My father was a leading airman in the Royal Navy and did two tours of the Far East in the late 1940's to early 1950's on the HMS Warrior. The carrier was equipped with both Seafire and SeaFury aircraft, that as mentioned, didn't have a great track record .. My father left me two albums of photos of his tours, albeit on tiny two and a quarter by two and a quarter sized photos... Many showed Seafires strewn across the deck, tangled in ropes or hanging off the carrier decks, with my father's wry captions, like "ah, well// he's only learning (we hope..)" and such, photos of said aircraft either being chucked in to the ocean after being stripped , or in the bowels of the carrier or in Singapore or Hong Kong, ashore, and being rebuilt ... I sadly gave the albums to my older brother as I was in the midst of being a nomad and wanted to try and save them for some future generations, but thank you for the lively and interesting video!
@@01Bouwhuis Indeed. I think his comments on the more 'difficult" aircraft need to be viewed through the lens of his VAST experience (and incredible natural talent) Something HE described as "interesting" or (God Forbid) "challenging" might well have been "suicidal" for the average pilot.
Great video. May father was a FAA mechanic during the war that worked on Seafires. He told me about one of the early ones with the counter rotating double propeller, pilots were warned to keep the rudder neutral during take off because there was no pull to one side. One pilot cut them off with "I know what I'm doing", and then proceeded to take off in a series of swerves.
Food for thought for anyone who usually thinks of bodge as synonymous with botch: Bodge does not need to be read as bad or botch or garbage or whatnot. It can also mean something that is rushed and inelegant, but still perfectly functional. More akin to the term 'jury rig'. (though jury rig implies on the spot improvisation, not something that is actually planned)
An amazing and very British Seafire story, make due and mend, make the Spit do what it was never intended to do, fix it, and modify it on the fly. And very high praise from Corky Meyer. Great video thanks Ed.
I'm not sure that that procedure was healthy for the flap locking mechanism. My father had trouble getting the flaps to lock back in the UP position after dropping the wedges. Not a happy situation when the rest of the Sqn is leaving you behind on your own over the Med. Hurricanes.
@@bobsakamanos4469 My mother was in on a Japanese bombing attack during 42, and she said the pilot flew so low she could see his squinting eyes. It sounds like your father landed at a similar event.
One of my favourite autobiographies from WW2 is "They Gave Me a Seafire." cannot recommend it enough, Commander Crosley was a great pilot and writes a great book! Quite scathing of one or two of the Admirals (Admiral Vian!) he served under who viewed aircraft and pilots with disdain and never bothered to learn to understand how to use them through much of the war. The Seafires failure at Salerno was he said was caused by this attitude - the carriers were slow and short escort carriers, winds were calm and the result was that the seafire pilots had great difficulty in getting down onto the tiny deck with very little headwind. In the pacific the accident rate on the fast large fleet carriers was far more respectable. In addition his squadron devised the 3 way attack system of ground targets and had a far better loss rate than the Corsair squadrons they were working with. Very interesting book. Highly recommend.
Agreed, fine book. IIRC the Salerno problems were largely due to operating Seafires off small (non-Fleet) carriers, where everything had a high crash rate. But the reputation stuck.
@@Julius_Hardware Ah glad someone else has read and commented. It is great - analytical and insightful, yet great humour too. Yes you are right, I guess when you have Admiral's slagging them off people listen - justifiably or not!
Well said !! There are too many media posts that are ill informed and regurgitate nothing but half truths. Certainly, the Seafire wasn't ideal but it was far better than the Sea Hurricane. Seafires in the Pacific were fitted with P-40 drop tanks which change aerodynamics and made landings much more manageable for the slippery Seafire. The Seafire III could outrun and out perform the Corsair under 10,000'.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I have Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History and on page 582 it mentions wing tanks but not coming from P40s Inhouse design only
@@chonqmonk the FAA is no more and the RAF are in control of the carrier based fighters. Also we appear to be completely unprepared for a future conflict.
Despite it's disadvantages, Seafires were kept in the BPF because compared to the USN fighters they had the best climb rate (if that was meant with 'fast'). That, combined with fighter control from the RN carriers, made them ideal for CAP over the carrier groups.
Yep. People forget that the Spifire was mainly designed as a _bomber interceptor_ for home defense, at a time when radar either didn't exist or was just being set up. You have to climb _fast_ for such a mission; none of that leisure flying at sea! :D
The Seafire's high rate of climb made it great for deck-launched intercepts; but if you hung enough fuel on it to give it the endurance needed for the CAP mission (so the CVs weren't having to spend all their time cycling CAP fighters), the extra weight and drag cost it most of that advantage.
@@jacktattis true, they were pure brute-force high speed fighters. Which is why the Seafire was a better interceptor/point defense CAPer: that stunning climb rate.
That was a fantastic landing, wasn't it? He dropped it really quickly before flaring it over the stern to level out and stall it just a couple of feet above the deck. Puckered sphincters all round, but jeez that could've been SOOOO much worse. He did a proper job of it.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Not what I read HA HA This is from Bill Gunston Combat Aircraft While operating from Merchant Ship Catapults and Carriers it took part in Countless fleet defence actions, the greatest being the defence of the August 42 Malta Convoy . When 70 Sea Hurricanes fought off more than 600 Axis attackers shooting down 39 for the loss of 7 and drove off the rest. That is how bloody bad it was you ignoramus
I'm supposed to be writing teaching programs due tomorrow. And then you drop another vid.... ARRGH! I'll watch it tomorrow night. Love your work mate :)
Good summary, hitting most of the key points. Glad you included Corky Meyer's comments on the Mk.III, and you nailed it regarding the obsolete Hurricane.
They must have had to rework the vertical stabilizer offset when switching from the Merlin (clockwise propellor rotation) to Griffin (anti-clockwise rotation). That is a non-trivial change for production tooling when building these birds.
They certainly were and with change to bubble canopy the tail also need change too. And, by that point, they start the to production of land based Griffon powered Spitfire already so it not big issue. The real issue was CG as carrier plane needed tail hook and some strengthen and most of this would mess the CG of the plane
That arrested landing at 00:27 is a sublime bit of airmanship. To put a Seafire on the deck of a carrier with a partially extended undercarriage leg on one side and not even ding the prop is beyond remarkable. Naval aviators are truly the best of the best.
@Ken Mrozak While I agree from a pilot safety, visibility, range, and aircraft recovery perspective, the FW-190 has its own downsides vs the BF-109. I doubt Germany was going to engineer either aircraft to have folding wings for better fighter capacity in their carrier, as doing so wouldn't be as cost efficient as just adapting the plane as is. The BF-109 was one of the smallest single seat fighters of the war, which means they could have packed a reasonable amount of them on a carrier, even without wing folding. Also, if you were going to try and reengineer the wings of eithet plane, the BF-109's is easier to modify (not just for wing folding, but also for inboard retracting landing gear if they really wanted to address that problem). This is because the BF-109 was designed from the get go to have wings that bolt onto the fuselage rather simply, to speed up the production process. So it wouldnt be hard to strip out the landing gear from the center wing box on the fuselage, replace it with wheel wells, and then install the landing gear in the wings instead as inward folding. It would make it a little harder to move BF-109 fuselages around the factory floor, but would address the core problem of the BF 109 as a naval fighter without much engineering effort.
I've often wondered why no one considered using a Boulton-Paul Defiant as a naval fighter. It fell out of favour with the RAF after the Battle of Britain so, it could have been adapted for naval use without much resistance. It could have been offered in 2 versions: a two-seat variant without a turret and a single-seat version. I've researched the likely performance characteristics of these versions and they would have been better than anything until the later Seafires. It had wide landing gear, good armament and probably could have been modified for carrier use relatively easily. The curse of institutional inertia and lack of imagination strikes again.
@@rokuth There is a lot to unpack in order to compare these aircraft; mostly because the Defiant versions that could have been used were just prototypes. The FAA chose the Roc over the Defiant but, when one examines their performance characteristics, it's clear the FAA didn't base their choice on which was the superior aircraft. The Roc weighed nearly 20 kgs more than the Defiant but, it's engine was more than 100 hp less powerful. This meant the Roc's top speed was 80 mph slower than the Defiant and it's cruising speed was 50 mph slower. The Defiant Mk.1 may have lost that edge once the airplane was modified for carrier use (strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook and folding wings) but, the Mk. 2 had a 1,280 hp engine that would have compensated for the additional weight. Given the continued development of the Merlin engine, later (hypothetical) marks of the Defiant would have been even more powerful. So, simply swapping the Defiant for the Roc would have led to a better outcome for the FAA over time. However, a much better case for the Defiant can be made by removing the turret and giving it forward-firing guns. The single-seat P.94 prototype weighed at least 1,000 lbs less (the purported weight of the turret) and was reported to have a top speed of 360 mph. This put it in the same class as the Spitfire, even if it wasn't as maneuverable. It would have beat the pants off anything the FAA had (or was even considering) at the time. A two-seat version (without a turret) would have made the Skua look third-rate but, to be fair, the Skua was really a dive bomber not a fighter. The Fairey Fulmar is a more accurate comparison and a turretless Defiant would likely have been the superior aircraft (based on likely power-to-weight ratios). As I said, the reasons for not choosing the Defiant had nothing to do with performance and everything to do with institutional bias and lack of imagination. (As an aside, based on the Skua and the Roc, one might be led to surmise that Navy men just prefer ugly birds!)
We are inching ever closer to the inevitable Westland Wyvern episode. Which honestly I kinda dread, as I particularly like that type in a certain flight game.
@@timhancock6626grotty is used all over the UK!, its a reference to describing a smeggy home and its owner taken from the word Grotto then a upgrade to Grottbags with the She dweller of said such hovel....Normally consisting of a scruffy old grey haired lady wearing a house coat, with a rollie hanging out her mouth sliding about in her slippers and stinking of wee!....and quite ofternly will be found hording dozens of moggies!...
Observation was the primary emphasis dictated by the admiralty for fleet aircraft with the Barracuda being an excellent example. The air combat capability was secondary until it became essential to have aircraft that could protect the fleet. Sturtevent"s epic publication is a great resource. Also Mike Crosley"s book They Gave Me a Seafire is a must have book for. FAA fans,
No one ever mention the only Seafire ace of WW2 ,Sub Lt R(Dickie) Reynolds DSC AFC FAA,who was a member of 104 Sqn ( Cambridge)ADCC,later the ATC,I joined 104 Sqn in 1961 and retired as Sqn WO in Sept 2022, and had the pleasure of meeting Dickie in the late 80s,he retire as a Commander RNin the 70s!.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Yes to go from King of the Shits to shit of the King is tough That is why many of my colleagues stayed as WOIs and did not take the Commission
thanking you for revealing more information on this aircraft which My late farther flew whilst serving in the Fleet Air Arm I remember him telling me they added weights to the tail to keep it down whilst take off and landing. just wish I had spent more time with him discussing other Aircraft he flew like the "stringbag" or the sword fish and Mosquito and many other types.
We really were lucky having the Spitfire during WW2. It was able to be adapted for so many varied roles during the conflict, was used everywhere the British fought and pretty well always gave a good account of itself. We didn't have the range of aircraft types that we would have liked, but happily the Spitfire always seemed able to be plug the gap. whether or not it was the best fighter of the war is open to debate (it is at least a contender), but without it, things would have been a hell of a lot harder for us. Remember it was the only allied fighter that was with us on the first day of the war and with us on the last day and was just as dangerous at the end as it had been at the beginning. In pointing out all it's weaknesses, we are forgetting just how brilliant this little aeroplane was. Thank God we had it.
Excellent coverage Ed. I know quite a lot about all the varients but everydays a school day . As for purchasing any literature . Due to circumstances beyond my control l can hardly afford a tin of baked beans at present . I 'll know in a few weeks if l can keep the house !!!! .....you just never know what's around the corner !
1940 Britain had Wildcats before the US Navy when French contracts were "transferred" to Britain. 1941 December HMS Audacity sunk with four "Martlets". 1942 June Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.
Here's PRICKDANGLER with his noncence - icle spam again! , written as to pretend to be in the know and intelligent?😂, ole TRACTOR and BIGTITTY must be still in bed, or the troll line not connecting!!!........Asking for some braindeads......
It is my understanding, that the Americans did Carrier Trials with P-51 Mustangs. It was decided to call the trials off before they killed someone as the Mustang was entirely to fragile for Carrier Operations - in the opinion of those testing it. .
The firefly was one of the rare good WW2 British naval fighters. Very good armament, decent turning ability and excellent low speed handling - crucial for carrier landings. The extra size (for the navigator) is a drawback, should have been a gunner instead like on American helldivers.
No need to talk about the quality of this video - just standard excellency. 👍😄 What is that "payload" at 11:20 ? Looks like four mortar shells strapped to the belly.
Practice bombs - 10lb/11.5lb from the looks of it. They look similar to, and have the same flight behaviour as the standard British 250lb and 500lb GP Mk.IV/V bombs. The channel Our Own Devices has a vid on WW2 practice bombs.
@@russdority6295why would you train in something that was notoriously temperamentle but very much needed if not ever going to be using or flying them after anyhow, your comment makes no sence, in fact it makes you look rather silly or just blatantly a saltyphobe!, so which one is it?....
The single stage supercharger without intercooling equipment Merlins were lighter and _shorter_ than the complex Spitfire IX 60 series engines and they made the early Seafires lighter and faster at low level and better balanced for landing.
The Royal Australian Navy appears to have never operated Seafires but lists one land-based Spitfire in service as a "trainer". The Royal Australian Navy established its Fleet Air Arm in 1948, embarking Sea Furies on its first carrier in 1949. The Australian War Museum online collection has some 1951 footage of deck landing practice with their new aircraft (Furies and Fireflies) demonstrating "enthusiasm unmatched by skill".
Jeffrey Quill’s autobiography has some valuable information as to the development of the Seafire, especially the landing doctrine he effectively created - which for similar reasons was also used by the FAA for the Corsair (allowing it to be used as a carrier borne fighter before the USN). Quill was Supermarine’s chief test pilot and was seconded to the FAA with a rank of Lt. commander, serving on board numerous carriers for months as in effect an operational test pilot.
Why? The Corsair was a brute; heavy with a very thick wing that would be a drag at low level. The Seafire III was definitely faster and more manouverable under 10,000' especially with the Merlin 55M optimized for that level.
Report I've seen indicated that the Seafire had poor landing characteristics on a carrier. It tended to float rather than set down. Of course in intense carrier use it wasn't up to the pounding.
For all of the flaws the seafire must have had, at least it had the capability of turning a carrier around. As featured in an article in the British magazine "Aeroplane Monthly" (don't ask me which issue though) on some post-war occasion they did just that, no tugboat being available the carrier's late-mark Griffon Seafires were positioned on the carrier deck and fired up in a way to turn it around in the harbour. I don't know how long it took them but apparently it worked.
Ed, perchance referring to the Buffalo as a high performance fighter was a tad charitable? Seeing it with the Zero reminded me of “which one is not like the other?” puzzle.😊
I think it was Gregory Boyington who viewed the F2A as an excellent aircraft that quickly went downhill when burdened with the weight that came with carrier operations. He considered the "improvements" of the F2A-3 over the F2A-2 to be the cause of its failure. The Finns did indeed make the most of it by stripping it of all carrier related modifications.
It would have helped if the FAA had not insisted that carrier-borne fighters had to be cumbersome two seaters, right up to the Fairey Firefly, which could have been a pretty good fighter.
Ed, have you produced a video on the Seafury? If not, will you consider one? Seafury has been very attractive to me, Yet I know little about it. Thank you for the Seafire video. Much was learned about the struggles to incorporate it into carrier-based operations.
Fury is my favourite too. Canadian here; our navy had ex-RN carriers for about twenty years after the war and had both the Seafire XV and Sea Fury FB.11 on strength, with the latter replacing the former. One Seafire and two Sea Furies survive in Canadian museums.
Ok... as an avid aviation enthusiast, especially of WW2 aircraft, I'm rather ashamed to admit I was not aware of the significant RAF involvement in the Pacific Theater. I'm a US Navy vet, my dad a Navy fighter pilot and my grandfather was a Navy B-24 pilot in the Pacific... thus, most of my reading entails development of American aircraft. For my UK brothers/sisters in arms, I offer my most sincere apology for my obvious naivety, but more deeply my gratitude for the blood, sweat and courage put forth by your finest. My glass in raised in your honor! Cheers!
Better late than never i suppose?, but the damage already done?, but thanks for the thought....you are certainly in the minorities.... Take care and same to you friend!..
RAF not in the Pacific but dominate in Burma RAAF active in Pacific The FAA with the BPF USN Admiral King a Brit hater did not want the R/N there and said that they must supply/ repair themselves So Australia ceased sending the USN rations and offered its Harbour , Manus Island and Rations to the R/N . There was another reason the R/N was over there They did not want the USN interfering with the Brits reclaiming their colonies.
@@wor53lg50 Mate we were in it from the start Malaya Singapore where we goy done like a dinner 80000 to POW Camps Percival as well over in the Philippines 100000 beaten MacArthur runs away to Australia Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk off Malaya 10 Dec 1941 where was the USN from the Philippines? Peeing off to Australia Brits were in Burma Aussies in New Guinea We were fighting before the USMC were on the Canal
Gloster F5, Vickers Venom and Bristol Type 146, all 3 radial air cooled, all metal monoplanes that at least according to wikipedia were pretty competent designs. All they needed was more powerfull engines (Bristol Hercules) and they could have had 'british zeros'.
Nothing in Morgan and Shacklady about the P40 tanks . I just went to have a look and the Brits were usually very correct when they used another nations products
That’s the problem with the Seafire; the landing gear cannot handle carrier deck operations where rough going is the norm on landing. On the other hand, they proved dangerous to Japanese Kamikazes over Okinawa when assigned to the British Pacific Fleet.
I have often wondered if the creative minds that turned the spitfire into the Seafire could have turned the P40 Warhawk into a P40 Seahawk for use off jeep carriers to stymie UBoats and raiders. The P40 had a reputation as a decent ground support aircraft, gave good performance at low level as a fighter, and operated well from rough runways. Strengths that would apply to carrier borne craft. But as is so often the case …. by the time you knew what you needed, the time to build it had passed.
Another Great video, love your chanel ! So I have been watching the FAA videos and the 2 place requirement for navigators makes sense. My Grandfather was a pilot / navigator on fleet scout floatplanes in teg 1930's and they needed navigators too. How did the Americans and Japanese get away with single place naval fighters with 1000+ mile range? Over the Pacific how did they deal with not having a navigator in the 30's ? Disclaimer, my grandfather was a Swedish Flygvapnet pilot, and didn't fly for the FAA. The Swedish Navy used Flygvapnet aircrews in the 20's and 30's.
They devised a "bodge" to give the Spitfire a takeoff flap setting - a block of wood that fit between the flap and the wing. Lower the flap, insert block, raise the flap. In the air, lowering the flaps would allow the blocks to fall away and the flaps could then be raised. They did this on the ferry missions to supply Malta with Spitfires, where they launched the Spitfires off carriers some distance short of Malta. Don't know if they used this same trick on actual Seafires.
It did great for a bodge job but let's be frank... putting an uprated Merlin into a sea hurricane would have bought a year and it was better suited to carrier work... And as the mustang shows you can develop a good fighter in half that time. Simple fact is the Brits didn't need a high performance carrier plane after Norway until Sicily and even then it was a marginal need until brit carriers really got into the fray in the pacific.
I believe that Spitfires bound for Malta in 1942 were delivered by aircraft carrier, perhaps without any changes since they were only using them as a launch pad. Apparently the pilots had to keep from pulling back on the stick after take off, since they would have stalled and dropped. Instead they had to lose altitude while picking up speed, then pulling back just before wave level.
4:35 'By early 1941 the lessons were clear, the FAA needed a high performance aircraft' Right but maybe you could say this, 'The first Martlet I was delivered to the FAA on July 27,1940,' so they had the Martlet fully in service by early 1941.The narrator did not dispute this, but I think it should have been emphasized more. That the FAA would be waiting for more - which the narrator said- is acknowledged but that the FAA wouldn't be scratching their heads about which aircraft is clearly better, wasn't really mentioned. 5:50 Saying the Sea Hurricanes, while limited without folding wings, were 'better than what they had before' , also suggests that the benchmark was these pre-war Rocks and Fulmars where as the far superior Grumman Martlet was the benchmark. And notably the Sea Huriricanes were barely better. I think the issue here is that in general 'more is better' and so whether or not apples or oranges provide more or less nutrition, just get more of them, and throw away the very worst. The FAA was fascinating to see. Thanks for the video.
Well done ed ,great video , I wonder if the hawker typhoon would have being a better carrier aircraft I am fully aware that some carriers during the Sicily campaign actually ran out of props for the Seafire !
Maybe with the Centaurus engine, the Sabre engine was a maintenance hog and prone to catch fire on startup. At least the Seafire had the reliable Merlin, in all other respects it was less than stellar for carrier use.
@@KapiteinKrentebol The ease of maintenance and the ability to take battle damage are two of the big reasons why the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy preferred to use radial engines over liquid-cooled engines.
At the 14:00 mark, the picture of the Seafire on deck has what looks like JATO type pod attached to the upper wing. Is that correct, or is that something else? Very good video. Very balanced an fair.
Your videos are always top drawer , been watching biggie and Tupac conspicuously videos all morning let’s say these vids don’t fly ( not very well ) it’s all on here ain’t it , keep up the stellar work !
also, let's keep in mind that outside of operations deep in the Atlantic the British assumed naval actions would take place in range of British land bases. While this was true, what was not calculated was the fact there would never be enough modern land aircraft to operate in every conflict zone.
@Ed Nash's Military Matters That makes sense. But the pilot would have to point the wingtip at the target subject, making a pylon turn to get a picture.
Going from Grumman aircraft to the Seafire was really a journey between polar opposites. I wonder what the equivalent of a British test pilot first flying an F4F or an F6F would have been? "It doesn't break," perhaps.
Only the ones carrying more fuel, ammo, armor than the Seafire and built tough (heavy) to withstand carrier operations. I believe the F4U-5 could pretty much smoke anything in the air at most any altitude, the F2G series was capable of almost 400 mph at sea level.
This is a little misleading and Dr. Alex Clarke does several excellent videos on this subject. The RN had a split in fighter doctrine with the long-range 2 seater fighters and a short-range single-seater interceptor for fleet defense. This existed before the Seafire came into service and can be seen in the pre-war use of several single-seat Glouster and Harwker designs on carriers in the 1930s however WW2 started at a point of transition and the proposed gull-winged single-seat high-performance naval fighter Supermarine were working on was canceled to free up production space for the Spitfire (in many ways this fighter was an updated version of the 224 but was fully navalized unlike the sea fire we got).
Another good video Ed - However I think you rather overplay the "nasty Air Ministry and RAF" card! - There are minutes of meetings where the Air Ministry try to talk the Admiralty out of carrying on with the orders for the Roc and adopt something more suitable. It was the Admiralty who had a thing about not accepting aircraft ordered for the RAF, preferring to have them designed specifically for the Navy. Indeed, RN doctrine did not see a need for single-seat fighters, thinking that the fleet should defend itself with AA fire alone. The "Sea Gladiators" were only taken on because the delivery of Rocs was behind schedule and the Gladiator production line was still going. Supermarine actually designed a beefed-up folding-wing variant of the Spitfire - The Type 338 - as early as 1939. - The First Sea Lord turned down the project - that was Winston Churchill! - The chapters on the Seafire in Morgan and Shacklady's massive tome "Spitfire-The History" cover this well.
My father was a leading airman in the Royal Navy and did two tours of the Far East in the late 1940's to early 1950's on the HMS Warrior. The carrier was equipped with both Seafire and SeaFury aircraft, that as mentioned, didn't have a great track record .. My father left me two albums of photos of his tours, albeit on tiny two and a quarter by two and a quarter sized photos... Many showed Seafires strewn across the deck, tangled in ropes or hanging off the carrier decks, with my father's wry captions, like "ah, well// he's only learning (we hope..)" and such, photos of said aircraft either being chucked in to the ocean after being stripped , or in the bowels of the carrier or in Singapore or Hong Kong, ashore, and being rebuilt ... I sadly gave the albums to my older brother as I was in the midst of being a nomad and wanted to try and save them for some future generations, but thank you for the lively and interesting video!
Winkle’ Brown described the Griffon-engined Seafire as “sheer magic”.
Exactly, the guru of test pilots!
Now... winkle wasn't your average, combat fatigued pilot.
Winkle could land Concorde on a lifeboat.
Aaaah, what did he know!
@@01Bouwhuis Indeed. I think his comments on the more 'difficult" aircraft need to be viewed through the lens of his VAST experience (and incredible natural talent) Something HE described as "interesting" or (God Forbid) "challenging" might well have been "suicidal" for the average pilot.
That flap bodge is a wonderful English garden shed fix
Great video. May father was a FAA mechanic during the war that worked on Seafires. He told me about one of the early ones with the counter rotating double propeller, pilots were warned to keep the rudder neutral during take off because there was no pull to one side. One pilot cut them off with "I know what I'm doing", and then proceeded to take off in a series of swerves.
It's enough to make yer weep...
@@rosiehawtrey Boomps a Daisy......
Food for thought for anyone who usually thinks of bodge as synonymous with botch: Bodge does not need to be read as bad or botch or garbage or whatnot. It can also mean something that is rushed and inelegant, but still perfectly functional. More akin to the term 'jury rig'. (though jury rig implies on the spot improvisation, not something that is actually planned)
"An engineered solution to an unexpected problem"
@@davefloyd9443 But how many were actually done as a result of known but ignored problems? E.g. adding a gunpod to the F-4.
Not a problem when you've doctrinally committed to a2a missiles........ oh, wait. 😁
@@whyjnot420 What is an "F-4"? I don't recall the British ever building an aircraft called that.
@@Demun1649I don't recall saying they did... ffs
An amazing and very British Seafire story, make due and mend, make the Spit do what it was never intended to do, fix it, and modify it on the fly. And very high praise from Corky Meyer. Great video thanks Ed.
Putting wedges in the flaps just to make this thing take off and subsequent improvements tells a fine tale of dogged persistence. Inspiring.
When something needs doing, it gets done any way it needs to
I'm not sure that that procedure was healthy for the flap locking mechanism. My father had trouble getting the flaps to lock back in the UP position after dropping the wedges. Not a happy situation when the rest of the Sqn is leaving you behind on your own over the Med. Hurricanes.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Best regards to your father for operating under trying circumstances, and coming back in one piece.
@@joeperson4792 he made it to Hell Island (Malta) ok, then the horror began.
@@bobsakamanos4469 My mother was in on a Japanese bombing attack during 42, and she said the pilot flew so low she could see his squinting eyes. It sounds like your father landed at a similar event.
One of my favourite autobiographies from WW2 is "They Gave Me a Seafire." cannot recommend it enough, Commander Crosley was a great pilot and writes a great book! Quite scathing of one or two of the Admirals (Admiral Vian!) he served under who viewed aircraft and pilots with disdain and never bothered to learn to understand how to use them through much of the war. The Seafires failure at Salerno was he said was caused by this attitude - the carriers were slow and short escort carriers, winds were calm and the result was that the seafire pilots had great difficulty in getting down onto the tiny deck with very little headwind. In the pacific the accident rate on the fast large fleet carriers was far more respectable.
In addition his squadron devised the 3 way attack system of ground targets and had a far better loss rate than the Corsair squadrons they were working with. Very interesting book. Highly recommend.
Agreed, fine book. IIRC the Salerno problems were largely due to operating Seafires off small (non-Fleet) carriers, where everything had a high crash rate. But the reputation stuck.
@@Julius_Hardware Ah glad someone else has read and commented. It is great - analytical and insightful, yet great humour too. Yes you are right, I guess when you have Admiral's slagging them off people listen - justifiably or not!
Well said !! There are too many media posts that are ill informed and regurgitate nothing but half truths. Certainly, the Seafire wasn't ideal but it was far better than the Sea Hurricane. Seafires in the Pacific were fitted with P-40 drop tanks which change aerodynamics and made landings much more manageable for the slippery Seafire. The Seafire III could outrun and out perform the Corsair under 10,000'.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I have Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History and on page 582 it mentions wing tanks but not coming from P40s Inhouse design only
@@jacktattis excess P-40 drop tanks (89 US gal) were acquired via horse trading for a case(s) of whiskey. HMS Implacable.
You missed a major issue. Until mid-1939 the FAA was part of the RAF.
I get the feeling that history is in the process of repeating itself
Having watched the entire submission I believe that was acknowledged either directly or indirectly
@@exF3-86 no it wasn't.
@@catmandoodoo7903 In what way?
@@chonqmonk the FAA is no more and the RAF are in control of the carrier based fighters. Also we appear to be completely unprepared for a future conflict.
Despite it's disadvantages, Seafires were kept in the BPF because compared to the USN fighters they had the best climb rate (if that was meant with 'fast'). That, combined with fighter control from the RN carriers, made them ideal for CAP over the carrier groups.
Yep. People forget that the Spifire was mainly designed as a _bomber interceptor_ for home defense, at a time when radar either didn't exist or was just being set up. You have to climb _fast_ for such a mission; none of that leisure flying at sea! :D
The Seafire's high rate of climb made it great for deck-launched intercepts; but if you hung enough fuel on it to give it the endurance needed for the CAP mission (so the CVs weren't having to spend all their time cycling CAP fighters), the extra weight and drag cost it most of that advantage.
@@Philistine47 but for those the RN had the Corsair and Hellcat.
@@jlvfr Both of which had a slow climb rate and piss poor turn
@@jacktattis true, they were pure brute-force high speed fighters. Which is why the Seafire was a better interceptor/point defense CAPer: that stunning climb rate.
13:08 The best way to land the Seafire on a carrier is with the landing gear retracted.
That was a fantastic landing, wasn't it? He dropped it really quickly before flaring it over the stern to level out and stall it just a couple of feet above the deck. Puckered sphincters all round, but jeez that could've been SOOOO much worse. He did a proper job of it.
Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂. The jokes on these types of channels make me laugh way too hard lol.
Perhaps the inspiration for the post-war tests with wheels-up landings on a pneumatic deck. Something Eric Brown also flew. Of course.
@@ianmcsherry5254 yES HE DID
Twit
A series on the Malta air war would be highly appreciated and interesting imo.
Good read called Faith, Hope and charity. Brilliant account.
Malta was not a pleasant story before the Spitfires arrived. The Hurricanes were massacred by the LW.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Not what I read HA HA This is from Bill Gunston Combat Aircraft While operating from Merchant Ship Catapults and Carriers it took part in Countless fleet defence actions, the greatest being the defence of the August 42 Malta Convoy . When 70 Sea Hurricanes fought off more than 600 Axis attackers shooting down 39 for the loss of 7 and drove off the rest.
That is how bloody bad it was you ignoramus
I'm supposed to be writing teaching programs due tomorrow. And then you drop another vid.... ARRGH!
I'll watch it tomorrow night. Love your work mate :)
Cheers! And the video will still be there tomorrow ;)
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Finally got to it. Brilliant as always, thank you :)
Good summary, hitting most of the key points. Glad you included Corky Meyer's comments on the Mk.III, and you nailed it regarding the obsolete Hurricane.
They must have had to rework the vertical stabilizer offset when switching from the Merlin (clockwise propellor rotation) to Griffin (anti-clockwise rotation). That is a non-trivial change for production tooling when building these birds.
They certainly were and with change to bubble canopy the tail also need change too. And, by that point, they start the to production of land based Griffon powered Spitfire already so it not big issue. The real issue was CG as carrier plane needed tail hook and some strengthen and most of this would mess the CG of the plane
That arrested landing at 00:27 is a sublime bit of airmanship. To put a Seafire on the deck of a carrier with a partially extended undercarriage leg on one side and not even ding the prop is beyond remarkable. Naval aviators are truly the best of the best.
Yes they are
The British conversion of the Spitfire mirrors that of the German attempt to convert the Bf109 into a carrier fighter.
Yeah, the Fw-190 would have been a MUCH better choice.
@Ken Mrozak While I agree from a pilot safety, visibility, range, and aircraft recovery perspective, the FW-190 has its own downsides vs the BF-109.
I doubt Germany was going to engineer either aircraft to have folding wings for better fighter capacity in their carrier, as doing so wouldn't be as cost efficient as just adapting the plane as is. The BF-109 was one of the smallest single seat fighters of the war, which means they could have packed a reasonable amount of them on a carrier, even without wing folding.
Also, if you were going to try and reengineer the wings of eithet plane, the BF-109's is easier to modify (not just for wing folding, but also for inboard retracting landing gear if they really wanted to address that problem). This is because the BF-109 was designed from the get go to have wings that bolt onto the fuselage rather simply, to speed up the production process. So it wouldnt be hard to strip out the landing gear from the center wing box on the fuselage, replace it with wheel wells, and then install the landing gear in the wings instead as inward folding. It would make it a little harder to move BF-109 fuselages around the factory floor, but would address the core problem of the BF 109 as a naval fighter without much engineering effort.
The difference being that Britain actually had functioning aircraft carriers.
Both the spitfire and bf 109 were dead end concepts and much treasure was wasted on making them work because of emotional reasons
@@drewschumann1 And what was better in your opinion ?
I've often wondered why no one considered using a Boulton-Paul Defiant as a naval fighter. It fell out of favour with the RAF after the Battle of Britain so, it could have been adapted for naval use without much resistance. It could have been offered in 2 versions: a two-seat variant without a turret and a single-seat version. I've researched the likely performance characteristics of these versions and they would have been better than anything until the later Seafires. It had wide landing gear, good armament and probably could have been modified for carrier use relatively easily. The curse of institutional inertia and lack of imagination strikes again.
The FAA had their own version, the Roc.
It was worse than the Defiant and left a bad taste in their mouths.
Didn't they do that with the Skua, and Roc? (Except for the single seater version...)
@@rokuth There is a lot to unpack in order to compare these aircraft; mostly because the Defiant versions that could have been used were just prototypes.
The FAA chose the Roc over the Defiant but, when one examines their performance characteristics, it's clear the FAA didn't base their choice on which was the superior aircraft. The Roc weighed nearly 20 kgs more than the Defiant but, it's engine was more than 100 hp less powerful. This meant the Roc's top speed was 80 mph slower than the Defiant and it's cruising speed was 50 mph slower.
The Defiant Mk.1 may have lost that edge once the airplane was modified for carrier use (strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook and folding wings) but, the Mk. 2 had a 1,280 hp engine that would have compensated for the additional weight. Given the continued development of the Merlin engine, later (hypothetical) marks of the Defiant would have been even more powerful. So, simply swapping the Defiant for the Roc would have led to a better outcome for the FAA over time.
However, a much better case for the Defiant can be made by removing the turret and giving it forward-firing guns. The single-seat P.94 prototype weighed at least 1,000 lbs less (the purported weight of the turret) and was reported to have a top speed of 360 mph. This put it in the same class as the Spitfire, even if it wasn't as maneuverable. It would have beat the pants off anything the FAA had (or was even considering) at the time.
A two-seat version (without a turret) would have made the Skua look third-rate but, to be fair, the Skua was really a dive bomber not a fighter. The Fairey Fulmar is a more accurate comparison and a turretless Defiant would likely have been the superior aircraft (based on likely power-to-weight ratios).
As I said, the reasons for not choosing the Defiant had nothing to do with performance and everything to do with institutional bias and lack of imagination.
(As an aside, based on the Skua and the Roc, one might be led to surmise that Navy men just prefer ugly birds!)
@@jamesdalton2014 ; Wow! Thanks for the detailed response. Truly appreciate the time and effort you took. Does fill in a lot of blanks for me.
Seriously? A Hurricane would have made far more sense than the ill conceived Defiant.
We are inching ever closer to the inevitable Westland Wyvern episode. Which honestly I kinda dread, as I particularly like that type in a certain flight game.
Our golden birds shall stay safe
The Fulmar outdid itself, thanks to some brave and skilful men
Thank you for another very informative video. This video reminds of the saying "You go to war with that you have. Not what you want."
This is my first exposure to the word 'bodge.' I only recently learned the word, 'grotty.'
We have a weaith of ropey words phrases and sayings for the uninitiated.
Grotty almost certainly originated in Liverpool as a slang word for Grotesque. Quite when I don't know, but possibly in the 1950s.
@@timhancock6626 I first came across it in "A Hard Day's Night" when George Harrison uses it.
@@timhancock6626grotty is used all over the UK!, its a reference to describing a smeggy home and its owner taken from the word Grotto then a upgrade to Grottbags with the She dweller of said such hovel....Normally consisting of a scruffy old grey haired lady wearing a house coat, with a rollie hanging out her mouth sliding about in her slippers and stinking of wee!....and quite ofternly will be found hording dozens of moggies!...
Observation was the primary emphasis dictated by the admiralty for fleet aircraft with the Barracuda being an excellent example. The air combat capability was secondary until it became essential to have aircraft that could protect the fleet. Sturtevent"s epic publication is a great resource. Also Mike Crosley"s book They Gave Me a Seafire is a must have book for. FAA fans,
Ironic how the kamikaze helped so much to rescue the Seafire's reputation.
Great video. Always a pleasure to learn more about one of my favorite subjects, the aircraft of WW2,
I had to look up the word "bodge" before watching the video. Now I can't wait to use it in a sentence!
A great fantastic video about an aircraft I knew nothing about. Have a good one Mr.Ed.
Great video, thoroughly enjoyed that. The illustrious Eric 'winkle' Brown has an interesting account of the Seafires and Sea Hurricanes. 👍
Thanks Ed another top shelf video made my day.
No one ever mention the only Seafire ace of WW2 ,Sub Lt R(Dickie) Reynolds DSC AFC FAA,who was a member of 104 Sqn ( Cambridge)ADCC,later the ATC,I joined 104 Sqn in 1961 and retired as Sqn WO in Sept 2022, and had the pleasure of meeting Dickie in the late 80s,he retire as a Commander RNin the 70s!.
What's a Sqn WO? WO1 ?
@@bobsakamanos4469 Yes!.
@@kenking1228 My father was a WO1 MU test pilot. Then when he took his commission to P/O he went to the bottom of the pecking order.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Yes to go from King of the Shits to shit of the King is tough That is why many of my colleagues stayed as WOIs and did not take the Commission
thanking you for revealing more information on this aircraft which My late farther flew whilst serving in the Fleet Air Arm I remember him telling me they added weights to the tail to keep it down whilst take off and landing. just wish I had spent more time with him discussing other Aircraft he flew like the "stringbag" or the sword fish and Mosquito and many other types.
Very interesting Ed.Thank You.
We really were lucky having the Spitfire during WW2. It was able to be adapted for so many varied roles during the conflict, was used everywhere the British fought and pretty well always gave a good account of itself. We didn't have the range of aircraft types that we would have liked, but happily the Spitfire always seemed able to be plug the gap. whether or not it was the best fighter of the war is open to debate (it is at least a contender), but without it, things would have been a hell of a lot harder for us. Remember it was the only allied fighter that was with us on the first day of the war and with us on the last day and was just as dangerous at the end as it had been at the beginning. In pointing out all it's weaknesses, we are forgetting just how brilliant this little aeroplane was. Thank God we had it.
Too true
Excellent coverage Ed. I know quite a lot about all the varients but everydays a school day . As for purchasing any literature . Due to circumstances beyond my control l can hardly afford a tin of baked beans at present . I 'll know in a few weeks if l can keep the house !!!! .....you just never know what's around the corner !
Yesh! Sorry to hear that man. Hope it all works out.
1940 Britain had Wildcats before the US Navy when French contracts were "transferred" to Britain.
1941 December HMS Audacity sunk with four "Martlets".
1942 June Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.
Here's PRICKDANGLER with his noncence - icle spam again! , written as to pretend to be in the know and intelligent?😂, ole TRACTOR and BIGTITTY must be still in bed, or the troll line not connecting!!!........Asking for some braindeads......
Gee thanks for that Nick and Brown was on the Audacity when she sank
It is my understanding, that the Americans did Carrier Trials with P-51 Mustangs. It was decided to call the trials off before they killed someone as the Mustang was entirely to fragile for Carrier Operations - in the opinion of those testing it.
.
I think it was the high stall speed of the P51 94 mph I believe
Amazing they made it work at all really
Another great video! I love the picture of the Mark XVII with the camera window behind the fuselage. 20:30
They gave me a Seafire by RM Crosley, is bar none one of the greatest books I have read. It is a must
The firefly was one of the rare good WW2 British naval fighters. Very good armament, decent turning ability and excellent low speed handling - crucial for carrier landings. The extra size (for the navigator) is a drawback, should have been a gunner instead like on American helldivers.
No need to talk about the quality of this video - just standard excellency. 👍😄
What is that "payload" at 11:20 ? Looks like four mortar shells strapped to the belly.
Practice bombs - 10lb/11.5lb from the looks of it.
They look similar to, and have the same flight behaviour as the standard British 250lb and 500lb GP Mk.IV/V bombs.
The channel Our Own Devices has a vid on WW2 practice bombs.
That's a great photo around 12:20. Never seen that before.
Great video, nice work Ed 👍
Beautiful, potent, dangerous AF to its own users.
Bit like the P38 then or better still the corsair untill some nation was first to master it on carriers....
Great title! This is a must watch ✌️🇦🇺 We had these? That’s awesome I wonder if any museums have 1 on display down under
We had Spitfires, but no Seafires. By the time we got carriers, Sea Furies were the best piston naval fighter.
We only used them for flight deck training
@@russdority6295why would you train in something that was notoriously temperamentle but very much needed if not ever going to be using or flying them after anyhow, your comment makes no sence, in fact it makes you look rather silly or just blatantly a saltyphobe!, so which one is it?....
Sounds like great credit goes to the pilots' dedication and skill and the training of the RN air arm.
Sad that the Supermarine Seafang never made it to the fleet
This doc is F.A. ... eFFing Awsome! Thx Ed ! 🐿
The single stage supercharger without intercooling equipment Merlins were lighter and _shorter_ than the complex Spitfire IX 60 series engines and they made the early Seafires lighter and faster at low level and better balanced for landing.
Great video as always. Some really great photos too.
Excellent video! I like this long form style
The Royal Australian Navy appears to have never operated Seafires but lists one land-based Spitfire in service as a "trainer". The Royal Australian Navy established its Fleet Air Arm in 1948, embarking Sea Furies on its first carrier in 1949. The Australian War Museum online collection has some 1951 footage of deck landing practice with their new aircraft (Furies and Fireflies) demonstrating "enthusiasm unmatched by skill".
Great work Ed! I have David Browns book "The Seafire"...quite dated now but he was the first aircraft author I encountered who was a real Seafire fan
Man, that's as blunt an initial assessment as I've heard from Ed. But not wrong, at all.
Jeffrey Quill’s autobiography has some valuable information as to the development of the Seafire, especially the landing doctrine he effectively created - which for similar reasons was also used by the FAA for the Corsair (allowing it to be used as a carrier borne fighter before the USN). Quill was Supermarine’s chief test pilot and was seconded to the FAA with a rank of Lt. commander, serving on board numerous carriers for months as in effect an operational test pilot.
No actually it was Eric Brown that had the most experience but the Admiralty wanted a pilot not trained in Deck landing and chose Quill
Hey Rex, hard to believe it could better the Corsair.
At certain altitudes it was faster than the Corsair. It was certainly more maneuverable.
Why? The Corsair was a brute; heavy with a very thick wing that would be a drag at low level. The Seafire III was definitely faster and more manouverable under 10,000' especially with the Merlin 55M optimized for that level.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Even above 10000ft no Corsair could match it
Report I've seen indicated that the Seafire had poor landing characteristics on a carrier. It tended to float rather than set down. Of course in intense carrier use it wasn't up to the pounding.
Eric Brown in Wings of the Navy gives 19 pages to the Seafire and only 12 to the Corsair. I wonder why?
For all of the flaws the seafire must have had, at least it had the capability of turning a carrier around. As featured in an article in the British magazine "Aeroplane Monthly" (don't ask me which issue though) on some post-war occasion they did just that, no tugboat being available the carrier's late-mark Griffon Seafires were positioned on the carrier deck and fired up in a way to turn it around in the harbour. I don't know how long it took them but apparently it worked.
Ed, perchance referring to the Buffalo as a high performance fighter was a tad charitable? Seeing it with the Zero reminded me of “which one is not like the other?” puzzle.😊
Lol indeed, but compared to the Skua, or even the Fulmar the F2A was a rocket ;D
It was better than most realise, it was great for the Finns in the Winter War.
I think it was Gregory Boyington who viewed the F2A as an excellent aircraft that quickly went downhill when burdened with the weight that came with carrier operations. He considered the "improvements" of the F2A-3 over the F2A-2 to be the cause of its failure.
The Finns did indeed make the most of it by stripping it of all carrier related modifications.
Who needs a book when Ed provides a much better narration!
It would have helped if the FAA had not insisted that carrier-borne fighters had to be cumbersome two seaters, right up to the Fairey Firefly, which could have been a pretty good fighter.
I remember seeing a presumably photos hopped single seat Firefly V, and it looked fine
From the early lash-up to the contra prop Seafire 47 of 1949 shews just what an adaptable design the airframe was.
Lash up it may have been, but there were still Seafires in Royal Navy reserve units when Ticket To Ride was #1 in the charts. Nuff said.
We had steam trains when Japan had the bullet train.
The mallard was the fastest steam locomotive in the world and thats ever been...
Hi! What a good surprise! Let's have a look!
Ed, have you produced a video on the Seafury? If not, will you consider one? Seafury has been very attractive to me, Yet I know little about it. Thank you for the Seafire video. Much was learned about the struggles to incorporate it into carrier-based operations.
FYI :
ruclips.net/video/kFGQyV0gY1A/видео.html
Fury is my favourite too. Canadian here; our navy had ex-RN carriers for about twenty years after the war and had both the Seafire XV and Sea Fury FB.11 on strength, with the latter replacing the former. One Seafire and two Sea Furies survive in Canadian museums.
Ok... as an avid aviation enthusiast, especially of WW2 aircraft, I'm rather ashamed to admit I was not aware of the significant RAF involvement in the Pacific Theater. I'm a US Navy vet, my dad a Navy fighter pilot and my grandfather was a Navy B-24 pilot in the Pacific... thus, most of my reading entails development of American aircraft. For my UK brothers/sisters in arms, I offer my most sincere apology for my obvious naivety, but more deeply my gratitude for the blood, sweat and courage put forth by your finest. My glass in raised in your honor! Cheers!
Better late than never i suppose?, but the damage already done?, but thanks for the thought....you are certainly in the minorities.... Take care and same to you friend!..
RAF not in the Pacific but dominate in Burma RAAF active in Pacific The FAA with the BPF
USN Admiral King a Brit hater did not want the R/N there and said that they must supply/ repair themselves So Australia ceased sending the USN rations and offered its Harbour , Manus Island and Rations to the R/N .
There was another reason the R/N was over there They did not want the USN interfering with the Brits reclaiming their colonies.
@@wor53lg50 Mate we were in it from the start Malaya Singapore where we goy done like a dinner 80000 to POW Camps Percival as well
over in the Philippines 100000 beaten MacArthur runs away to Australia
Repulse and Prince of Wales sunk off Malaya 10 Dec 1941 where was the USN from the Philippines? Peeing off to Australia
Brits were in Burma Aussies in New Guinea We were fighting before the USMC were on the Canal
@@jacktattis troll off commie woke leftoid,
Would love to see a comparison between the 1945 Seafire and Bearcat. Thank you for the educational video!
ruclips.net/video/9UDMQYmoin8/видео.html&ab_channel=Greg%27sAirplanesandAutomobiles
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel has done it - it his typical superb analysis!
Or the Bearcat and the Sea Fury.
@@13stalag13
ruclips.net/video/kFGQyV0gY1A/видео.html
@@13stalag13 Yup he has them as well - a series on "the super props"
Gloster F5 and Miles fighter would have been an ideal fighter for carrier conversion,Another missed opportunity by the British I guess.
Gloster F5, Vickers Venom and Bristol Type 146, all 3 radial air cooled, all metal monoplanes that at least according to wikipedia were pretty competent designs. All they needed was more powerfull engines (Bristol Hercules) and they could have had 'british zeros'.
When your Seafire Mk. III sniffs some of that good ol' P-40 droptanks:
*insert Sabaton - Metal Crüe but sung with a British accent here*
Nothing in Morgan and Shacklady about the P40 tanks . I just went to have a look and the Brits were usually very correct when they used another nations products
Thankfully ..Wildcat, Hellcat and Courser were on the way.
What a fabulous Brief..Many Thanks... BRAVO ZULU 💯👍
That’s the problem with the Seafire; the landing gear cannot handle carrier deck operations where rough going is the norm on landing.
On the other hand, they proved dangerous to Japanese Kamikazes over Okinawa when assigned to the British Pacific Fleet.
Amazing colour footage
I have often wondered if the creative minds that turned the spitfire into the Seafire could have turned the P40 Warhawk into a P40 Seahawk for use off jeep carriers to stymie UBoats and raiders. The P40 had a reputation as a decent ground support aircraft, gave good performance at low level as a fighter, and operated well from rough runways. Strengths that would apply to carrier borne craft. But as is so often the case …. by the time you knew what you needed, the time to build it had passed.
Another Great video, love your chanel ! So I have been watching the FAA videos and the 2 place requirement for navigators makes sense. My Grandfather was a pilot / navigator on fleet scout floatplanes in teg 1930's and they needed navigators too. How did the Americans and Japanese get away with single place naval fighters with 1000+ mile range? Over the Pacific how did they deal with not having a navigator in the 30's ?
Disclaimer, my grandfather was a Swedish Flygvapnet pilot, and didn't fly for the FAA. The Swedish Navy used Flygvapnet aircrews in the 20's and 30's.
They devised a "bodge" to give the Spitfire a takeoff flap setting - a block of wood that fit between the flap and the wing. Lower the flap, insert block, raise the flap. In the air, lowering the flaps would allow the blocks to fall away and the flaps could then be raised. They did this on the ferry missions to supply Malta with Spitfires, where they launched the Spitfires off carriers some distance short of Malta. Don't know if they used this same trick on actual Seafires.
One of your best videos. Thank you.
Nice video, Ed. I learned a new word today: bodge. 😆
Do the Bristol Brigand and De Havilland Hornet, there is very little on RUclips on either of these aircraft
Great and balanced video.
Your channel deserves far more subs. Hope you get them.
Great video. Thanks very much for the effort you obviously put into the research.
It did great for a bodge job but let's be frank... putting an uprated Merlin into a sea hurricane would have bought a year and it was better suited to carrier work... And as the mustang shows you can develop a good fighter in half that time.
Simple fact is the Brits didn't need a high performance carrier plane after Norway until Sicily and even then it was a marginal need until brit carriers really got into the fray in the pacific.
47 makes the design even better!
I did not hear of any strengthening of the landing gear.
The landing gear of a Spitfire does look so 'fragile'.
I believe that Spitfires bound for Malta in 1942 were delivered by aircraft carrier, perhaps without any changes since they were only using them as a launch pad. Apparently the pilots had to keep from pulling back on the stick after take off, since they would have stalled and dropped. Instead they had to lose altitude while picking up speed, then pulling back just before wave level.
600 miles out
4:35 'By early 1941 the lessons were clear, the FAA needed a high performance aircraft' Right but maybe you could say this, 'The first Martlet I was delivered to the FAA on July 27,1940,' so they had the Martlet fully in service by early 1941.The narrator did not dispute this, but I think it should have been emphasized more. That the FAA would be waiting for more - which the narrator said- is acknowledged but that the FAA wouldn't be scratching their heads about which aircraft is clearly better, wasn't really mentioned. 5:50 Saying the Sea Hurricanes, while limited without folding wings, were 'better than what they had before' , also suggests that the benchmark was these pre-war Rocks and Fulmars where as the far superior Grumman Martlet was the benchmark. And notably the Sea Huriricanes were barely better. I think the issue here is that in general 'more is better' and so whether or not apples or oranges provide more or less nutrition, just get more of them, and throw away the very worst. The FAA was fascinating to see. Thanks for the video.
Well done ed ,great video , I wonder if the hawker typhoon would have being a better carrier aircraft
I am fully aware that some carriers during the Sicily campaign actually ran out of props for the Seafire !
Maybe with the Centaurus engine, the Sabre engine was a maintenance hog and prone to catch fire on startup.
At least the Seafire had the reliable Merlin, in all other respects it was less than stellar for carrier use.
@@KapiteinKrentebol The ease of maintenance and the ability to take battle damage are two of the big reasons why the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy preferred to use radial engines over liquid-cooled engines.
@@blackenedmagic888 I fully agree with that.
Brilliant. Thank you. M.
At the 14:00 mark, the picture of the Seafire on deck has what looks like JATO type pod attached to the upper wing. Is that correct, or is that something else? Very good video. Very balanced an fair.
Your videos are always top drawer , been watching biggie and Tupac conspicuously videos all morning let’s say these vids don’t fly ( not very well ) it’s all on here ain’t it , keep up the stellar work !
Going to watch this in full later today when im in work...hope mention is made of the Irish Air Corps use of it.
They get a brief mention :)
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters a video on the Spitfire Tr Mk9 two seater would be awesome.....an often forgotten variant.
Hurricane did have excellent full flap control and wery forgiving landing speeds
also, let's keep in mind that outside of operations deep in the Atlantic the British assumed naval actions would take place in range of British land bases. While this was true, what was not calculated was the fact there would never be enough modern land aircraft to operate in every conflict zone.
Seafires pictured at [20:31, 20:59, and 21:16, etc.] all have small plexiglass port holes aft of the cockpit. What was their purpose?
Cameras. They built fighter/recce models.
@Ed Nash's Military Matters That makes sense. But the pilot would have to point the wingtip at the target subject, making a pylon turn to get a picture.
Going from Grumman aircraft to the Seafire was really a journey between polar opposites. I wonder what the equivalent of a British test pilot first flying an F4F or an F6F would have been? "It doesn't break," perhaps.
Which Corsair & Hellcat variant was supposedly slower than a Seafire?
Only the ones carrying more fuel, ammo, armor than the Seafire and built tough (heavy) to withstand carrier operations. I believe the F4U-5 could pretty much smoke anything in the air at most any altitude, the F2G series was capable of almost 400 mph at sea level.
This is a little misleading and Dr. Alex Clarke does several excellent videos on this subject. The RN had a split in fighter doctrine with the long-range 2 seater fighters and a short-range single-seater interceptor for fleet defense. This existed before the Seafire came into service and can be seen in the pre-war use of several single-seat Glouster and Harwker designs on carriers in the 1930s however WW2 started at a point of transition and the proposed gull-winged single-seat high-performance naval fighter Supermarine were working on was canceled to free up production space for the Spitfire (in many ways this fighter was an updated version of the 224 but was fully navalized unlike the sea fire we got).
Another good video Ed - However I think you rather overplay the "nasty Air Ministry and RAF" card! - There are minutes of meetings where the Air Ministry try to talk the Admiralty out of carrying on with the orders for the Roc and adopt something more suitable. It was the Admiralty who had a thing about not accepting aircraft ordered for the RAF, preferring to have them designed specifically for the Navy. Indeed, RN doctrine did not see a need for single-seat fighters, thinking that the fleet should defend itself with AA fire alone. The "Sea Gladiators" were only taken on because the delivery of Rocs was behind schedule and the Gladiator production line was still going. Supermarine actually designed a beefed-up folding-wing variant of the Spitfire - The Type 338 - as early as 1939. - The First Sea Lord turned down the project - that was Winston Churchill! - The chapters on the Seafire in Morgan and Shacklady's massive tome "Spitfire-The History" cover this well.
Cheers Ed.Another top video
The word you are looking for Ed is "modify" not bodge, cheers for the video.