Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?

[EwenS]

View attachment 722259

somebody has been raiding the parts box again!

Well aesthetically it beats the Walrus & Sea Otter it was supposed to replace

 

[EwenS]

But if you really want ugly & bizarre try the Fleet Shadower prototypes

Airspeed's offering

GAL offering

Again the design driven by the Spec. Designed to operate from a carrier. And the wings folded!

 

[EwenS]

Their creations were certainly as ugly!

How can you call the Firefly ugly?

 

[yulzari]

And then there's Supermarine's Nighthawk.

View attachment 722260

We need a replica Supermarine Frighthawk.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Guys, stop blaming Fairey for the ugly layout of the Barracuda. Blame those who drew up the Spec S.24/37 it was meant to fulfil. That is what drove many of the design characteristics. No one did any better. And at least Fairey made the undercart fold! Remember, he who pays the piper calls the tune!

Ugly yes, but it was functional. No British-made ICE-powered monoplane ever landed as well onto carriers than the Barracuda.


View: https://youtu.be/tnNpUk-6VGo?t=935

Much better than our Seafire.


View: https://youtu.be/MnVJJ9BVLGU?t=1281

 

[special ed]

But if you really want ugly & bizarre try the Fleet Shadower prototypes

Airspeed's offering
View attachment 722280

GAL offering

View attachment 722281


Again the design driven by the Spec. Designed to operate from a carrier. And the wings folded!

And, without arrestor hook!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How can you call the Firefly ugly?

View attachment 722283

Easily!

 

[SaparotRob]

Easily!

Beat me to it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What's the best, least dramatic, easiest-handling British-made ICE-powered monoplane fighter for landing on a carrier?

I assume the Fulmar and Firefly were good.

Definitely not the Seafire.

How about the Sea Hurricane?

Perhaps not the Firebrand?

Sea Fury?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

What's the best, least dramatic, easiest-handling British-made ICE-powered monoplane fighter for landing on a carrier?

Sea Vampire?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sea Vampire?

I've only ever seen models of an ICE-powered Vampire.

I think its propellor would damage the deck and arrestor wire.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I've only ever seen models of an ICE-powered Vampire.

If ICE stands for Internal Combustion Engine, then the Goblin engine of the Vampire is one as well.
Perhaps you meant reciprocating engine?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps you meant reciprocating engine?

I did not think that level of precision was needed to exclude a naval jet fighter that did not fly until late 1948.

Looking at the conventional-undercarriage Sea Vampire, it must have provided excellent forward visibility when landing on carriers. Did it have good slow speed handing? Jets today land at full power so they can bolter off an angled deck - not so easy on a crowded straight deck carrier where slow approach is needed.

 

[EwenS]

I did not think that level of precision was needed to exclude a naval jet fighter that did not fly until late 1948.

Looking at the conventional-undercarriage Sea Vampire, it must have provided excellent forward visibility when landing on carriers. Did it have good slow speed handing? Jets today land at full power so they can bolter off an angled deck - not so easy on a crowded straight deck carrier where slow approach is needed.

Visibility was improved but other problems arose.

The arrival of twin engined aircraft like the DH Sea Mosquito and Sea Hornet and the Short Sturgeon as well as the early jets on carrier decks brought a new range of problems to be solved on a straight flight deck. Without a ruddy great piston engine and prop out in front, aircrew were much more liable to suffer injury if an aircraft ended up in the wire barrier. Decapitation became a real danger. The RAE devoted much time to developing new barriers in the years following WW2.

Ultimately the problem was eased with the invention of the angled deck allowing aircraft to go around more easily and the nylon crash barrier for use in emergencies, designed to cause less damage to both aircrew and aircraft.

The problem with operating the early jets from carriers, was not so much the handling of the airframe but rather the handling of the engine. Early jet engines took time to spool up to generate more thrust. Not ideal for carrier takeoffs without using the catapult. And even worse in the event of a wave off from the deck. Fortunately these problems were overcome as jet engines developed.

 

[don4331]

The problem with operating the early jets from carriers, was not so much the handling of the airframe but rather the handling of the engine. Early jet engines took time to spool up to generate more thrust. Not ideal for carrier takeoffs without using the catapult. And even worse in the event of a wave off from the deck. Fortunately these problems were overcome as jet engines developed.

The issue with jet engines taking time to spool up is still an issue:
A piston engine or turbo prop with constant speed propeller already has the major rotating mass up to speed. All that needs to happen is propeller blades rotate a few degrees to go from minimal to full thrust; and that can occur within few seconds.

A jet needs to accelerate several hundred to several thousand kgs of compressor & turbine by several thousand rpms. While modern controls have improved the acceleration, one can't get around the physics that takes much longer to accelerate. Which is why even today jets* need catapults/ski jumps to launch and a clear deck to land. Angled deck isn't requirement**, but without it, all other aircraft need to be stored below (no deck park).

*Not including VTOL jets
**Angled deck is requirement with ski jump. (Hitting the ramp at flying speed would do bad things to the landing gear).