PDA

View Full Version : Seafire landing characteristics



FAAdiogenes
08-13-2004, 10:01 PM
I'm going to have to get my books out of storage for this one... Unless someone has a better memory than me.

The Spitfire was a pretty touchy aircraft to handle on the ground because of its narrow-wheelbase.
This, naturally, became much worse on a pitching carrier deck - especially with the high landing speed characteristics the fighter had.

In the Med, the Seafire MkI proved almost to be a failure due to its alarmingly high number of deck landing crashes. Admittedly, this navalised fighter was trying to land on the little "Woolworths" escort carriers...
The problem was a combination of high approach speed, narrow wheel carriage and limited sight from the cockpit...

But, from memory, this problem was largely solved partway through the FAA's excursion into the Pacific.

Like many "fixes", it was accidental.

The Seafire's other liability - it's short endurance - prompted the adoption of a belly tank for fuel.
This tank reduced the fighter's landing approach speed significantly.
Combined with a sweeping curved deck approach, the crash rate was dramatically reduced.

Whatever the case, the Seafire was a poor compromise. A fix for a failed pre-war carrier doctrine that saw fighter aircraft being stowed beneath armoured flightdecks during air attack!!!!

But the navalised Sea Fury (too late for the war) was one conversion that did not appear to suffer in its naval role...

-----------
FAAdiogenes
-----------

FAAdiogenes
08-13-2004, 10:01 PM
I'm going to have to get my books out of storage for this one... Unless someone has a better memory than me.

The Spitfire was a pretty touchy aircraft to handle on the ground because of its narrow-wheelbase.
This, naturally, became much worse on a pitching carrier deck - especially with the high landing speed characteristics the fighter had.

In the Med, the Seafire MkI proved almost to be a failure due to its alarmingly high number of deck landing crashes. Admittedly, this navalised fighter was trying to land on the little "Woolworths" escort carriers...
The problem was a combination of high approach speed, narrow wheel carriage and limited sight from the cockpit...

But, from memory, this problem was largely solved partway through the FAA's excursion into the Pacific.

Like many "fixes", it was accidental.

The Seafire's other liability - it's short endurance - prompted the adoption of a belly tank for fuel.
This tank reduced the fighter's landing approach speed significantly.
Combined with a sweeping curved deck approach, the crash rate was dramatically reduced.

Whatever the case, the Seafire was a poor compromise. A fix for a failed pre-war carrier doctrine that saw fighter aircraft being stowed beneath armoured flightdecks during air attack!!!!

But the navalised Sea Fury (too late for the war) was one conversion that did not appear to suffer in its naval role...

-----------
FAAdiogenes
-----------

Fliger747
08-14-2004, 07:13 PM
Capt. "Winkle" Brown talks a bit aboutthe seafire. A delightfull plane to fly bu not really robust enough for the rough and tumble world of deck ops. The major problem (serious) with the ops on the escort carriers off Italy was a total lack of wind and the slow 18 knot speed of the ships. At least in much of the Pacific one has the trade winds, at a steady 15-18 knots.

The circular apprach and hanging one's head outside the cockpit like a dog in a pickup truck was of some assistance.

The narrow undercarrage is (as in the Wildcat) not such a disadvantage in aressted landings which tend to jerk you straight.

Arm_slinger
08-15-2004, 09:32 AM
Just try not to thump the Seafire down too hard, she won't thank you for it if you do lol

A.K.A 242Sqn_Kye

"Target for Tonight" the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)
Also the home of 242 Squadron

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/untitled4.bmp

jpatrick62
08-16-2004, 10:54 AM
The Seafire problem was one reason why the Royal Navy purchased Hellcats and Corsairs during the war. The Seafire Mk 3 was actually a nice handling plane, though short on performance by 1944 standards, when it was tested in the 1944 Interservice fighter conference.

RAC_Pips
08-16-2004, 04:14 PM
Anyone interested in Seafires in the FAA should read "They Gave Me A Seafire", by Mike Crosley.

According to the author (a Seafire pilot in WWII) the Seafire was as almost as good as the Hellcat in Carrier landings, and much better than the Corsair. It was very stable in the approach, flew very slowly into the touchdown and had no adverse stall characteristics. His only real complaint was lack of view on the final approach - which was no better or worse than the Corsair.

Arm_slinger
08-16-2004, 04:35 PM
The problem lies in her touching the deck, her legs are frail and slender, unlike the man legs of the Grummans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A.K.A 242Sqn_Kye

"Target for Tonight" the definitive night bombing simulation ever, featuring the RAF's Bomber Command.

www.nightbomber.com/forums (http://www.nightbomber.com/forums)
Also the home of 242 Squadron

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/untitled4.bmp

HangerQueen
08-16-2004, 09:00 PM
That's 'cause she's a lady! you gotta treat her with respect.

Speed is a device of Shaitan - Fremen Proverb