Not all Seafire landings are prangs

[Admiral Beez]

Despite its reputation, here are some vids of Seafires landing onto their carriers without tearing off their legs. But the oleo bounce is still frightful to watch.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A lucky outcome for this Seafire's undercarriage.



A clearer vid here shows the landing was perhaps not as hard. I imagine the soft grass helped. What do you pilots say happened here, a sudden drop in wind speed?



I imagine this Seafire was thoroughly inspected afterward to ensure the undercarriage was okay.

 

[Zipper730]

Deleted: Stupid Message

 

[Admiral Beez]

Another good vid of Seafires landing safely, for the most part.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And looking here (same vid as top), you have to respect the deck crews that can so quickly fold the Seafires' wings. The Tarpon at the end shows the benefit of hydraulic wing folding.

 

[ktank]

At the hobby shop I work in, we had a customer in a few years back who was ex-Fleet Air Arm. He said the Seafire was lovely in the air but a horrible thing to land on a carrier. He'd also flown Sea Furies and Attackers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

At the hobby shop I work in, we had a customer in a few years back who was ex-Fleet Air Arm. He said the Seafire was lovely in the air but a horrible thing to land on a carrier. He'd also flown Sea Furies and Attackers.

It's a shame they didn't go with the Seafang/Attacker wing on the Seafire. Just look at the robust, wide track, and I assume the fold is narrow enough for the Illustrious class' lifts.

Keep the rest of the Spitfire tooling, but change to this wing design for the early Seafires onwards. Wing production may be slowed down at first, as I assume Seafire wings were much the same as Spitfire wings, even with the fold.

 

[fubar57]

Time machine required

 

[Elmas]

Mode Off topic ON
Mid '80s, I saw an entire Squadron of Buccaneers landing at Decimomannu AFB.
Of course it was land and not a CV in a gale, but I've never seen an airplane with a smoother landing, not even a small airliner.
Clompf....
Probably FAA learnt something from the Avalanche Operation.
Mode Off Topic OFF

 

[Admiral Beez]

Time machine required

I understand, but is there anything from post-war Seafang that is evolutionary and technically challenging?

 

[fubar57]

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1402

 

[AMCKen]

It's a shame they didn't go with the Seafang/Attacker wing on the Seafire. Just look at the robust, wide track, and I assume the fold is narrow enough for the Illustrious class' lifts.

Keep the rest of the Spitfire tooling, but change to this wing design for the early Seafires onwards. Wing production may be slowed down at first, as I assume Seafire wings were much the same as Spitfire wings, even with the fold.

View attachment 561581

When I was going to the Reno Races in the 70s I made up a t-shirt "SPITEFUL XV Racing Team"

 

[pbehn]

Time machine required

Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation for the USA not having Bearcats in in service 1941?

 

[fubar57]

Has there ever been a satisfactory explanation for the USA not having Bearcats in in service 1941?

I'll be right back....

 

[pbehn]

I'll be right back....

View attachment 561603​

Best go to 1936 and order a few hundred F-4 phantoms just to make sure.

 

[fubar57]

 

[pbehn]

View attachment 561606​

Job done, it is so easy when you put your mind to it I wonder why everyone isn't as clever as like wot we is.

 

[Zipper730]

Not all landings with seafires are prangs, but some had a decent "ka-thud.

 

[pbehn]

A clearer vid here shows the landing was perhaps not as hard. I imagine the soft grass helped. What do you pilots say happened here, a sudden drop in wind speed?

.

I think the captain of the airfield was sailing the good ship HMS United Kingdom at about 45 degrees to the prevailing wind and had forgotten to smooth out the bumps on his lawn, it looks like a cross wind landing on a bumpy grass airfield to me.

 

[Gnomey]

Good stuff!