Your post did not state that Triumph was a rather slow CVL, and is written so that it is not clear that Triumph was operating the Seafires in question rather than acting as a ferry to bring the surviving aircraft from Korea.
The fact is that all WW2 CV capable aircraft are more prone to landing damage if the CV or apparent wind is too slow, since it causes much greater strain on the aircraft hooks and LG.
It would be much more graceful for you to admit you missed the reference to Triumph in my original post, which you pretty obviously did, rather than come up with some convoluted comeback like that to still try to say I was omitting something. Also I would repeat that it's common knowledge anyway AFAIC that the RN/RAN only used Colossus class carriers in Korea, and my post was in response to one about Seafire wrinkling *in Korea*. I think you've failed utterly to show that the post was either misleading or not completely relevant to the post I quoted in responding.
And the view of the FAA units at the time was certainly not that rapid disablement of these fighters in normal operations 'didn't count' because it wasn't on a larger carrier. As Landsdowne says for example about the 4 a/c written off Sept 9 p.30 "Some of these a/c had been received from Unicorn only the previous week and not been subjected to anything out of the ordinary in the way of landings". So this case goes beyond the usual rejection of opposing accounts that say things people don't want to hear, to saying the FAA's *own* record and opinion of its own a/c's fault must have somehow been wrong, or irrelevant because of the type of ship. It's ridiculous. These a/c, in the actual situation in which they were called upon to perform combat operations, had a serious problem with lack of durability in prolonged carrier ops. That's a historical fact.
The only other thing I'd note is that this was 1950 and so the a/c were a few years old. Landsdowne even mentions that some of those which gave out very easily were assumed to be older ones. Whereas, front line a/c in WWII were usually no more than months old (OTOH some WWII a/c served on for 20 or more years after WWII).
Also the record of Sea Furies was mentioned. In fact the results with Sea Furies from the same ships were pretty different. For example HMS Glory following year in similar season (rougher weather and ice made winter more difficult) 23 April-30 Sept 1951
Started w/ 22 Sea Furies, pilots unharmed except as noted
April 27: probably crashed in poor visibility, MIA
May 2: force landed after fired on by flak, 'engine trouble'
May 15: ditched, flak
Ca. May 20: ditched, engine trouble during carrier landing practice off Japan
June 4: ditched, engine quit after strafing various targets
June 5: damaged by flak, engine quit on approach, ditched, KIA
June 30: catapult fails a/c lost
July 18: two a/c lost to flak, one KIA
July 20: wheels up deck landing after losing a wheel hitting the round-down on the first try, not clear if a/c was a total loss
Aug 16: wheels up landing on beach of UN held island, flak, not clear if total loss
Sep 2: 2 a/c wheels up landings on beach UN held island, flak, one later recovered
Sept 24: engine trouble after strafing junks, ditched
In 13 Sea Fury total losses or possible ones are mentioned, but only 3 directly in carrier landing and takeoff phases, in 1818 landings, and none at all to fuselage wrinkling or overstrain, compared to 15 Seafires in Triumph's tour, w/ 'regular' landing/launch losses on top. There's an obvious difference there, Sea Fury a satisfactorily rugged a/c for carrier ops, Seafire still deficient even in F.47 version, for operating on the actual ships RN had available for Korean ops. The Sea Furies suffered a lot more flak and 'engine trouble' losses (latter often after strafing targets which were probably shooting back) than Seafires on Triumph's (shorter) tour, but in general flak got more difficult in Korea as time went on, and again Triumph's fighter sdn was pretty rapidly thinned out by those fuselage strength issues so sortie rate was pretty low.
Joe