Was the Seafire’s narrow track the issue?

[SaparotRob]

Look up Drachinifel's video on the Graph Zeppelin. He even has a somewhat recent image of it.

 

[pbehn]

Dunno. May be because USSR cut Graf Zeppelin into little pieces?

So, you say that Spit's narrow track is not that bad as Bf 109's narrow track?

Not because of the width of the track but the way the suspension worked.

 

[fastmongrel]

This thread has made me want to build a what if Sea Hurricane with folded wings. I have seen a Fairey Firefly wing fold kit it might fit nicely.

 

[SaparotRob]

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.

"It would seem wooden constructed aero planes are unsuitable for this kind of treatment."

 

[SaparotRob]

Landing a Mosquito on a carrier. That is amazing. Even I can appreciate that.

 

[stona]

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

I read an account from a pilot who did ditch a Hurricane, against all advice, who reckoned that it sank in 'one and a half seconds'. Obviously he wasn't counting, what he meant was that it sank almost as soon as it hit the water.

 

[RCAFson]

I read an account from a pilot who did ditch a Hurricane, against all advice, who reckoned that it sank in 'one and a half seconds'. Obviously he wasn't counting, what he meant was that it sank almost as soon as it hit the water.

Thanks. It would be useful if we could find something like a comparative survival rate for aircraft ditchings.

 

[stona]

Thanks. It would be useful if we could find something like a comparative survival rate for aircraft ditchings.

I doubt you will find a representative number for an aircraft like the Hurricane where all the advice was to abandon the aircraft by parachute unless absolutely unavoidable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I read an account from a pilot who did ditch a Hurricane, against all advice, who reckoned that it sank in 'one and a half seconds'. Obviously he wasn't counting, what he meant was that it sank almost as soon as it hit the water.

Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.

 

[pbehn]

Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.

What is there to float? The rear is covered in dope, the front is an engine and the centre has a water scoop to fill the area from the inner wings and cockpit area.

 

[Barrett]

Ref. the Wildcat's alighting gear: the narrow wheel track combined with relatively high CG to produce a comparison to "a beer barrel on skates." BTW: it took 29 turns of the handle plus one to lock...

 

[Admiral Beez]

Besides track distance, how did the Seafang's undercarriage, flaps or landing characteristics differ from those worst elements of the early and late Seafires? This was Supermarine's chance to get it right, but it's still based on the grassfield-intended Spiteful.

 

[pbehn]

Besides track distance, how did the Seafang's undercarriage, flaps or landing characteristics differ from those worst elements of the early and late Seafires? This was Supermarine's chance to get it right, but it's still based on the grassfield-intended Spiteful.

View attachment 602483

Which airfields were grass when the Spiteful was in service or even designed? The late model Spitfires were hugely different in landing gear to the first, they telescoped out to give more clearance for the propeller and they retracted outwards not inwards. Supermarine were restricted to using as many parts as possible from previous designs.

 

[nuuumannn]

So, you say that Spit's narrow track is not that bad as Bf 109's narrow track?

The Bf 109's track was wider than the Spitfire's and as Stona pointed out it was the geometry of the Bf 109's legs that made it awkward. The legs were angled forward from the fuselage to the wheel axle and because the legs splayed outwards when viewed from the front, the wheels themselves were angled outwards. Another issue that affected the Bf 109's handling on the ground was that it was tail heavy, which meant that with an increase in power caused the tail to 'lead' when taxying, which was a constant source of trouble for inexperienced pilots. The tailwheel could be locked into place for take off. The fact that there is very little fin area to speak of and a rudder that is completely ineffective on the ground meant the lot was a real handful and even experienced pilots had to be ready for any sign of trouble.

DG200 front

Spitfire running-1

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Bf 109's track was wider than the Spitfire's and as Stona pointed out it was the geometry of the Bf 109's legs that made it awkward. The legs were angled forward from the fuselage to the wheel axle and because the legs splayed outwards when viewed from the front, the wheels themselves were angled outwards. Another issue that affected the Bf 109's handling on the ground was that it was tail heavy, which meant that with an increase in power caused the tail to 'lead' when taxying, which was a constant source of trouble for inexperienced pilots. The tailwheel could be locked into place for take off. The fact that there is very little fin area to speak of and a rudder that is completely ineffective on the ground meant the lot was a real handful and even experienced pilots had to be ready for any sign of trouble.

View attachment 602492DG200 front

View attachment 602494Spitfire running-1

Good points on the Bf 109. This experienced pilot looked to be facing a tail that wanted to lead as he took off.

 

[nuuumannn]

This experienced pilot looked to be facing a tail that wanted to lead as he took off.

Interesting clip, there is a step in the manual that advises about locking the tailwheel before rollout.

 

[stona]

Might have been a RAF crate? The Sea Hurricane had bladders to encourage brief flotation.

P/O 'Sandy Sanders of the MSFU, who launched from Empire Moon. Aircraft operated by this unit were all ex-Fighter Command aircraft. He had previously survived two crash landings (on land) which gave him the confidence to ditch rather than bale out.

He was bracing himself with his left arm against the gunsight when he hit the water and could not read his ASI but estimated about 70 mph on impact. His Hurricane immediately flipped onto its back but Sanders was able to extricate himself and make the surface. He later estimated that he was only a few feet under the surface and that though inverted the Hurricane actually floated for about 45 seconds before disappearing into the depths of the North Atlantic.

His misadventures continued when he inflated his dinghy only to discover it was leaking! Fortunately he was retrieved from the sea by a boat from HMS Stork within about five minutes and was not compelled to start swimming again.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The British would have been better designing a single seat carrier fighter from scratch, addressing all the aerodynamic issues as well as endurance etc.

Yes, and the late interwar Air Ministry made available the funds and manufacturers to give the FAA the opportunity to make their own bespoke fighter, made exactly to their specifications and the specialized needs of carrier ops. And they made the Fulmar.....

There's no reason the British couldn't look around at the F2A, F4F, A5M and landbased fighters then in service and made the Fulmar a single engined carrier fighter.

 

[SaparotRob]

Yes, and the late interwar Air Ministry made available the funds and manufacturers to give the FAA the opportunity to make their own bespoke fighter, made exactly to their specifications and the specialized needs of carrier ops. And they made the Fulmar.....

There's no reason the British couldn't look around at the F2A, F4F, A5M and landbased fighters then in service and made the Fulmar a single engined carrier fighter.

Could it have been the same "not invented here" attitude that hobble so many decisions? A rhetorical question.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Could it have been the same "not invented here" attitude that hobble so many decisions? A rhetorical question.

I don't think so, since when the Fulmar was made the home designed Spitfire and Hurricane were already flying. What fighter did the Fulmar's designers expect to be fighting? Mitchell and Camm built the Spitfire and Hurricane with an exact role in mind, huge eight-gun armament (when the IJAF's Ki-27 and the like were armed with two or at best four mgs), high speed and ROC, with relatively short range, with the aim to shootdown fast, medium German bombers. They were tailor made for the Battle of Britain... which is why neither were that great in the FAA, especially the Seafire we're discussing here.

So, what role was the Fulmar tailor made for? Perhaps the Mediterranean and North Africa campaign? To its credit the Fulmar did rack up the highest kills for any FAA fighter, almost all in the Mediterranean.... though three of the RN's carriers defended by Fulmars were crippled by air-dropped torpedoes and/or dive bombers. I expect a FAA fighter with the Spitfire's performance but with the Fulmar's robust construction and endurance might have kept the carriers safer. Of course the RN's biggest issue in the Med were insufficient fighters of any type.... pack thirty-odd Fulmars onto each of the RN's carriers and the unescorted Sparrowhawks and Stukas would be in deep trouble.