Seafire IIc - Merlin 46 or 32?

[Kev367th]

Brief history -
First 166 built fitted with Merlin 46.
Last 372 fitted with Merlin 32.
All the original batch of 166 were retro-fitted with Merlin 32.

So which should we have?

Designated L IIc the Merlin 32 seems the logical choice considering eventually all became L IIc's.

Also makes a perfect stand-in (ignoring hook) for a 1942/3 LF Vc. Same wing, same engine (some LF Vc's fitted with Merlin 32).

[Squire]

I beleive the Seafire L. IIcs were all fitted with a 4-blader prop.

But that would be a minor change. In any case, I doubt we will see it, they have made their decision seems to me...

Personally I would have preferred a Seafire L.IIc or a Seafire F. III, but hey thats show business  ...and we did get a Spit XVIe.

When they redo the Corsairs I will be campaigning for a Corsair IV with the blunted wing tips, for the Fleet Air Arm of 1945. Cuz they look too darn good not to have.

[Kev367th]

3 to 4 bladed prop is a cosmetic change viz a viz the model.
Seems ridiculous to get about the rarest Seafire produced with the rarest configuration it flew in.

XVI - Oh you mean the 1943 LF IXe, oops off topic.

Would still ask for the IIc to be done in its commonest configuration, especially considering ALL Seafire IIc's were eventually fitted with the Merlin 32.

Decision - true but remember the Ki-84, originally was without WEP until lobbying proved some did have it.

[1K3]

i checked spitfireperformance.com and check seafire 2c.  the test is using merlin 46

[2bighorn]

yeah, 32 engine, please!

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by 1K3
i checked spitfireperformance.com and check seafire 2c.  the test is using merlin 46

Look here under Seafire Mk L IIc, not Seafire Mk IIc.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138.html

Uses a Merlin 32, Merlin 46 only fitted to initial 166 built (even they were retrofitted with 32).

[1K3]

btw does Seafire II and seafire III look alike?

[Kev367th]

III has 6 exhaust stubs instead of 3.
Had a 'Z' folding wing, but they aren't modelled anway.

[1K3]

hmmm i just noticed that the performance diffrence between Seafire IIc (with merlin 46 engine) and Seafire III (with merlin 50 enging) is not that much (in climbrate) BUT seafire IIc is faster at medium to hgih altitudes.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by 1K3
hmmm i just noticed that the performance diffrence between Seafire IIc (with merlin 46 engine) and Seafire III (with merlin 50 enging) is not that much (in climbrate) BUT seafire IIc is faster at medium to hgih altitudes.

Nope.  It  isn't too different if we get the Merlin 46 Seafire Mk IIc.

I am not sure if the FM will even be changed on the Seafire from what we have though.  We'll find out in a little while I think.

[Squire]

Biggest difference is with the more common Seafire L.III with the Merlin 55M. +18 lbs boost and a low alt blower, in the same ballpark as a Spit L.F. V.

[Kev367th]

So is the IIc with a Merlin 32, very close to Mk V.

[justin_g]

Merlin 32 is a low alt engine, ~1600hp so it would be like a LF.V

[1K3]

the top speed maxes out somewhere around 9,000+ feet @ 350+ mph.  

if seafire II with merlin 32 comes out, the ENY for seafire 2 should be lowered a bit.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by justin_g
Merlin 32 is a low alt engine, ~1600hp so it would be like a LF.V

Yup, thats why I said it would be a good stand-in for an LF V. Same wing also (universal).
As a Merlin 46 it's only really suitable (almost) as a stand-in for an F .V