Why this model of Seafire?

[Buzzbait]

S!

AH has chosen to model the Seafire IIC.  This aircraft first equipped Fleet Air Arm Squadrons in June of 1942.  It was based on the Spitfire VB.

However, this aircraft only saw combat very briefly in the Torch Invasions of 8th November 1942.  As far as I know there were only a few air to air encounters, few enemy aircraft being shot down, (one being a Dewotnine D520 of the Vichy French L'Armee D'Air)

After Torch, the Seafire IIC was quickly replaced by the Seafire 'L' IIC.  This differed from the IIC in having a Merlin 32 engine, instead of the Merlin 45 or 46 which equipped the IIC.  Boost was increased to +18lb with horsepower being 1,640 at 3,000ft.  This gave the aircraft a climb rate of 4600ft/min at sea level.  Speed was considerably superior to the standard IIC.

In March of '43, all existing Seafire IIC's were converted to 'L' IIC's.

These 'L' IIC's were the aircraft which provided air support during the Invasion of Sicily in July '43, and the Invasion of Italy at Salerno in September of '43.

The two Mediterranean invasions were the periods when the Seafire saw the most combat in Europe.

I am wondering why a Seafire which was hardly used is modelled instead of the much more common 'L' IIC?

The other Seafire which saw a lot of combat was the Seafire 'L' Mk III.

It had a much better performance than the IIC as well, with a top speed of 331mph at Sea Level and a maximum initial climbrate of 4,160 ft per minute.

The 'L' Mk III Seafire was used in the Indian Ocean from the Summer of 1944.

[Karnak]

My guess would be so that it wouldn't overshadow the historically more important American and Japanese carrier aircraft in performance.  If the Seafire performed too well the much more historically important aircraft would be passed over in favor of the Seafire in much the same way that the Spitfire IX is flown more than other land based fighters (except the N1K2).

[Buzzbait]

S!  Karnak

The Seafire had lots of problems which made it eventually get replaced by the F6F and Corsair on the British Carriers.  The undercarriage was very weak and collapsed easily.  At the invasion of Salerno, which was out of range of the Allied land based fighters, 100% of the Allied Carrier fighters were Seafires.  By the second day, 38% of the Seafires were out of action due to deck landing accidents.

In the Pacific, the short range of the Seafires made them much less useful than the U.S. designed fighters.

But putting those aside, when it was in the air, the Seafire had excellent performance.  The one which AH has modelled doesn't live up to those specs.

[Karnak]

Buzzbait,

That is all true, but in AH the deck handling problems and, by and large, the lack of fuel range are eliminated.

What we'd end up with is a great performing carrier plane that would be used in greater numbers than any other in all likelyhood.

I think HTC's intentions were to give the F4Us, F6Fs and A6Ms a dominant position over the Seafire.

[mw]

Because that's the one Pyro has data for?

 

[juzz]

Oh. So I guess that's why there's only a Spitfire F.IX too.  

[Buzzbait]

S!

If the aim was to create a historical use pattern for carrier aircraft, then it has failed.  The most preferred Carrier Fighter is the C-Hog, which was produced in a LOT fewer numbers than the Seafire 'L' IIC, or 'L' III.  I'm not even sure it operated off carriers.

[funkedup]

My sarcastic answer is that HTC must always model the lowest spec of any Spitfire variant.  It's company policy.  

My real answer is what MW said plus the fact that HTC already had a Spitfire Vb.  All they had to do was change the skin and maybe add a little weight.

Personally, I'd like a Seafire XV.  

[juzz]

It's a VC in AH. VB had drums with 60rpg for the Hispanos.