The Seafires that were operated by the Irish Air Corps were all de-navalised before delivery. The wing-fold mechanisms were also reputedly pinned (although after withdrawal from use at least one was reportedly seen wing folded when stored). Why did the IAC obtain Seafires rather than Spitfires? (I am not talking here about the Spitfire T.9s which they also operated).
By: Consul - 19th December 2017 at 18:51
Fascinating. Thanks.
By: SimonDav - 19th December 2017 at 18:32
I asked Tony Kearns this a few years ago and he replied in this thread:
By: TempestV - 19th December 2017 at 17:34
Both 153 and 157 were photographed with wings folded at all joints in the Baldonnel hangers post active service with possibly a third Seafire with a wingtip removed that does not reveal its serial in the image. 146 and 156 show evidence of partial fold in the scrapyard at Baldonnel.
Tony Kearns will surely know why the IAC purchased Seafires but some references suggest that the UK government refused to supply the requested Mk IX’s but would consent to the Seafires, that were bought up to Mk V Spitfire standard.
Mark
For similar reasons, is this why Burma received MK.XV Seafires?
By: Mark12 - 19th December 2017 at 07:18
Both 153 and 157 were photographed with wings folded at all joints in the Baldonnel hangers post active service with possibly a third Seafire with a wingtip removed that does not reveal its serial in the image. 146 and 156 show evidence of partial fold in the scrapyard at Baldonnel.
Tony Kearns will surely know why the IAC purchased Seafires but some references suggest that the UK government refused to supply the requested Mk IX’s but would consent to the Seafires, that were bought up to Mk V Spitfire standard.
Mark
Sign In
December 19, 2017 at 12:28 am