen...uire/Essais_en_vol/Flight_test_comparison.pdf
Grumman had the Bearcat and improving the Hellcat was pointless.
So, I agree that the Corsair was the better fighter and more enduring in the long term but for a few critical years the Hellcat was overall more effective.
Last edited:
