Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There were two Seafires, L2C and L3C. The Firefly was a Mk4.
The Fighter Conference I am quoting from took place in October, 1944.Commander D R F Cambell, DSC, RN said " The Firefly Mark 4 is an airplane built to a specification I think especially for the Royal Navy-a two seater fighter with no rear defense." "It's performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II, Rolls Royce Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." To me, he did seem real fond of the airplane.
Which Seafire is being evaluated at the conference? a Seafire XV might have given a different impression.
Seafire 47 vs a Sea Fury may be an interesting comparison also, while the Fury has higher performance does the contra-rotating prop of the Seafire make take-off and landing easier?
"As a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945" ? In what way? Are you saying that the Seafire was superior in a given campaign?
Quotes from Fighter Conference Seafire- "Just fair, it is surpassed by many others." "An outstanding plane at the time it was designed. Still a good fighter but naturally not equal to latest types" "Believe low Vmax performance and poor rate of climb would not be compensated for in the good maneuveribility of this ship." "Japs would knock it hard I believe." It is interesting that the comments on the Seafire are similar to the comments on the Zeke 52. Good maneuveribility but poor performance overall.
I have no idea why the RN would keep the Seafire in service when the Sea Fury was available except economics.
Of most interest to me in these evaluations was the light and agile British Seafire. Designed as a defensive interceptor, compared to our beefy multipurpose fighters it was like a toy, light and compact, with little fuel and short range. Roaming the sky for hours wasn't its purpose. Thinking of the tremendous role the Spitfire had played in the critical Battle of Britain, I put the little fighter through every acrobatic manoeuvre I knew, and some I didn't. I quickly understood why it was successful against the tough and capable German fighter (ME-109 and in destroying scores of Nazi bombers. I fit in the small cockpit like a packed sardine in a can (Guyton was quite tall) , but this was of small concern. It was an airplane you put on and wore, to get up fast, climb, intercept, kill, return. Then refuel and rearm and repeat.
After my second flight I understood why it fulfilled its mission so admirably. Its litheness, the easy effort by which any acrobatic manoeuvre could be deftly performed, was startling. It would remind me of the exemplary stunt performance of the Japanese Zero, which I was to fly within a year.)
Each of the competitive fighters had its desirable features and performance. along with those undesirable. Trade-offs were the name of the game. You couldn't have it all. And, of course, each pilot tended to extoll the virtues of his own fighter, and swear by it. Voila! Each of us had the best airplane, didn't we?
Whistling Death, p160-161.
great find RCAF