Tag:

Seafire

Seafire Vs Corsair Vs Sea Fury

by Till Daisd April 15, 2024

A navalised version of the well-known Spitfire designed for use on aircraft carriers was the Supermarine Seafire

2646 Seafires were built and used by the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy from November 1942 to the early 1950s, following the end of the Korean War.

It saw action on D-Day, during the Allied invasions of Sicily and Italy, during Operation Dragoon in southern France, and during the Allied landings in North Africa (Operation Torch). With the Pacific fleet, the Seafire demonstrated its ability to intercept and destroy the dreaded Japanese kamikaze attack aircraft.

Seafire Vs Corsair Vs Sea Fury

A remarkable consensus amongst pilots describes how the Spitfire flew: beautifully responsive and maneuverable in the air, but difficult to handle on the ground and land, especially on an aircraft carrier, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis in his book Supermarine Seafire. The over-light elevators and the over-heavy ailerons are usually the subject of complaints.

The comments that follow, from two pilots (one modern, the other contemporary), provide some flavor and also draw comparisons with the Vought Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury, two of the Seafire’s competitors during and after the war.

Commander R ‘Mike’ Crosley DSC (former CO of 880 and 887 NAS)

“Once the tail was raised – by prop slipstream over the tail and a small push on the stick – and the pilot could see where he was going, the true enjoyment began. The acceleration was like a racing car. Once airborne, the Seafire responded with the sensitivity of a polo pony to nearly all our ignorant demands upon it. It behaved in its normal habitat with such unselfish grace and with such rapid response and power, that we knew we were being allowed to fly a thoroughbred.

“We had several interesting dogfights with the much larger and more powerful F4U Corsair. In turning dogfights, the Corsairs were unable to get a bead on us if we saw them first. However, they could, like an Fw 190, out-dive us… Also, above 15,000 feet they were faster than Seafire L IIIs. However, the F III with its two-speed, uncropped supercharger, could easily keep up with the Corsair at 20,000 feet and above.

Seafire Vs Corsair Vs Sea Fury: Seafire pilots offer a comparison with some of the competitors of the navalised version of the famous Spitfire — Seafire

“The Corsair could not out-turn a Seafire I, II, or III as has been claimed. However, if the Corsair slowed down to about 90 knots and then the pilot selected half-flap —provided it was down to its last 50 gallons of fuel — it could hold a Seafire LIII at this speed and configuration at heights above 10,000 feet.”

Lieutenant-Commander Chris Götke AFM (former CO Royal Navy Historic Flight)

“You can see the progression from a Seafire versus a Sea Fury. The Seafire [F 17] has got a short-block Griffon VI with about 2,000 hp. When you’re in the Seafire, it’s incredibly noisy compared with a Centaurus, because you have all the exhausts and they come out down by your feet, pointing at you. The Centaurus engine is very good at lower rpm, so when we go cruising on it we’re down at 1,500 rpm which gives you about 220, 230 knots. The Griffon is complaining by the time you get it down to 1,800. For the pilot, one of the things you don’t want is to overboost an engine.

“The Sea Fury was one of the first that you can’t overboost. In a Sea Fury, as you go up on the boost, the rpm automatically rises. So, if you’re in combat and you’re just holding on, and then you get bounced, you can just slam the Centaurus open and it will go up to 2,700 and plus nine boost. You can’t do that with the Griffon in the Seafire.

Corsair Sea Fury — Sea Fury, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat

In display, both the Seafire and the Sea Fury are lovely aircraft

“Regarding the handling and maneuvering, if you were doing 300-plus knots in the Seafire, you’d be getting very heavy ailerons, but in the Sea Fury you could do 100 knots or 400 knots, and it’s the same feel. It’s a very well-harmonized system in that aircraft. The Seafire is very, very light in pitch, so is quite manoeuvre-unstable. You can get maneuvering very quickly, but if you hit turbulence as you’re pulling up, you almost have to unload, it’s so light in maneuver.

The Sea Fury has 183 gallons internally, plus it had another tank which took it to about 200. That’s almost twice what you could get inside a Seafire, and the Seafire uses fuel at about the same rate. Actually, with the Centaurus, you can happily get down to 40 gallons an hour. In display, though, both are lovely aircraft.”

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo by Imperial War Museum via Wikipedia

April 15, 2024 0 comment

History

Seafires Vs ‘Hooked Spitfires’

by Till Daisd December 21, 2022

written by Till Daisd

What distinguishes a Seafire from a “Hooked Spitfire”—a Spitfire that has been modified to include an arrestor hook—many of which were flown by the Fleet Air Arm?

The front-line Fleet Air Arm (FAA) Squadrons were where the naval version of the legendary Spitfire finally arrived, after a convoluted and occasionally challenging voyage into service. The Seafire was far from a perfect naval fighter, lacking endurance and difficult to land on a carrier, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis in his book Supermarine Seafire, but it gave the Royal Navy an interceptor with a superb performance in the air, helping to turn the tables on the enemy as the Allies went on the offensive.

The Seafire saw action in Malaya and Korea while serving in the Second World War from the North Atlantic to Japan and into the 1950s.

But how do Seafires differ from “Hooked Spitfires,” which are Spitfires that have been modified to include an arrestor hook many of which were operated by the FAA? The Mk lb, the initial Seafire variation, did not have catapult spools or foldable wings; an arrestor hook was the only significant outward change. Every Seafire lb was a Spitfire that had been modified. There wasn’t much of a distinction between them in essence.

The most straightforward answer is that hooked Spitfires were aircraft transferred from RAF stocks for second-line purposes and converted as needed, typically by Maintenance Units, while Seafires were ordered as such, through a contract for front-line aircraft placed with a manufacturer or similar company. These contracts contain the specifics.

A wireless telegraphy set with a Morse key, as well as radio sets and beacon receivers that allowed pilots to communicate with and locate their ship, were all included in the Seafire adaptations that made them fit for naval service.

De-icing fittings for the radio aerials, an air intake shutter (attached to all Seafires but only tropicalized Spitfires), and a rack for signal cartridges—mostly unnecessary on hooked Spitfires—were just a few of the numerous little elements that were added to the Seafire to adapt it for naval employment.

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here along with many other beautiful aviation books.

Photo by Imperial War Museum and Charles Daniels British Aircraft Album via Wikipedia

December 21, 2022 0 comment

History

Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown and the Seafire ‘crabbed’ landing

by Till Daisd December 6, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Brown avoided the curved approach in favor of a landing technique known as the “crabbed” landing on most, if not all, of the Seafire carrier tests he conducted

The front-line Fleet Air Arm Squadrons were there when the naval version of the legendary Spitfire finally entered service after a long and occasionally challenging voyage. The Seafire was far from ideal as a naval fighter since it lacked endurance and was challenging to land on a carrier, but it gave the Royal Navy an interceptor with a superlative performance in the air, helping to turn the tables on the enemy as the Allies went on the offensive.

The Seafire saw action in Malaya and Korea while serving in the Second World War from the North Atlantic to Japan and into the 1950s. Captain Eric Melrose “Winkle” Brown, widely regarded as Britain’s greatest-ever pilot, conducted a significant portion of the Seafire’s deck landing assessment while at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the FAA Service Trials Unit, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis’ account in his book Supermarine Seafire.

Brown was chosen to conduct deck-landing trials on an escort carrier in September 1942, obviously with the impending invasion of North Africa in mind. Despite the carrier not being ready for deck landings, the wires not being raised, and the ship’s head not even totally pointed into the wind, as described in the book Wings of the Navy, he flew his Seafire Ib to HMS Biter and landed without any issues. Three months later, Brown used the L IIc to make many landings and takeoffs aboard HMS Activity.

According to Brown, the FAA was persuaded to switch all Mk IIs to the low-altitude variant by the Merlin 32-engined L IIc’s takeoff performance during these testing. Early in 1943, he served as RATOG. Later that year, in June, he conducted deck-landing tests with the Mk III, and in August, he conducted low-wind landing tests aboard HMS Fencer, Tracker, and Pretoria Castle according to conditions anticipated during the Salerno landings, which turned out to be accurate. Considering the difficulties encountered during that procedure. Brown conducted additional low-wind speed landing tests with strengthened, modified aircraft, this time on the HMS Ravager, slowing the ship down one knot at a time until his propeller eventually “pecked” the deck, and a different aircraft was required.

The story of legendary test pilot Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown and the Seafire ‘crabbed’ landing — *Eric Melrose ‘Winkle’ Brown*

Brown eschewed the curved approach in favor of a technique known as the “crabbed” landing on the majority, if not all, of the carrier tests he conducted. He described it thus: “As I closed towards the stern, I swung the nose to starboard with the rudder, and counteracted the swing by putting on the slight opposite bank. In this way, I made the Seafire crab in sideways so that I had a view of the deck over the leading edge of the wing.” Brown, a skilled pilot with the ability to maintain the delicate balance necessary to fly obliquely, found that this strategy worked effectively since it would increase drag and allow a slower landing speed. The technique, however, was criticized as being too challenging for the typical service pilot to understand. Jeffrey Quill recommended that “Pilots had to be trained to employ a curved approach to the deck as the crabbed approach was acceptable only for skilled and experienced pilots.”

Brown was appointed Chief Naval Test Pilot of the RAE in 1944 after his predecessor perished while attempting to land a Seafire aboard a carrier. In October/November 1944, Brown performed the Mk XV’s initial deck landing before collaborating with Quill on the type’s deck landing trials.

Brown has been erroneously associated with the controversy surrounding the Seafire’s service use approval and its ensuing career of accidents. Henry “Hank” Adlam of the Fleet Air Arm was harsh in his criticism of Brown for approving the Seafire for service usage and for recommending the “crabbed” landing method. The Seafire was in fact certified as suitable for deck landing by Lieutenant-Commander Bramwell, and the ‘crabbed’ approach was never recommended in favor of the curved one.

Similar to many FAA pilots, Winkle thought the Griffon-engined Seafire behaved brilliantly in the air but had significant limitations as a deck-landing fighter. He called the Seafire “sheer magic.”

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here along with many other beautiful aviation books.

Photo by Imperial War Museum via Wikipedia

December 6, 2022 0 comment

History

Comparing the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury with the Seafire

by Till Daisd December 2, 2022

written by Till Daisd

“We had several interesting dogfights with the much larger and more powerful F4U Corsair. In turning dogfights, the Corsairs were unable to get a bead on us if we saw them first,” Commander R ‘Mike’ Crosley, former CO of 880 and 887 NAS.

The front-line Fleet Air Arm Squadrons were there when the naval version of the legendary Spitfire finally entered service after a long and occasionally challenging voyage. The Seafire was far from ideal as a naval fighter since it lacked endurance and was challenging to land on a carrier, but it provided the Royal Navy access to an interceptor with exceptional air performance, which helped the Allies turn the tables on the Germans as they went on the offensive.

The Seafire saw action in Malaya and Korea while serving in the Second World War from the North Atlantic to Japan and into the 1950s. There is a remarkable degree of agreement among pilots regarding how the Spitfire flew, which can be summed up as beautifully responsive and maneuverable in the air, but challenging to handle and land, especially on an aircraft carrier, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis in his book Supermarine Seafire. Any criticisms usually focus on the excessively light elevators or the heavy ailerons. The following remarks from two pilots, one from the past and the other from the present, provide some context as well as a comparison with some of the Seafire’s rivals from the war and its immediate aftermath, the Vought Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury.

Commander R ‘Mike’ Crosley DSC (former CO of 880 and 887 NAS)

“We had several interesting dogfights with the much larger and more powerful F4U Corsair. In turning dogfights, the Corsairs were unable to get a bead on us if we saw them first. However, they could, like an Fw 190, out-dive us … Also, above 15,000 feet they were faster than Seafire L IIIs. However, the F III with its two-speed, uncropped supercharger, could easily keep up with the Corsair at 20,000 feet and above.

Flying the Seafire: a comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury — *Sea Fury, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat*

Lieutenant-Commander Chris Götke AFM (former CO Royal Navy Historic Flight)

“You can see the progression from a Seafire versus a Sea Fury. The Seafire [F 17] has got a short-block Griffon VI with about 2,000 hp. When you’re in the Seafire it’s incredibly noisy compared with a Centaurus, because you have all the exhausts and they come out down by your feet, pointing at you. The Centaurus engine is very good at lower rpm, so when we go cruising on it we’re down at 1,500 rpm which gives you about 220, 230 knots. The Griffon is complaining by the time you get it down to 1,800. For the pilot, one of the things you don’t want is to over-boost an engine. The Sea Fury was one of the first that you can’t over-boost. In a Sea Fury, as you go up on the boost, the rpm automatically rises. So, if you’re in combat and you’re just holding on, and then you get bounced, you can just slam the Centaurus open and it will go up to 2,700 and plus nine boosts. You can’t do that with the Griffon in the Seafire.

“Regarding the handling and maneuvering, if you were doing 300-plus knots in the Seafire you’d be getting very heavy ailerons, but in the Sea Fury you could do 100 knots or 400 knots and it’s the same feel. It’s a very well-harmonized system in that aircraft. The Seafire is very, very light in pitch, so is quite maneuver-unstable. You can get maneuvering very quickly, but if you hit turbulence as you’re pulling up, you almost have to unload, it’s so light in maneuver. The Sea Fury has 183 gallons internally, plus it had another tank which took it to about two hundred. That’s almost twice what you could get inside a Seafire, and the Seafire uses fuel at about the same rate. Actually, with the Centaurus, you can happily get down to 40 gallons an hour. In display, though, both are lovely aircraft.”

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo by Imperial War Museum via Wikipedia

December 2, 2022 0 comment