Why was the Seafire Mk.III so slow?

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

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
 
Last edited:
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?

 
Last edited:
Clayton Magnet said:
Perhaps you meant reciprocating engine?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
9K
GregP
H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
EwenS
E
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register