Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Regarding the Seafire, I remember reading about a conversation between Corwin Meyer and Eric Brown. Noting that the British put the Corsair aboard carriers a year before the US Navy did, Meyer asked why the RN was so set on getting the Corsair aboard ship. Consider that at times, there were ideas about partially deflating tires to make the folded wings of the Corsair fit in the RN Hangar decks. Eventually, the wingtips were clipped. Remember this was era of uneven stalls and bouncy landing gear, so Corsairs were certainly not well behaved.
The reply from Eric Brown was that the Seafires were basically junk. That surprised me also when I first read this. I can't seem to find the exact text at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows where it might be found online?
Did Seafires have flaps that were useable for Take-Off?
- Ivan.
The Torque swing issue really was not that big a problem until until the arrival of the first griffon engined versions. The aircraft hadf a tendency to crab walk down the flight deck, which was a definite control problem, since applying even maximum rudder would not rectify the problem. The initial "fix" was to limit boost on takeoff to a maximum of 7 lbs. Later, in the Seafire 47, the rotation of the engine was reversed, which made the problem disappear.
AFAIK, the Merlin engined versions did not have this problem, or at least its effects were controllable.
For the record, I said, referring to the F4F3 "was a decent shipboard fighter and on balance was the best in the world in the Allied quiver in 1942-early43." I apologise that I was not more clear in my statement
As for the Fulmar and Wildcat versus the Ju88, Brown could not be more clear that the Ju88A-4 was faster than the Fulmar and he could not be more clear than that the Wildcat was a better opponent versus the Ju88 than the Fulmar.
A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them.
hi ivan
I would like to see that interview if possible. I have a number of records of interview with Brown. His comments are in fact exactly the opposite to what you are saying. He was critical of the Seafire I, which lacked a lot of basic navalisation mods, like wing folding, and a daggie arrester hook. He was enthusastic about the later wartime marks of Seafire.
p115
Seafire in the forthcoming Operation Torch and operate it from two
old carriers, as the elevators in British fleet carriers could not accom-
modate the nonfolding fighter. Trials were successful, and the Seafire
went off to war.
Assessment: The Seafire's performance fell below that of the
land-based Spitfire because navalization incurred the penalties of
increased weight and drag. Never designed for shipboard use, the
Seafire was difficult to deck-land, and it acted like a submarine when
ditched. In spite of this, it was the fastest shipboard fighter in the
world at the time of Operation Torch. A great airplane to fly and
fight, it boosted the morale of the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm pilots.
Duels In the Sky
Freebird
I agree with what you say but think you have the wrong Firefly photo
Brown does not give an assessment of the Seafire III, but for the IIC he states:
Of course the 2nd fastest naval fighter in 1942, was the Sea Hurricane IIC, according to Brown.
Free bird, you have confused Campbell's remarks with the remarks of pilots who flew the Firefly. Campbell in his remarks to the conference during the opening only made statements #2 and #10(in your post) One Navy pilot flew the Firefly and nine contractor pilots, no Army and no British. The Navy and contractor pilots were responsible for the other points made in your post. However, it is apparent that Campbell did not care for the Firefly or at least the one they had there. One wonders why the British sent a "dud" example if that is what it was to the fighter meet. However, one can also see that the pilots at the "Fighter Meet" would hardly be impressed by the Firefly.
Thanks for bringing the details of those comments to the thread. I think what he says is entirely consistent with the statements I have made, and totally debunks the claim that the Seafire was a total failure. In fact, if I can paraphrase him, what he is saying is that the nonfolding Seafires (the Seafire I and II), there was no wing folding, and this caused a lot of problems. What he doesnt say is that throughout 1942 and 1943, when the Seafire I and II were the main types, there was a very heavy accident rate. In large measure this was due to putting a high performance aircraft with difficicult deck handling characteristics on escort carriers, but throughout 1944 methoids were worked out that overcame these dificulties.