Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2?

[Navalwarrior]

Never read the book so cant comment on it but the numbers you give go against official RN records.



That statement holds true of all and I mean all naval aeroplanes even todays F18s and F35s



Not true or even close to true. Most Seafire landing accidents were caused by the inherent float of the Seafire as it flew at its landing speed most Seafires missed the wires and ended up in the crash barrier with intact undercarriage you can see this if you
google images of Seafire accidents the typical pose after a prang is the plane on its nose with U/C notably not bent.



Corsairs usually flew TARCAP (TARgetCombatAirPatrol) whilst Avengers Hellcats and Fireflies attacked with bombs and rockets but the Corsairs also flew RAMROD missions strafing targets of opportunity. They would only fly Fleet Defence missions when the TaskForce Radar reported bogeys.

It would be very rare for a Corsair pilot to fly more than 2 sorties per day. CAP Seafire pilots regularly flew 3 or even 4 sorties per day as usually at least 12 CAP planes (a high flight, a medium and a low flight of 4 planes per flight) would be aloft at all times when within range of the enemy.

The high CAP flight was often of Corsairs as the high altitude versions of the Seafire were in short supply but these were not the Corsairs used on Strikes and Ramrods they had no racks for ordnance or fuel.

Seafires had their faults only an idiot would claim otherwise but the 1945 MkIII was a totally different bird to the first Seafires converted from 2nd hand RAF planes taken from Maintenance Units.

Resp:
I don't think the author made up the details of his book. He gives names and quotes. As for Seafires vs Corsairs/Hellcats, etc . . . flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs. I was impressed with the Fleet's Admiral in that he sought out and carried out very hazardous missions. He could have sat back and played a smaller, but he didn't. He had to persist as Adm King was trying to deny or contain Britain's part in the Pacific. However, Churchill knew the sacrifices Americans played in saving England, so he fought long and hard within his government to carry on to the end. You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred. It might surprise you. I know this thread is about aircraft, but they never would have left the ground w/o a pilot.

 

[fastmongrel]

I don't think the author made up the details of his book.

I didnt say he made up anything just that Royal Navy records disagree with him. Someone more knowledgeable than I would need to study the figures. Parsifal is the man for that he studied the BPF when he was at Naval College iirc.

flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs

I am sure it didnt compare because it was different. I wouldnt be dimissive of any pilots job especially when trying to defend the Fleet against Kamikaze which was no cakewalk, when Fleet AA gunners were likely to shoot at anything with wings.

You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred.

Pilots generally prefer the planes they flew because most would only ever fly one type in combat. The majority of Corsair pilots would have no idea about flying a Seafire and vice versa, only long serving Squadron and Flight commanders would be able to compare different types and they would most likely have started in Sea Hurricanes, Martlets or Fulmars before going to the US to convert to Corsairs.

Dont dismiss any flying because generally the waggling your wings in the air bit is easy peasy stuff, its when you have the wheels down that pilots usually die.

 

[Elvis]

Sorry to everyone for diverting the thread if we are talking Naval birds I would go for Grummans Ironclad she might not be the most elegant bird but she was arguably the best Naval aeroplane of WWII

View attachment 500396
https://www.cafsocal.com/our-aircrafts/our-aircraft-and-history/gruman-f6f-hellcat/

That and the FM-2 were both a coupe of great lookin' planes...

 

[fastmongrel]

The Wildcat was my first ever large scale model 1:32 if memory is right. Though it was actually an 804 Squadron Martlet HMS Audacity when painted and decalled.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Resp:
I don't think the author made up the details of his book. He gives names and quotes. As for Seafires vs Corsairs/Hellcats, etc . . . flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs. I was impressed with the Fleet's Admiral in that he sought out and carried out very hazardous missions. He could have sat back and played a smaller, but he didn't. He had to persist as Adm King was trying to deny or contain Britain's part in the Pacific. However, Churchill knew the sacrifices Americans played in saving England, so he fought long and hard within his government to carry on to the end. You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred. It might surprise you. I know this thread is about aircraft, but they never would have left the ground w/o a pilot.

I didnt say he made up anything just that Royal Navy records disagree with him. Someone more knowledgeable than I would need to study the figures. Parsifal is the man for that he studied the BPF when he was at Naval College iirc.



I am sure it didnt compare because it was different. I wouldnt be dimissive of any pilots job especially when trying to defend the Fleet against Kamikaze which was no cakewalk, when Fleet AA gunners were likely to shoot at anything with wings.



Pilots generally prefer the planes they flew because most would only ever fly one type in combat. The majority of Corsair pilots would have no idea about flying a Seafire and vice versa, only long serving Squadron and Flight commanders would be able to compare different types and they would most likely have started in Sea Hurricanes, Martlets or Fulmars before going to the US to convert to Corsairs.

Dont dismiss any flying because generally the waggling your wings in the air bit is easy peasy stuff, its when you have the wheels down that pilots usually die.

Resp:
Well said.

 

[pgeno71]

Do you prefer the earlier razorback or the later bubble canopy?

I prefer the razorback.

 

[Donivanp]

P-51D/K any bubble top Mustang. Hands down no questions.

 

[Zipper730]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick a Spitfire PR variant

 

[parsifal]

If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea.

Until 1945, yes, after 1945 with the introduction of the mkIII, not true, and with the immediate post war Spitfire MkXV definitely untrue


The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission.

Sorry, but this is utter bollocks. Seafires in 1945 enjoyed the best record of the three types in terms of deck accident rates. They most definitely were not "one shots" as you are suggesting. They had a high accident rate on a per day basis, but on a permission basis, were the lowest accident rates of the three aircraft in the BPF


Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots.


Again, what a load of bollocks this is. Sefires were on average flying 8 sorties to one for the two US types. That was mostly because they were the mainstay of the BPFs defensive CAP arrangements, and had a short endurance when being used with throttles fully open


The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.

Oh lord, this is just utter rubbish

Task Force 57: The British Pacific Fleet
British Pacific Fleet - Admiralty War Diary 1945
http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Hobbs_THE_BRITISH_PACIFIC_FLEET_IN_1945.pdf

 

[Navalwarrior]

If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea.

Until 1945, yes, after 1945 with the introduction of the mkIII, not true, and with the immediate post war Spitfire MkXV definitely untrue


The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission.

Sorry, but this is utter bollocks. Seafires in 1945 enjoyed the best record of the three types in terms of deck accident rates. They most definitely were not "one shots" as you are suggesting. They had a high accident rate on a per day basis, but on a permission basis, were the lowest accident rates of the three aircraft in the BPF


Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots.


Again, what a load of bollocks this is. Sefires were on average flying 8 sorties to one for the two US types. That was mostly because they were the mainstay of the BPFs defensive CAP arrangements, and had a short endurance when being used with throttles fully open


The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.

Oh lord, this is just utter rubbish

Task Force 57: The British Pacific Fleet
British Pacific Fleet - Admiralty War Diary 1945
http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Hobbs_THE_BRITISH_PACIFIC_FLEET_IN_1945.pdf

Resp:
Between pgs 178 and 179 of book 'The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, there are color plates of photos; #20 is of a Seafire with collapsed forward landing gear on the deck of a carrier. The caption below the photo reads: 20. Although it was a wonderful fighter to fly, the Seafire was too fragile for the rough and tumble of carrier life. It's success as a kamikaze Hunter was marred by its high accident rate and limited range.

 

[fastmongrel]

Snip

Someone on this forum possibly yourself posted a set of figures about the BPF Carrier sorties, do you have the figures. I thought I had the info but cant find it.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

Resp:
Between pgs 178 and 179 of book 'The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, there are color plates of photos; #20 is of a Seafire with collapsed forward landing gear on the deck of a carrier. The caption below the photo reads: 20. Although it was a wonderful fighter to fly, the Seafire was too fragile for the rough and tumble of carrier life. It's success as a kamikaze Hunter was marred by its high accident rate and limited range.

So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?

 

[Elvis]

Greg,
How are you doing man? The close of Warbirdsforum was a great loss.
P-40 flying with a P-43:
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Warbirds Resource Group - Error
or you can go to Google and type in P-40 and P-43 flying like I did.

LOL!
I bet I Googled every combination EXCEPT that one!
Too funny. Thanks for locating that for us Corsning.

U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

 

[Elvis]

...another vote for the P-40. This one is a "B" and the last flying example from the Pearl Harbour attack...

Curtiss P-40B Warhawk - The Fighter Collection

 

[Elvis]

...another shot of the above plane. Reminds me of the back page photo of the first Air Progress magazine I ever saw.
Although that was a shot of a Hawker Sea Fury (I think), the positioning and the light are similar...

...in case you're curious and have the issues, it was the issue that heralded the return of Jet racing at the Reno air races(I think the cover was a couple of F-86's)…..spring or summer of '74...I think.
Sorry if I'm wrong. It's been a while since I've owned that one.


Elvis

 

[Navalwarrior]

So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?

Resp:
You have challenged me. All I am doing is citing what the book stated that was written in 2017 from an author who interviewed and wrote what he was related about Royal Naval carrier activities in the Pacific during WWII. He likely used personal accounts rather than an official account from any official (does not mean he is incorrect). I claim no special ability other that I can read!! I am a big fan of 1903 Springfield sporters. However, not everyone shares my sentiment. I do not attack them because of their view of rifles is different than mine. You can believe what you want to believe.

 

[Elvis]

I prefer the razorback.

Right on. Me too. =)

 

[Navalwarrior]

Resp:
You have challenged me. All I am doing is citing what the book stated that was written in 2017 from an author who interviewed and wrote what he was related about Royal Naval carrier activities in the Pacific during WWII. He likely used personal accounts rather than an official account from any official (does not mean he is incorrect). I claim no special ability other that I can read!! I am a big fan of 1903 Springfield sporters. However, not everyone shares my sentiment. I do not attack them because of their view of rifles is different than mine. You can believe what you want to believe.

Page 267:
Despite there was good results hunting down kamikazes in the air, the small fuel tanks of the Seafires meant they couldn't carry out strikes over the islands and had to land every two hrs to refuel, and 25 had been lost or damaged beyond repair . . .
. . . with Indomitable soon to leave the front line taking its Hellcats w it and a second Seafire carrier, Inplacable, due to join the fleet later in the year, there was no question of the Seafire squ being disbanded. Nevertheless, their poor performance and lack of spare pilots and planes meant extra pressure on those flying American aircraft. The Corsair and Hellcat pilots had been flying up to 8 hrs a day, alternating between patrols over the fleet & attacking island targets. Flew an average of 45 hrs - twice of Seafire pilots.

 

[fastmongrel]

So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?

They also snapped in half, what a piece of junk

Next up proof that Bears go to the toilet in the woods

 

[pbehn]

They also snapped in half, what a piece of junk
View attachment 500553

Next up proof that Bears go to the toilet in the woods

But the wheels stayed on.