Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
It is now. Likely had to fly CAP since there were no Seafires
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp:But the wheels stayed on.
And you've got a photo caption which proves it.Resp:
It is now. Likely had to fly CAP since there were no Seafires
Resp:And you've got a photo caption which proves it.
I think it was me, but I cant find the online source. B*gger!!!!! Will keep looking.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.
Resp: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 .
'Tis but a flesh wound! Rub some dirt on it and get it back up in the air! (in best John Cleese voice)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
...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....and EIGHT .50's trumps EVERYONE!...
Resp: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!
...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......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.
Resp:Maybe on US Essex class carriers Spitfires didn't need tail hooks!
https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/No_Tailhook_Spitfire.pdf