Cropped propellers on Seafires

Mystery solved. A friend pointed me to The Seafire – The Spitfire that went to Sea by David Brown, and it’s all described there. Indeed, pecking of the propellers on Seafires was the single most common cause of aircraft unserviceability under large operations. It was particularly so at Salerno, where, as is known, 40% of the 120-or-so participating Seafires were damaged in deck accidents only during the first day of the landings.

HMS Hunter initiated the surgeries during that operation by sawing off 2in off the blade tips on their Seafires. The trick worked: the serviceability rate at the Hunter improved and the pilots didn’t report any serious effect on performance.

Later on, it was apparently made standard practice to crop the propeller blades as much as 6in (!) from their original length. While most carriers used templates to crop the blades evenly, HMS Implacable’s repair crew used to trim only the damaged blade, up to the limit of its yellow tip. A hacksaw and a file was used. After the surgery, the pilot flying the machine run an engine check revving up to full power to see if the vibration resulting from propeller imbalance was acceptable. If it was not, another blade was cropped and so on, until the pilot thought that he could fly the aircraft.

I thought that this will be of interest to some.

I’m not sure if there was a difference between Mk. I, II & III Seafires in this respect. In 1943, Supermarine made a thorough investigation into the faults of Seafire II/III and their report (written by Jeffrey Quill) states that the placement of the hook under the fuselage was largely to blame for producing a torque which caused the aircraft’s tendency to tip over upon landing. Quill recommended the sting-type hook similar to the one used on US aircraft and as is known, it was later incorporated on Seafire XV.

You’re right, I was labouring under the misapprehension that the Seafire II and III were based on the MkIX Spitfire as opposed to the MkV but a quick check of online sources proves that to be incorrect. (I thought that with a longer nose, the props would be closer to the deck than with the same degree of ‘tip-up’ on a shorter nose, but it seems that all Merlin Seafires had the same dimension in this respect.)

As I said, beware of anecdotal evidence, but as 822 had not shipped out before January 1944, the notorious signal is unlikely to have been before then.

Bearing in mind that one must take recollection of places, dates etc.with pinch of salt when reading memoirs, the Hadley book suggests that the general order would have been slightly later than Salerno – probably Feb-March 1944. 822 departed for Madras in January 1944, and the squadron had flown its Barracudas to Ulunderpet and been stationed there a little while when the order was received. ‘They dealt us a pretty crippling blow early on by sending a signal to the stores department at Coimbatore: “Owing to the fact that the propellers of Barracudas have been known to strike the deck during deck landing three inches will be sawn off the tips of each blade”. The zealous stores officer set about his task at once… No sooner had he finished than another signal came singing through the air: “Re the last signal, for Barracudas read Seafires”.’

A ‘field mod’ at Salerno that became official a few months later?

Were the slightly longer-nosed Seafire IIs and IIIs affected more than the MkIs?

Thanks, XN923. That’s a most useful piece of information. I’m not sure if there was a difference between Mk. I, II & III Seafires in this respect. In 1943, Supermarine made a thorough investigation into the faults of Seafire II/III and their report (written by Jeffrey Quill) states that the placement of the hook under the fuselage was largely to blame for producing a torque which caused the aircraft’s tendency to tip over upon landing. Quill recommended the sting-type hook similar to the one used on US aircraft and as is known, it was later incorporated on Seafire XV.

That’s interesting, because it might indicate that cropping the props could have been done systematically rather than accidentally. If it was indeed the case at Salerno (as my source claims)…

Bearing in mind that one must take recollection of places, dates etc.with pinch of salt when reading memoirs, the Hadley book suggests that the general order would have been slightly later than Salerno – probably Feb-March 1944. 822 departed for Madras in January 1944, and the squadron had flown its Barracudas to Ulunderpet and been stationed there a little while when the order was received. ‘They dealt us a pretty crippling blow early on by sending a signal to the stores department at Coimbatore: “Owing to the fact that the propellers of Barracudas have been known to strike the deck during deck landing three inches will be sawn off the tips of each blade”. The zealous stores officer set about his task at once… No sooner had he finished than another signal came singing through the air: “Re the last signal, for Barracudas read Seafires”.’

A ‘field mod’ at Salerno that became official a few months later?

Were the slightly longer-nosed Seafire IIs and IIIs affected more than the MkIs?

I remember reading some time ago the Mr. Flacks Spitfire G-FIRE had blades that were cropped as well. I’ve always wondered if she still has the cropped prop as she is now (NH904) in the US. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Dunno about now but here is G-FIRE at Dyce in 1984:

Best wishes
Steve P

cropped props

I remember reading some time ago the Mr. Flacks Spitfire G-FIRE had blades that were cropped as well. I’ve always wondered if she still has the cropped prop as she is now (NH904) in the US. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Neil Medcalf

I once read of a Barracuda unit in Ceylon being told to crop the their prop blades. The following day, and after the job had been completed, a further order arrived stating, “For Barracuda read Seafire.”

Oops. 😀

Best wishes
Steve P

That’s interesting, because it might indicate that cropping the props could have been done systematically rather than accidentally. If it was indeed the case at Salerno (as my source claims), it would have involved one of the following carriers and units:

886 Sqn HMS Attacker Seafire IIC flight
879 Sqn HMS Attacker Seafire IIC
808 Sqn HMS Battler Seafire IIC
807 Sqn HMS Battler Seafire IIC
834 Sqn HMS Hunter Seafire IIC
899 Sqn HMS Hunter Seafire IIC
894 Sqn HMS Illustrious Seafire IIC
880 Sqn (Canadian) HMS Stalker Seafire IIC
809 Sqn HMS Unicorn Seafire IIC
887 Sqn HMS Unicorn Seafire IIC
897 Sqn HMS Unicorn Seafire IIC

Still looking for more clues.

/Martin
The Spitfire Site

I don’t want to take this thread off on too much of a tangent, but does anyone know how active VP441 is these days? AFAIK, she hasn’t appeared at any shows in the last couple of years and there’s generally been no mention of her in the usual places.

VP441 – SitRep.

Alive and well …and doesn’t do the Airshows.

Performed for Scott Germain in July for an air to air spread for Warbirds Digest, which may not have reached the news stands yet. (Anybody?)

Great shots but copyright.

Mark

I don’t want to take this thread off on too much of a tangent, but does anyone know how active VP441 is these days? AFAIK, she hasn’t appeared at any shows in the last couple of years and there’s generally been no mention of her in the usual places.

Getting somewhat back on topic, I remember seeing a picture of a Ju88 in the Mediterranean theatre that was missing about a third off each (wooden) blade. The pilot had gone so low while taking evasive action that the props had hit the surface, but they still made it back.

I once read of a Barracuda unit in Ceylon being told to crop the their prop blades. The following day, and after the job had been completed, a further order arrived stating, “For Barracuda read Seafire.”

Oops. 😀

Yes, this was referred to in ‘Barracuda Pilot’ by Dunstan Hadley. I think it was 822 Squadron at Unederpleet. Of course, the poor Barra had a hard enough time getting off the ground without a chunk being sawn off each blade. I think new props had to be ordered…

Robert,

I would suggest that at some time in its later service non flying life one blade got damaged and the fix was to trim the remaining three blades to match.

It would be relatively easy to make a mould from a complete blade and to graft on a resin cap to bring these blades back to full dimension and profile.

Mark

I would agree with both comments. I also tried many years ago to have “RAN-B” codes painted on the airframe in lieu of any other traced markings but I was advised that the Ouston markings were of course “non-authentic”, my suggestions for 603 or 602 markings also fell on deaf ears.
Dont get me wrong, the museum are keeping it warm and under cover and it has been worked on by the curators. Any Spitfire in Scotland in any condition is to be welcomed.

Some Museums have Spitfires with cropped blades. Mr and Mrs Joe public don’t notice but it bothers with me when I see it!

Robert,

You are not alone in being ‘offended’ by the cropped blades on Spitfire TE462.

All of my images of this Spitfire going back to the BoB Display at RAF Ouston in 1956 show the blades cropped.

I would suggest that at some time in its later service non flying life one blade got damaged and the fix was to trim the remaining three blades to match.

It would be relatively easy to make a mould from a complete blade and to graft on a resin cap to bring these blades back to full dimension and profile.

Mark

Photo credit: George Burn.

There was an incident aboard the first escort carrier HMS Audacity (if memory serves) where a Martlet fighter damaged its propeller on landing.

Due to a shortage of aircraft and a lack of spares the bent propeller was cropped and the Martlet was put back into service.

The only noticeable difference being an increase in vibration. 😀

I noticed that at EF too Robert. What is the reason for it?

Best wishes
Steve P

Some Museums have Spitfires with cropped blades. Mr and Mrs Joe public don’t notice but it bothers with me when I see it!

There is a least one recorded instance of this practice after WWII. The aircraft involved was an FR 47 of 800 NAS from HMS Triumph which was involved in ‘cross deck’ training with the USS Phillipine Sea in the Med.

After ‘pecking’ the props on the deck of the US carrier during landing, the damaged blades were cropped and all others trimmed to a similar length. The aircraft was then flown off from the head of the range, the shortest distance available for take-off. It seems the Americans were most impressed with this.

The incident is recorded in David Brown’s book, ‘The Seafire – The Spitfire That Went to Sea’. I’m not sure if he records earlier examples of this practice.

If you look closely at photos of VP441, the FR 47 that is now flying in the US, you will see that its props are cropped. That is because she is using Shackleton props which had a larger diameter than the original ones. It was necessary to trim them to a smaller diameter to obtain sufficient ground clearance during take-off and landing runs.

I once read of a Barracuda unit in Ceylon being told to crop the their prop blades. The following day, and after the job had been completed, a further order arrived stating, “For Barracuda read Seafire.”

Oops. 😀

Best wishes
Steve P

Interesting…

As long as all the blades were done the same and the prop balanced properly it could have been possible.A propellor blade aerodynamics specialist could answer better.I only did basic stuff at TAFE when I did my trade.A looooooooooong time ago.;)