A poor choice.. the Seafire

[Kurfürst]

358 mph max speed in 1944 ?  Wow.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
358 mph max speed in 1944 ?  Wow.

Remember its still basically a Mk V.

Lol all you want, the 109T topped out at around the same speed, and how many of them were made. LOL LOL LOL

Ultimate Seafire was the Type 47 - 451mph @ 20k, 2375hp Griffon 87 or 88.

[Kurfürst]

I stepped on a nerve, it seems.
I do wonder though why the Brits bothered with the Seafire, a basically completely unsuited plane with its light structure and narrow undercarriage, and the first operational use of the Seafire was less than sensational, to put it mildly, basically they wiped themselves out in landing accidents. why bother with it when L-L Hellcats, Corsairs were available...

[Kev367th]

Easy answer if you actually think about it -

It's wartime.
Small country.
Can't afford vast numbers of different planes.
Manufacturing capacity.

Therefore it's easier to take an existing design and modify it for another use - QED.

Real easy if you take the time to THINK ABOUT IT.

Nice example - The Mosquito: If it had been made out of metal instead of wood, it never would have got the go ahead, as it would have drawn too much resources away from other production.

[Kurfürst]

Costs? I don`t know. The spit was listed as something like 45 000 pounds in 1943 - about 160 000 USD I believe. You could buy any of the big-prettythang US radials for that much.

Why was the Spit so frigging expensive btw? Hand made or something? High profit rates?

[Kev367th]

The elliptical wing was the biggest problem.

Basically it comes down to cost and manufacturing capacity.
Only a small island.

Same holds true today with the -
Tornado
Harrier
Typhoon

All produced in various guises to fulfill all the roles required.

[1K3]

Eh didnt the Commonwealth countries produced bombers and fighters for RAF? That should relieve some pressure on the Florida sized island.

[Kev367th]

Yup but with the U-Boats you couldn't rely on delivery. It was hard enough getting spits to Malta!!!!
Most production was 'at home'.

[Squire]

Yes, it was essentially a "hopped up" Spitfire L.F. V navalised for CV ops, but it wasn't a "conversion", it was built as a naval fighter from the outset, albeit from a land based design.

They had a lot of accidents in the Torch operation because of the low wind conditions and the small CVE decks many operated from. They had a much better landing record on the larger Fleet Carriers in the pacific.

I think they continued on with it because it was being produced, and they probably needed the #s to fill out the Fleet. The RN built up a large Carrier force by 1944. Im also not certain if the RN had trouble getting enough F4Us and F6Fs from the USA. There were a lot of issues there. National pride might also be a factor?, but I can't say for certain, im only speculating.

"Eh didnt the Commonwealth countries produced bombers and fighters for RAF?"

Yes, many. Mostly from Canada.

[Kev367th]

Yeah Squire, my bad.

By conversion I really should have said commonality of parts between the land and sea based variants.
All goes to keeping costs down, production high, and less time to initial deliveries .i.e. very little retooling required at the factorys.

[Mathman]

Everyone should fly the Seafire.  It is much better than the Hellcat at everything except carrying bombs.  As a matter of fact, the Hellcat is only good for carrying bombs.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Mathman
Everyone should fly the Seafire.  It is much better than the Hellcat at everything except carrying bombs.  As a matter of fact, the Hellcat is only good for carrying bombs.

I agree.

-- Todd/Leviathn