Was the Seafire’s narrow track the issue?

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

In 1945 the British Pacific fleet Seafire MkIIIs had fewer accidents per 100 landings than the Corsair and Hellcat. Statistics can tell out of context lies for example the Seafires were used as low level last ditch anti Kamikaze defence and were a lot less likely to have to land with a tired pilot or damaged aircraft. Some sorties could take 10 minutes from take off to landing. In general Seafires in the Pacific were not a fragile Butterfly though they were not the tough bruisers like the US planes.
 
GrauGeist said:
The aircraft in the photo is the high-altitude Me155B, piping fed the turbosupercharger that was located behind the cockpit.
To the best of my knowledge, it never flew.
The BV155, however, did fly in 1944.
Click to expand...
From my little better than laymans knowledge of beams. levers and impact loads coupled with the same about the Bf 109 that is no more suited to carrier landings than a Spitfire MkI
 
pbehn said:
From my little better than laymans knowledge of beams. levers and impact loads coupled with the same about the Bf 109 that is no more suited to carrier landings than a Spitfire MkI
Click to expand...
Is there any land-based WW2 monoplane fighter better suited for carrier ops than the Hawker Hurricane? Maybe the Reggiane Re.2001.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Is there any land-based WW2 monoplane fighter better suited for carrier ops than the Hawker Hurricane? Maybe the Reggiane Re.2001.
Click to expand...
At what time? In 1939-40 maybe I wouldn't put it up against a Zero. The Hurricane had a strong wide undercarriage but that was part of its thick wings, its rear end wasn't suited to fixing a hook. The Bf 109s wings were detachable with landing gear attached to the engine, changing that to a carrier capable aircraft is a huge change.
 
pbehn said:
From my little better than laymans knowledge of beams. levers and impact loads coupled with the same about the Bf 109 that is no more suited to carrier landings than a Spitfire MkI
Click to expand...
Better suited than the Spit. 109s were less likely to nose over even on land.
 
pbehn said:
From my little better than laymans knowledge of beams. levers and impact loads coupled with the same about the Bf 109 that is no more suited to carrier landings than a Spitfire MkI
Click to expand...
The Bf109T did have a reinforced maingear that was also dampened to prevent it from "hopping". Aside from that, the short landing and catapult takeoff would have seen the Bf109T experience far fewer issues than land-based 109's.
Admiral Beez said:
Is there any land-based WW2 monoplane fighter better suited for carrier ops than the Hawker Hurricane? Maybe the Reggiane Re.2001.
Click to expand...
Most likely the early war land-based types as they were a bit slower and lighter.
Perhaps the P-36 or P-43 and maybe the G.50 would work.
There were several types of the Mustang that were navalized and evaluated, but never adopted: P-51, P-51D and the P-51H (post war).
 
exec228 said:
Hello!
Why Germans addressed the track issue when planned Me 155 ?
Click to expand...

Because although the Bf 109s undercarriage had a similar (slightly wider) track than the Spitfire its geometry made the Spitfire's look like a masterpiece of engineering.

It was the requirement to have the main gear attachments on a truss which was part of the fuselage (and also carried the lower engine bearer arms) and not on the wing that resulted in the horrible geometry. It was the resulting splayed angle of the undercarriage legs, vertical angle of the wheels on their axles and their toe (horizontal angle) which were the problems, not intrinsically the track. All of these issues could be overcome by designing an undercarriage with attachments to a wing spar rather than than a fuselage truss, as was the case for the Me 155.

Wider track undercarriage may be a desirable feature for carrier aircraft but it is not a necessity, the geometry is far more important. If you read one of my earlier posts you will see that it was the forward rake of the Spitfire's undercarriage, perfectly designed for 'wheeler' landings on aerodromes but completely unsuited for stalled three point carrier landings, that were its principal problem when forced into a role for which it had never been intended. The issues were with the undercarriage geometry, exacerbated by the fundamental aerodynamic design of an aircraft never intended to land on an aircraft carrier.
 
The Bf 109 T never flew from a carrier so we can only conjecture. It made plenty of successful simulated carrier landings in trials, but that's hardly the same. Eric Brown, who was never shy of expressing an opinion, thought it a very poor carrier aircraft indeed.
 
I recall reading that Brown's success in landing the Seafire contributed to its adoption, but the AM and FAA didn't take into account that Brown was a superlative carrier pilot and could probably land a Whirlwind (high stall, high landing speed, etc.) on a carrier if needed. Heck, he landed a Mosquito. The Seafire qualifications needed to be made with greener, or more average FAA pilots.
 
Last edited:
Brown was an extremely accomplished pilot, some might say brilliant, who flew a 'yaw' or 'crabbed' approach in which the nose of the aircraft was ruddered to starboard to allow the pilot to see to port. It was a method that was dangerous to service pilots making use of 'in spin' crossed controls so close to the stall and dangerous to the aircraft which might engage a hook while still moving sideways precipitating a series of events which almost invariably resulted in the aircraft being written off.

The method was officially banned in all FAA squadrons and how much influence it had on the adoption of the Seafire I don't know.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Is there any land-based WW2 monoplane fighter better suited for carrier ops than the Hawker Hurricane? Maybe the Reggiane Re.2001.
Click to expand...

Hurricane was not well suited for carrier ops because its under fuselage radiator, that made ditching more dangerous, an effective instrument for crash diving, so detriment for pilot survival. Maybe the big thick wing somewhat compensate that.
 
Juha3 said:
Hurricane was not well suited for carrier ops because its under fuselage radiator, that made ditching more dangerous, an effective instrument for crash diving, so detriment for pilot survival. Maybe the big thick wing somewhat compensate that.
Click to expand...
I agree with the radiator risks, but if your aircraft is as stable as the Hurricanes shown here, Hawker Sea Hurricane carrier take off and landings then you might have to ditch less.
 
Juha3 said:
Hurricane was not well suited for carrier ops because its under fuselage radiator, that made ditching more dangerous, an effective instrument for crash diving, so detriment for pilot survival. Maybe the big thick wing somewhat compensate that.
Click to expand...

To prove or disprove that we'd have to compare it to other, contemporary, naval fighters.

This F4F sank in less than 8 seconds:

F4F Wildcat – History, at Random
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
872
Ivan1GFP
I
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
21K
Ivan1GFP
I
Menu
Log in
Register