Why did the Brits persist with the Seafire until the end of WWII and beyond?

[stona]

Dodecanese Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Would "Accolade Lite" be the correct title?

Very good....yes,less calories, errrr, I mean assets. It still didn't go very well from a British point of view.

Steve

 

[davparlr]

The Seafire II/III were low altitude rated fighters with single stage, single speed SCs with 16-18lb boost at low altitude. The LIIC and LFIII had the Merlin 32/55m respectively so they had spectacular initial climb rates and good speed at low altitudes

From my research, climb performance using the 55 engine is very good but airspeed is poor, 300 mph at SL, 346 mph at 15k, quite a bit below the performance of the contemporary F4U-1, 348 mph at SL, 378 at 15k.

The Seafire XV/XVII had single stage, two speed griffons, with much better high altitude performance and the Seafire 47 two stage, two speed griffons with excellent high altitude performance and a service ceiling of about 40,000 ft.

According to some sources, these aircraft were not operational in WWII, certainly not the Seafire 47. In any event, comparing them to their contemporaries the F4U-4 and -5, they come up quite short in airspeed and possibly climb (my sources are limited on the F4U-4/5)

 

[RCAFson]

From my research, climb performance using the 55 engine is very good but airspeed is poor, 300 mph at SL, 346 mph at 15k, quite a bit below the performance of the contemporary F4U-1, 348 mph at SL, 378 at 15k.

According to some sources, these aircraft were not operational in WWII, certainly not the Seafire 47. In any event, comparing them to their contemporaries the F4U-4 and -5, they come up quite short in airspeed and possibly climb (my sources are limited on the F4U-4/5)

The Seafire LIIC/LIII were CV operable in late 1942 and early 43, where the F4U was not really CV operable until late 43/early 44, so these would not have been usable by the FAA in the MTO in 1942/43, and I suspect the Corsair would have had TO problems if operating from a CVE, so they are not really contemporaries.

Here's the data cards on the LIIC and Corsair I (FAA variant):

and here's the Seafire LIII/55m performance chart:

Vmax at SL for the LIIC and LIII = ~316mph

The Seafire XV was on it's way to the Pacific when the war ended.

In Sept 1943, Boscombe Down test gave these figures for the F6F-3:

Climb performance
Max. rate of climb in Main supercharger gear = 2260 ft/min at 5400 feet.
Max. rate of climb in Aux. Lowspeed supercharger gear = 1880 ft/min at 20500 feet.
Time to reach 10,000 ft. = 4.65 minutes
Time to reach 20,000 ft. = 10.0 minutes
Change gear height = 9200 feet

Level speed performance
Max. T.A.S. at max. permissible power (rich mixture) = 315 mph (274 knots) at 2000 ft. in Main supercharger
Max. T.A.S. at max. permissible power (rich mixture) = 371 mph (322 knots) at 18700 ft. in Aux. Low Speed supercharger.
Max. T.A.S. at max. weak mixture power = 288 mph (250 knots) at 11,100 ft. in Main supercharger.
True air Speed at 24,000 ft. at max. weak mixture power = 335 mph (291 knots in Auxiliary Low Speed supercharger
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html

 

[Vincenzo]

Seafire III was available only from very late '43.
L.III or L.II not LIII or LII (they were Seafire 3 or 2 not 53 or 52)

 

[stona]

Abbreviations.

Properly Seafire L Mk IIc for example.

Often written LIIc. What number can you make out of an FIIc ?

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

none

 

[davparlr]

The Seafire LIIC/LIII were CV operable in late 1942 and early 43, where the F4U was not really CV operable until late 43/early 44, so these would not have been usable by the FAA in the MTO in 1942/43, and I suspect the Corsair would have had TO problems if operating from a CVE, so they are not really contemporaries.

Good argument

In Sept 1943, Boscombe Down test gave these figures for the F6F-3:

This data seems suspect and does not really reflect performance of Navy test nor other Boxcombe test.
Navy test of overload F6F-3 no water, shows SL climb of 3000 ft/min. Calculated climb at fighter weigh would be about 3350 ft/min.

2000 ft airspeed is good.

11,100 ft airspeed of 288 mph seems way off and probably does not reflect F6F max performance. Navy test of overload fighter shows 340 mph at 11,000 ft.

At 24,000 ft airspeed, of 335 mph is also off. Other Boscombe test shows 374 mph, which is close to Navy test.

In addition, it seems the Brits were stuck with the Seafire III until wars end while the F6F-3 was upgraded to water injection in early '44,which increased speed significantly over any model of the Seafire III, in addition climb rate at low altitude was competitive but superior higher up.

 

[Greyman]

With the A&AEE Spitfire III tests keep in mind they were done on an aircraft with the snowguard and triple ejector 'fishtail' exhausts fitted.

I would assume, and going by photos of Seafires in the Pacific in late '44 and into '45, that the snowguard was removed and multi-ejector exhausts were fitted, resulting in an increase in speed of about 12-14 mph.

Also when comparing performance tests keep in mind that different testing establishments used different methods of performance reduction, resulting in different values for an identical performance.

 

[RCAFson]

11,100 ft airspeed of 288 mph seems way off and probably does not reflect F6F max performance. Navy test of overload fighter shows 340 mph at 11,000 ft.

288 was with max weak mixture, which is really max cruise speed.

 

[davparlr]

288 was with max weak mixture, which is really max cruise speed.

Thx, I was wondering what that meant.

 

[HarryMann]

Quite surprised reading all the way through this thread. Far too much emphasis on the last few kts speed or miles of range.
They persisted because it was a cracking bit of kit once airborne. Highest critical Mach No of anything prop driven built during WWII.
It could climb from scratch very well and turn very well.
As for the late contra-prop Griffon Seafires, remember a Sea Fury pilot saying when he got to 20,000 ft from deck level, the Seafires had been up there already patrolling for nearly a minute!

 

[Kevin J]

Excellent thread. Interesting read. My 2 cents worth of opinion is. If you want a cheap fast climbing fighter to defend your carriers then what could be better than a Seafire LIIc/LIII? An FM-2?

 

[Freebird]

Britain was bankrupt by February 1941, having spent the last of the proceeds of selling off all it's USA industrial assets.

Rubbish!
Do you understand what the word "bankrupt" means?
The US policy in Feb 1941 was "Cash & Carry", no debt was allowed or incurred.

Please DO enlighten us, in Feb 1941. what British Empire debt did his Majesty default on?

]

The FAA only continued to have USA combat aeroplanes through lend-lease. .

Wrong.
Britain continued to receive aircraft throughout 1941 that they'd previously paid for

 

[HarryMann]

As for the de Havilland Hornet... fastest piston aircraft ever to fly off a deck. And as Commander Eric Winkle Brown said... the most impressive and capable piston powered fighter he'd ever flown. And as we know nobody will ever fly as many and varied aircraft as he did, ever, as he's now deceased.

 

[yulzari]

Rubbish!
Do you understand what the word "bankrupt" means?
The US policy in Feb 1941 was "Cash & Carry", no debt was allowed or incurred.

Please DO enlighten us, in Feb 1941. what British Empire debt did his Majesty default on?

]

Wrong.
Britain continued to receive aircraft throughout 1941 that they'd previously paid for

'Bankrupt' was used loosely. Britain was running out of non sterling reserves and was soon going to be unable to place more orders. Naturally they received the items they had paid for pre Lend Lease. A look at British owned assets in USA industry pre WW2 and 1942 will show how low down the barrel they had scraped. Looking at it another way, without Lend-Lease what could they have used to pay for new orders?

One thinks in terms of war material but food was a major import too and had to be paid for out of the same reserves. When the war Lend-Lease etc. ended the British food rations had to be reduced below wartime levels as USA food could no longer be afforded.

More relevant to the OP. If the Admiralty had not persisted with the Seafire the FAA would have had no fighters by the end of 1945 as the USA Lend-Lease carrier fighters would have been returned or destroyed as per the agreement. The same was one of the reasons for maintaining tank production in the UK when the USA Sherman was being over produced and could meet UK needs also.

 

[wuzak]

'Bankrupt' was used loosely. Britain was running out of non sterling reserves and was soon going to be unable to place more orders. Naturally they received the items they had paid for pre Lend Lease. A look at British owned assets in USA industry pre WW2 and 1942 will show how low down the barrel they had scraped. Looking at it another way, without Lend-Lease what could they have used to pay for new orders?

Print more money.

 

[Kevin J]

Print more money.

That's not how things were done in those days.

 

[RCAFson]

'Bankrupt' was used loosely. Britain was running out of non sterling reserves and was soon going to be unable to place more orders. Naturally they received the items they had paid for pre Lend Lease. A look at British owned assets in USA industry pre WW2 and 1942 will show how low down the barrel they had scraped. Looking at it another way, without Lend-Lease what could they have used to pay for new orders?

One thinks in terms of war material but food was a major import too and had to be paid for out of the same reserves. When the war Lend-Lease etc. ended the British food rations had to be reduced below wartime levels as USA food could no longer be afforded.

More relevant to the OP. If the Admiralty had not persisted with the Seafire the FAA would have had no fighters by the end of 1945 as the USA Lend-Lease carrier fighters would have been returned or destroyed as per the agreement. The same was one of the reasons for maintaining tank production in the UK when the USA Sherman was being over produced and could meet UK needs also.

Once the UK decided to spend their reserves in the USA they were committed to the path that led to Lend-Lease. The alternate path would have been to spend their reserves within the Commonwealth/Empire, mainly in Canada and Australia and build up their output rather than the USA's. Much of what was purchased via cash and carry had little military value anyways and was paid for at horribly non-competitive prices compared to UK purchases.

 

[Shortround6]

The alternate path would have been to spend their reserves within the Commonwealth/Empire, mainly in Canada and Australia and build up their output rather than the USA's. Much of what was purchased via cash and carry had little military value anyways and was paid for at horribly non-competitive prices compared to UK purchases.

Problems with that path is that it would take too long, neither country had the number of workers needed, or factories in existence and the majority of machine tools would have to come from the US anyway. (England was buying machine tools from the US to equip the shadow factories with, in addition to buying machine tools from Switzerland and Germany)

 

[MiTasol]

Rubbish!
Do you understand what the word "bankrupt" means?
The US policy in Feb 1941 was "Cash & Carry", no debt was allowed or incurred.
Please DO enlighten us, in Feb 1941. what British Empire debt did his Majesty default on?
Britain continued to receive aircraft throughout 1941 that they'd previously paid for

Britain's financial position was far from happy, and Churchill blew all of the colonies reserves as well during 1940. Yes, bankruptcy is an excessive claim - but not by very much.

For the best and most accurate summary read 1940: Myth and reality by Clive Ponting.

It was written in 1990 using records that were released under the 50 year secrecy limits and shows the difference between Churchill's claims and the facts on multiple topics.

When you read it you will also learn all about the muliple efforts to make peace with Germany - again far far different to what is claimed in Churchill's histories

It is readily available at low cost via BookFinder.com: Search Results