Author Topic: Seafire Mk IIc (Read 1528 times)

zorstorer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:01:30 PM »

Just let me start out saying I am about as far from an expert on the Spits as anyone can get.

But from all the threads about the new spits I thought that the Seafire Mk III would be a stand in for a later war Mk V?

As it stands we are getting 2 early war spits in the Seafire Mk IIc and Spitfire MkVc?

And here I thought I had at least a tiny grasp of the spits

Also would they do both the MkIIc and the MkIII? Any reason for it?

1K3 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:04:55 PM »

i really thought we were gonna get seafire III:huh

Squire · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:06:58 PM »

They never promised a Seafire III, some sources said they were considering it, thats all.

We now have:

Seafire IIc
Spit Vb
Spit F. IX
Spit XVIe
Spit XIVe

For sure.

Last one will be a Spit IA, for 1940 no doubt, which will make 6, although I would dearly like to see a Spit VIII yet.

1K3 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:11:57 PM »

were seafire II used in pacific? my memory remembers that seafire 2 only saw action @ MTO

Squire · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:23:38 PM »

Strictly speaking, the Seafire IIc was used in the Atlantic, Med, and East Indies, with the Fleet Air Arm.

It was not used in the PAC, no, by 1944 the Seafire III replaced it, and the British Pacific Fleet went into action in 1945 with it over Taiwan, Okinawa, and the Japanese Home Islands.

1K3 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2005, 07:49:46 PM »

seafire 2 does makle a good sub for mid-war spit 5s.

i guess the *real* carrier bourne seafires will be out of the picture in PAC setups.

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2005, 09:22:58 PM »

I doubt anybody will really object to using the Seafire Mk IIc in place of the Seafire Mk III for Pac setups. No biggie really.

Kev367th · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2005, 09:32:50 PM »

See Rule #4

Kev367th · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2005, 10:02:33 PM »

See Rule #4

1K3 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2005, 10:43:55 PM »

we might get Seafire III, keep the hopes up.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2005, 10:52:27 PM »

Something still not right about the nose shape. Not sure what to say other then it just looks 'off' a bit. Spinner too small maybe....

Kev367th · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2005, 11:12:09 PM »

Easy whats not right -
It doesn't have a 55M Merlin, Ord or DT capabilities.

Sorry Karnak - Theres a world of difference between a IIc and a III as you very well know, so yes I object.

Basically you substitute a 1943 plane with a 1942 plane, and you were calling me 'nit picking' over 4 months on the D9.

1K3 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2005, 11:33:39 PM »

On Seafire IIc specs

Weight ~ 7145 lb

Range ~ (need info)

max speed (clean) ~ 342 mph TAS @ 20,700 ft

initial rate of climb ~ 2,345 ft/per min

zorstorer · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2005, 11:54:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
On Seafire IIc specs

Weight ~ 7145 lb

Range ~ (need info)

max speed (clean) ~ 342 mph TAS @ 20,700 ft

initial rate of climb ~ 2,345 ft/per min

LOL

Just take up the seafire we have now

Karnak · « **Reply #29 on:** November 04, 2005, 12:02:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Something still not right about the nose shape. Not sure what to say other then it just looks 'off' a bit. Spinner too small maybe....

It looks a little too square and the oil tank under the nose perhaps not as evenly rounded as it ought to be. It is hard to tell from static images. If we could rotate the camera around it we would be able to see if it is just the angle or if there is something off.