Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Seafires were never ideal for carrier operations, but their reputation was tarnished in 1943 and that mud stuck for the rest of their careers. In Salerno, operating in still air conditions aboard escort carriers that lacked the speed and deck space needed for an admittedly difficult type to operate from carrier decks at the best of times, the operational record was not very good. of the 140 seafires fielded over Salerno, in a matter of days, something like 109 were lost in accidents. the crews operating the type and maintaining the type had a hard time of it and the losses showed. The aircrews were unused to the seafire, and the type had a tendency to float down onto the deck with those large wings. The short decks and these airfoil characteristics meant that pilots tended to come in too fast and too high, cut the engine and drop onto the deck . The un-strengthened LG would more often than not fail under the stresses that treatment generated.

US Hellcats and corsairs were never asked to operate under those conditions . an Essex class had something like 60% more deck handling area than even an illustrious class and a sea speed of about 30knots tp the Pretoria Castles CVE speed of 15 knots. Essex class were more stable as a seagoing platform and the air turbulence from the superstructure on the larger fleet carriers was less.

Despite the poor start in 1943, the RN persisted with the seafire, a new mark, the LF mkIII was developed, which was the first purpose built Seafire mark, with strengthened LG, double wing folding and blown engine for low altitude operations . its cannon armament and high rate of climb made it the ideal point defence a/c and in 1945 it flew the lions share of CAP operations with the 88a/c of the four sqns deployed aboard the two fleet carriers embarked clocking up thousands of sorties between them for the total loss of just 47 of their number, 8 in the air and the remainder to deck landing accidents . That is a far better record than either of the two American types. Since 1943, the RN had worked hard to develop new operating techniques. Seafires were no longer forced to operate from CVEs, they were no longer being operated in still air conditions, and the additional deck landing space meant that they were no longer forced to 'drop" onto the deck , in 1945 it was now the standard procedure to glide into the landing attitude. this dramatically reduced the LG failure rates.

The Seafire wing aboard the BPF in March, April and May 1945 were the mainstay of the airborne defences over TF 57, and bore the brunt of kamikaze attacks delivered in that period. Some 37 Japanese a/c were destroyed. more than 600 kamikaze attacks were thwarted in that period, with the seafires often flying as many as 8 sorties per day in these operations. the pace of operations was frenetic, to say the least, but the seafires performed very reliably during these operations. The bugs that had hounded the type earlier were no longer evident, but this has not stopped an over eager, mostly pro-American and well orchestrated propaganda campaign continuing to this day in the popular press. for the record, incidentally, the aircrew that flew with BPF TFW were almost worshipful in their praise of the types performance in this period .
 
parsifal said:
Seafires were never ideal for carrier operations, but their reputation was tarnished in 1943 and that mud stuck for the rest of their careers. In Salerno, operating in still air conditions aboard escort carriers that lacked the speed and deck space needed for an admittedly difficult type to operate from carrier decks at the best of times, the operational record was not very good. of the 140 seafires fielded over Salerno, in a matter of days, something like 109 were lost in accidents. the crews operating the type and maintaining the type had a hard time of it and the losses showed. The aircrews were unused to the seafire, and the type had a tendency to float down onto the deck with those large wings. The short decks and these airfoil characteristics meant that pilots tended to come in too fast and too high, cut the engine and drop onto the deck . The un-strengthened LG would more often than not fail under the stresses that treatment generated.

US Hellcats and corsairs were never asked to operate under those conditions . an Essex class had something like 60% more deck handling area than even an illustrious class and a sea speed of about 30knots tp the Pretoria Castles CVE speed of 15 knots. Essex class were more stable as a seagoing platform and the air turbulence from the superstructure on the larger fleet carriers was less.

Despite the poor start in 1943, the RN persisted with the seafire, a new mark, the LF mkIII was developed, which was the first purpose built Seafire mark, with strengthened LG, double wing folding and blown engine for low altitude operations . its cannon armament and high rate of climb made it the ideal point defence a/c and in 1945 it flew the lions share of CAP operations with the 88a/c of the four sqns deployed aboard the two fleet carriers embarked clocking up thousands of sorties between them for the total loss of just 47 of their number, 8 in the air and the remainder to deck landing accidents . That is a far better record than either of the two American types. Since 1943, the RN had worked hard to develop new operating techniques. Seafires were no longer forced to operate from CVEs, they were no longer being operated in still air conditions, and the additional deck landing space meant that they were no longer forced to 'drop" onto the deck , in 1945 it was now the standard procedure to glide into the landing attitude. this dramatically reduced the LG failure rates.

The Seafire wing aboard the BPF in March, April and May 1945 were the mainstay of the airborne defences over TF 57, and bore the brunt of kamikaze attacks delivered in that period. Some 37 Japanese a/c were destroyed. more than 600 kamikaze attacks were thwarted in that period, with the seafires often flying as many as 8 sorties per day in these operations. the pace of operations was frenetic, to say the least, but the seafires performed very reliably during these operations. The bugs that had hounded the type earlier were no longer evident, but this has not stopped an over eager, mostly pro-American and well orchestrated propaganda campaign continuing to this day in the popular press. for the record, incidentally, the aircrew that flew with BPF TFW were almost worshipful in their praise of the types performance in this period .
Click to expand...
Resp:
Thanks. My view was taken from statements via Fleet Air Arm personnel, as quoted by author Iredale. It didn't appear that the pilots of 1945 were tainted by 1943 MTO, but I could be wrong.
 
Seafires were limited by their mission capability. The Hellcats and corsairs operating with the BPF had longer range, and could carry a more useful offensive warload compared to the Mk III. They were touted as more robust by some.

Because they could do more things, they were closer to the multi role fighter, which was always a primary issue on RN carriers, with their limited CAGs. but in the pure fleet defence fighter, the Seafire was the superior a/c for the job. And didn't suffer any worse from non combat attrition to either of the American fighters, when placed in the same operational environment.
 
It was the Seafires narrow undercarriage (same as the Spitfire) that made landings very difficult. And without having the stats in front of me idk the Seafire was any worse at carrier operations than ac such as the Hellcat, Corsair, divebombers etc....
Yes the fuel was a major problem, but once the landing issue was suitable ironed out (as best it could be) things got a lot safer for pilots and crewman on the flight deck. Things like a slow curved approach that was adopted by English pilots flying the F4U's helped to reduce accidents and casualties. But as a naval fighter, the Spit was a little out of its natural element. And despite one or two mods, the Seafire was basically a Spitfire with a hook!
 
If you need a lot of it and you need it fast, nothing better to deliver it than the.....


2-vintage-world-war-ii-aircraft-kevin-mccarthy.jpg


...and EIGHT .50's trumps EVERYONE!...

A-26-INVADER-Waco-3.jpg

Douglas A-26, B-26 Invader A-26A Counter Invader - RC Groups

...except the P47...


republic-p47.jpg

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - The Seven Ton Milk Jug, WW2 Fighter Plane

...8-[
 
Last edited:
Smokey Stover said:
It was the Seafires narrow undercarriage (same as the Spitfire) that made landings very difficult. And without having the stats in front of me idk the Seafire was any worse at carrier operations than ac such as the Hellcat, Corsair, divebombers etc....
Yes the fuel was a major problem, but once the landing issue was suitable ironed out (as best it could be) things got a lot safer for pilots and crewman on the flight deck. Things like a slow curved approach that was adopted by English pilots flying the F4U's helped to reduce accidents and casualties. But as a naval fighter, the Spit was a little out of its natural element. And despite one or two mods, the Seafire was basically a Spitfire with a hook!
Click to expand...
Resp:
Mention was made about the removal/discontinuance of Seafires in 1945, but I believe the FAA had nothing to replace it with. Carrier operations require a 'direct hit' on the deck, to control and confine the plane's movement. There is no extra room to allow an aircraft to land much off the point of aim . . . to catch the arrester wire! In a sense, it is a controlled crash. If you recall, the US Navy had to make several adjustments to its landing gear to reduce the Corsair's bounce. As a result the Corsair first went to land based units of the US Marine Corps, as well as at least one island hopping Naval unit. In 1991, I got to fly an A-6 Intruder simulator (hadn't flown a plane since the mid-80s [no pilot's license], but remembered basic flying skills from the age of 15) where I took off from a Naval Air Station. After about 20 min and doing a few barrel roles, I decided it was time to Land. I asked the operator what flap setting and landing speed was required. End result, I picked a point on the runway and with rudder correction (held fast) . . . touched down hard, and stopped. Operator said that I hit a little hard, but would have done no damage to the A-6. It was designed for hard hits.
 
KiwiBiggles said:
...except just about anything packing four 20s. Chuck in another four 50s as well, in the Beaufighter, and I think you can consider yourself well and truly trumped.
Click to expand...
...and the P-61 with it's upper turret locked forward (four 20mm + four .50 MGs) OR the B-25 gunships with up to fourteen .50 Mgs OR the B-26 gunships with up to sixteen .50 MGs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Howard Gibson
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
Replies
13
Views
306
Howard Gibson
Howard Gibson
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
aidenmac16
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
574
Dimlee
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
12
Views
869
swampyankee
swampyankee
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
383
fubar57
fubar57
Back