December 29, 2007 at 9:45 pm
What’s the consensus of opinion regarding Seafires, does anyone know?
Did they take well to carrier life or were they, as logic suggests, something of an idea born in haste and therefore posssibly prone to problems?
Is there any literature on pilots’ views?
By: The Freshest - 31st December 2007 at 21:14
I think the Seafire 17 was one of the best looking of all the spit/seafire family, The Mk47 was allso I great aircraft, I think one of the problems with the seafire was that they were a little too late to really do anything in the war after the weak fuselarge problem had been sorted, I allso agree with the landing issue:D
Definately agree, looks and sounds great, Ive just uploaded this video of Kennet Aviations Seafire 17 from its display at Shoreham 2007 airshow.
By: Seafuryfan - 30th December 2007 at 18:25
“They Gave Me A Seafire” by Cdr Mike Crossley RN is an entertaining and, at times, irreverent account of his exploits in the FAA during WWII, on the Seafire and other types.
As I recently found out, Cdr Crossley carried on his career after the war as his name is also associated with the Westland Wyvern.
By: XN923 - 30th December 2007 at 18:15
There was a fully comprehensive history of the Seafire in Captain Eric “Winkle Brown’s “Spitfires with Sea-legs”, an article in the October 1978 “Air International” which by coincidence I have just read. …
I repeat, this is the best description of the evolution of the Seafire that I have ever read, and it would be well worth reprinting, if that is possible, for the current generation of readers.
I think it must be this article which is reprinted in ‘Wings of the Navy’ – much of the info seems the same. An excellent book that should be in the library of any naval aviation buff.
By: Papa Lima - 30th December 2007 at 13:43
Seafire development
There was a fully comprehensive history of the Seafire in Captain Eric “Winkle Brown’s “Spitfires with Sea-legs”, an article in the October 1978 “Air International” which by coincidence I have just read. Here is an abbreviated extract that throws some light on the problems encountered:
After the unexpectedly high incidence of deck-landing accidents during the first day of Operation Avalanche, in advance of the next series of coastal landings called Operation Gragoon, Jeffrey Quill was made an RNVR Lt-Cdr by the 5th Sea Lord and sent to practice deck landing in the Seafire and report back, since Captain Brown was deemed too experienced in deck landing by this time to be able to give a clear indication of the difficulties that an average pilot could encounter.
Asa test pilot, Jeffrey was the ideal choice, and the report he submitted on 29 February 1944 included four main observations:
(1) Pilots had to be trained to employ a curved approach;
(2) Multi-ejector type exhaust manifolds should be fitted to all Seafires and the pilots trained to land with their heads out of the cockpit and looking along the port side of the engine cowling;
(3) the Seafire had inherent poor speed controllability;
(4) the Seafire lacked the necessary robustness for carrier landings, but the fitting of a sting-type hook would probably reduce the accident rate.
As his article goes on to relate, eventually these measures were implemented, and in the end the Seafire was developed into a fully capable deck landing aircraft, especially with the Griffon engine.
I repeat, this is the best description of the evolution of the Seafire that I have ever read, and it would be well worth reprinting, if that is possible, for the current generation of readers.
By: Yorkie - 30th December 2007 at 12:50
I think the Seafire 17 was one of the best looking of all the spit/seafire family, The Mk47 was allso I great aircraft, I think one of the problems with the seafire was that they were a little too late to really do anything in the war after the weak fuselarge problem had been sorted, I allso agree with the landing issue:D
By: CSheppardholedi - 30th December 2007 at 12:29
Landing does seem to be the tricky bit though! Imagine if the German’s had got their carrier in service…..with the 109 naval variant!!! 38% loss to landing would be a good day!
By: XN923 - 30th December 2007 at 11:42
…unfortunately getting a Seafire back onto a carrier without wrecking it wasn’t easy.
This being the crux – I believe Seafire losses from landing accidents alone during the first two days of the Salerno landings ran at 38%. Was fairly limited for range as well. In the air though, and while fuel lasted (especially at low level in the L MkIIC version) not much would come close.
For pilot’s view try Capt. Eric Brown’s ‘Wings of the Navy’.
By: Creaking Door - 30th December 2007 at 01:52
I would imagine that once in the air the Seafire would outclass anything it was likely to encounter…
…unfortunately getting a Seafire back onto a carrier without wrecking it wasn’t easy.