Supermarine Seafire; The Great British Bodge Job

Рет қаралды 176,345

Жыл бұрын

The Spitfire was just about the least suitable aircraft to convert use on aircraft carriers. But in 1941 the British found they didn't have a choice.
Despite this, and a rather bad attrition rate, the type went on to have a rather long and successful career.
Check out Mortons Books and don't forget to use promo code EDNASH10 to get 10% off:
www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/
Other sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatters.online/
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO

Пікірлер: 432

@avipatable Жыл бұрын

One of my favourite autobiographies from WW2 is "They Gave Me a Seafire." cannot recommend it enough, Commander Crosley was a great pilot and writes a great book! Quite scathing of one or two of the Admirals (Admiral Vian!) he served under who viewed aircraft and pilots with disdain and never bothered to learn to understand how to use them through much of the war. The Seafires failure at Salerno was he said was caused by this attitude - the carriers were slow and short escort carriers, winds were calm and the result was that the seafire pilots had great difficulty in getting down onto the tiny deck with very little headwind. In the pacific the accident rate on the fast large fleet carriers was far more respectable. In addition his squadron devised the 3 way attack system of ground targets and had a far better loss rate than the Corsair squadrons they were working with. Very interesting book. Highly recommend.

@tbjtbj7930 Жыл бұрын

Agreed, fine book. IIRC the Salerno problems were largely due to operating Seafires off small (non-Fleet) carriers, where everything had a high crash rate. But the reputation stuck.

@avipatable Жыл бұрын

@@tbjtbj7930 Ah glad someone else has read and commented. It is great - analytical and insightful, yet great humour too. Yes you are right, I guess when you have Admiral's slagging them off people listen - justifiably or not!

@bobsakamanos4469 Ай бұрын

Well said !! There are too many media posts that are ill informed and regurgitate nothing but half truths. Certainly, the Seafire wasn't ideal but it was far better than the Sea Hurricane. Seafires in the Pacific were fitted with P-40 drop tanks which change aerodynamics and made landings much more manageable for the slippery Seafire. The Seafire III could outrun and out perform the Corsair under 10,000'.

@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын

You missed a major issue. Until mid-1939 the FAA was part of the RAF.

@catmandoodoo7903 Жыл бұрын

I get the feeling that history is in the process of repeating itself

@exF3-86 Жыл бұрын

Having watched the entire submission I believe that was acknowledged either directly or indirectly

@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын

@@exF3-86 no it wasn't.

@chonqmonk Жыл бұрын

@@catmandoodoo7903 In what way?

@catmandoodoo7903 Жыл бұрын

@@chonqmonk the FAA is no more and the RAF are in control of the carrier based fighters. Also we appear to be completely unprepared for a future conflict.

@S2Sturges Жыл бұрын

My father was a leading airman in the Royal Navy and did two tours of the Far East in the late 1940's to early 1950's on the HMS Warrior. The carrier was equipped with both Seafire and SeaFury aircraft, that as mentioned, didn't have a great track record .. My father left me two albums of photos of his tours, albeit on tiny two and a quarter by two and a quarter sized photos... Many showed Seafires strewn across the deck, tangled in ropes or hanging off the carrier decks, with my father's wry captions, like "ah, well// he's only learning (we hope..)" and such, photos of said aircraft either being chucked in to the ocean after being stripped , or in the bowels of the carrier or in Singapore or Hong Kong, ashore, and being rebuilt ... I sadly gave the albums to my older brother as I was in the midst of being a nomad and wanted to try and save them for some future generations, but thank you for the lively and interesting video!

@benwilson6145 Жыл бұрын

Winkle’ Brown described the Griffon-engined Seafire as “sheer magic”.

@gunner678 Жыл бұрын

Exactly, the guru of test pilots!

@01Bouwhuis Жыл бұрын

Now... winkle wasn't your average, combat fatigued pilot.

@geordiedog1749 Жыл бұрын

Winkle could land Concorde on a lifeboat.

@offshoretomorrow3346 Жыл бұрын

Aaaah, what did he know!

@trooperdgb9722 Жыл бұрын

@@01Bouwhuis Indeed. I think his comments on the more 'difficult" aircraft need to be viewed through the lens of his VAST experience (and incredible natural talent) Something HE described as "interesting" or (God Forbid) "challenging" might well have been "suicidal" for the average pilot.

@philiphumphrey1548 Жыл бұрын

Great video. May father was a FAA mechanic during the war that worked on Seafires. He told me about one of the early ones with the counter rotating double propeller, pilots were warned to keep the rudder neutral during take off because there was no pull to one side. One pilot cut them off with "I know what I'm doing", and then proceeded to take off in a series of swerves.

@rosiehawtrey Жыл бұрын

It's enough to make yer weep...

@JohnnyRocker2162 Жыл бұрын

@@rosiehawtrey Boomps a Daisy......

@Ob1sdarkside Жыл бұрын

That flap bodge is a wonderful English garden shed fix

@KapiteinKrentebol Жыл бұрын

13:08 The best way to land the Seafire on a carrier is with the landing gear retracted.

@Splattle101 Жыл бұрын

That was a fantastic landing, wasn't it? He dropped it really quickly before flaring it over the stern to level out and stall it just a couple of feet above the deck. Puckered sphincters all round, but jeez that could've been SOOOO much worse. He did a proper job of it.

@anaugle2484 Жыл бұрын

Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂. The jokes on these types of channels make me laugh way too hard lol.

@ianmcsherry5254 Жыл бұрын

Perhaps the inspiration for the post-war tests with wheels-up landings on a pneumatic deck. Something Eric Brown also flew. Of course.

@joeperson4792 Жыл бұрын

Putting wedges in the flaps just to make this thing take off and subsequent improvements tells a fine tale of dogged persistence. Inspiring.

@hammer1349 4 ай бұрын

When something needs doing, it gets done any way it needs to

@simtalkayak Жыл бұрын

A series on the Malta air war would be highly appreciated and interesting imo.

@garynew9637 Жыл бұрын

Good read called Faith, Hope and charity. Brilliant account.

@bobsakamanos4469 Ай бұрын

Malta was not a pleasant story before the Spitfires arrived. The Hurricanes were massacred by the LW.

@martentrudeau6948 Жыл бұрын

An amazing and very British Seafire story, make due and mend, make the Spit do what it was never intended to do, fix it, and modify it on the fly. And very high praise from Corky Meyer. Great video thanks Ed.

@rogerkay8603 Жыл бұрын

The Fulmar outdid itself, thanks to some brave and skilful men

@chonqmonk Жыл бұрын

This is my first exposure to the word 'bodge.' I only recently learned the word, 'grotty.'

@owen368 Жыл бұрын

We have a weaith of ropey words phrases and sayings for the uninitiated.

@timhancock6626 Жыл бұрын

Grotty almost certainly originated in Liverpool as a slang word for Grotesque. Quite when I don't know, but possibly in the 1950s.

@stevenlowe3026 Жыл бұрын

@@timhancock6626 I first came across it in "A Hard Day's Night" when George Harrison uses it.

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

@@timhancock6626grotty is used all over the UK!, its a reference to describing a smeggy home and its owner taken from the word Grotto then a upgrade to Grottbags with the She dweller of said such hovel....Normally consisting of a scruffy old grey haired lady wearing a house coat, with a rollie hanging out her mouth sliding about in her slippers and stinking of wee!....and quite ofternly will be found hording dozens of moggies!...

@whtalt92 Жыл бұрын

Despite it's disadvantages, Seafires were kept in the BPF because compared to the USN fighters they had the best climb rate (if that was meant with 'fast'). That, combined with fighter control from the RN carriers, made them ideal for CAP over the carrier groups.

@jlvfr Жыл бұрын

Yep. People forget that the Spifire was mainly designed as a _bomber interceptor_ for home defense, at a time when radar either didn't exist or was just being set up. You have to climb _fast_ for such a mission; none of that leisure flying at sea! :D

@Philistine47 Жыл бұрын

The Seafire's high rate of climb made it great for deck-launched intercepts; but if you hung enough fuel on it to give it the endurance needed for the CAP mission (so the CVs weren't having to spend all their time cycling CAP fighters), the extra weight and drag cost it most of that advantage.

@jlvfr Жыл бұрын

@@Philistine47 but for those the RN had the Corsair and Hellcat.

@jlvfr Жыл бұрын

Ironic how the kamikaze helped so much to rescue the Seafire's reputation.

@sylvaleader Жыл бұрын

We really were lucky having the Spitfire during WW2. It was able to be adapted for so many varied roles during the conflict, was used everywhere the British fought and pretty well always gave a good account of itself. We didn't have the range of aircraft types that we would have liked, but happily the Spitfire always seemed able to be plug the gap. whether or not it was the best fighter of the war is open to debate (it is at least a contender), but without it, things would have been a hell of a lot harder for us. Remember it was the only allied fighter that was with us on the first day of the war and with us on the last day and was just as dangerous at the end as it had been at the beginning. In pointing out all it's weaknesses, we are forgetting just how brilliant this little aeroplane was. Thank God we had it.

@whyjnot420 Жыл бұрын

Food for thought for anyone who usually thinks of bodge as synonymous with botch: Bodge does not need to be read as bad or botch or garbage or whatnot. It can also mean something that is rushed and inelegant, but still perfectly functional. More akin to the term 'jury rig'. (though jury rig implies on the spot improvisation, not something that is actually planned)

@davefloyd9443 Жыл бұрын

"An engineered solution to an unexpected problem"

@whyjnot420 10 ай бұрын

@@davefloyd9443 But how many were actually done as a result of known but ignored problems? E.g. adding a gunpod to the F-4.

@davefloyd9443 10 ай бұрын

Not a problem when you've doctrinally committed to a2a missiles........ oh, wait. 😁

@Demun1649 8 ай бұрын

@@whyjnot420 What is an "F-4"? I don't recall the British ever building an aircraft called that.

@whyjnot420 8 ай бұрын

@@Demun1649I don't recall saying they did... ffs

@FirstDagger Жыл бұрын

We are inching ever closer to the inevitable Westland Wyvern episode. Which honestly I kinda dread, as I particularly like that type in a certain flight game.

@williamspencer1978 Жыл бұрын

Our golden birds shall stay safe

@Pete-tq6in Жыл бұрын

That arrested landing at 00:27 is a sublime bit of airmanship. To put a Seafire on the deck of a carrier with a partially extended undercarriage leg on one side and not even ding the prop is beyond remarkable. Naval aviators are truly the best of the best.

@bobsakamanos4469 Ай бұрын

Good summary, hitting most of the key points. Glad you included Corky Meyer's comments on the Mk.III, and you nailed it regarding the obsolete Hurricane.

@ratofvengence Жыл бұрын

I'm supposed to be writing teaching programs due tomorrow. And then you drop another vid.... ARRGH! I'll watch it tomorrow night. Love your work mate :)

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Жыл бұрын

Cheers! And the video will still be there tomorrow ;)

@ratofvengence Жыл бұрын

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Finally got to it. Brilliant as always, thank you :)

@DoktorStrangelove Жыл бұрын

Solution for all naval WWII fighter problems: Just license-build anything from Grumman.

@andrewoliver8930 Жыл бұрын

Grumman made great naval planes.

@bobsakamanos4469 28 күн бұрын

That was the plan towards the end of the war. At least one company was tasked to set up factories in Canada to build upgraded Hellcats by Vickers FV-1 & FV-2 (ie Mk. III & IV) when it was assumed that the Pacific war would extend into 1946 with an invasion of Japan. Plans were cancelled.

@stay_at_home_astronaut Жыл бұрын

They must have had to rework the vertical stabilizer offset when switching from the Merlin (clockwise propellor rotation) to Griffin (anti-clockwise rotation). That is a non-trivial change for production tooling when building these birds.

@kidpagronprimsank05 Жыл бұрын

They certainly were and with change to bubble canopy the tail also need change too. And, by that point, they start the to production of land based Griffon powered Spitfire already so it not big issue. The real issue was CG as carrier plane needed tail hook and some strengthen and most of this would mess the CG of the plane

@robertbalazslorincz8218 Жыл бұрын

When your Seafire Mk. III sniffs some of that good ol' P-40 droptanks: *insert Sabaton - Metal Crüe but sung with a British accent here*

@BHuang92 Жыл бұрын

The British conversion of the Spitfire mirrors that of the German attempt to convert the Bf109 into a carrier fighter.

@13stalag13 Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the Fw-190 would have been a MUCH better choice.

@hatman4818 Жыл бұрын

@Ken Mrozak While I agree from a pilot safety, visibility, range, and aircraft recovery perspective, the FW-190 has its own downsides vs the BF-109. I doubt Germany was going to engineer either aircraft to have folding wings for better fighter capacity in their carrier, as doing so wouldn't be as cost efficient as just adapting the plane as is. The BF-109 was one of the smallest single seat fighters of the war, which means they could have packed a reasonable amount of them on a carrier, even without wing folding. Also, if you were going to try and reengineer the wings of eithet plane, the BF-109's is easier to modify (not just for wing folding, but also for inboard retracting landing gear if they really wanted to address that problem). This is because the BF-109 was designed from the get go to have wings that bolt onto the fuselage rather simply, to speed up the production process. So it wouldnt be hard to strip out the landing gear from the center wing box on the fuselage, replace it with wheel wells, and then install the landing gear in the wings instead as inward folding. It would make it a little harder to move BF-109 fuselages around the factory floor, but would address the core problem of the BF 109 as a naval fighter without much engineering effort.

@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788 10 ай бұрын

@@13stalag13 It even looks like a carrier fighter.

@bobsakamanos4469 28 күн бұрын

The difference being that Britain actually had functioning aircraft carriers.

@nickdanger3802 Жыл бұрын

1940 Britain had Wildcats before the US Navy when French contracts were "transferred" to Britain. 1941 December HMS Audacity sunk with four "Martlets". 1942 June Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

Here's PRICKDANGLER with his noncence - icle spam again! , written as to pretend to be in the know and intelligent?😂, ole TRACTOR and BIGTITTY must be still in bed, or the troll line not connecting!!!........Asking for some braindeads......

@kenking1228 Жыл бұрын

No one ever mention the only Seafire ace of WW2 ,Sub Lt R(Dickie) Reynolds DSC AFC FAA,who was a member of 104 Sqn ( Cambridge)ADCC,later the ATC,I joined 104 Sqn in 1961 and retired as Sqn WO in Sept 2022, and had the pleasure of meeting Dickie in the late 80s,he retire as a Commander RNin the 70s!.

@bobsakamanos4469 28 күн бұрын

What's a Sqn WO? WO1 ?

@kenking1228 28 күн бұрын

@@bobsakamanos4469 Yes!.

@bobsakamanos4469 28 күн бұрын

@@kenking1228 My father was a WO1 MU test pilot. Then when he took his commission to P/O he went to the bottom of the pecking order.

@louwvandermerwe178 Ай бұрын

47 makes the design even better!

@aldenconsolver3428 Жыл бұрын

Whenever I hear about Britian not getting enough fighters in the early war years my mind turns back to the heroic job that Roosevelt did to get any aircraft to Britian at all. The republicans wanted to stay out entirely and sell equipment to the highest bidder and the UK had already spent all they had and US banks would not extend credit. Then the US Military more or less knew that they were going to be in a fight soon but had no idea of what they were going to need and (understandably) tried to hang to anything that came their way. FDR then came up with a plan that declared almost everything no longer required by the US Military could be sent to Great Britian, to the extent he was responsible for sending martlets to England as no longer required when they were still in factory primer and only had a test hop. FDR followed that with shipping 50 old beat up destroyers to England in exchange for leases on bases that if England fell would be grab by the US anyway. Then some trashed out old boats but they still they met the qualification better than nothing. Grant tanks when the Sherman was still in testing and a hundred other things to give the desperately hard fighting Brits a chance. Then FDR had the nerve to deploy US destroyers on the Atlantic convoys, they did not know what they were doing but they learned pretty fast and that not only helped the British but was the training the US would need when they all in. These were truly the days of the few saving the many, obviously the British but the common wealth and a few people in the US who knew how scr*wed the world would be if England fell.

@bobsakamanos4469 28 күн бұрын

The US was happy to stay neutral and take British gold; however by March 1941 Churchill was informed that germany intended to attack the USSR (main goal- oil near Stalingrad). N.Africa: It was also in Feb-March 1941 that the Afrika Korps arrived in Africa. The italians had already discovered oil in Libya-Algeria in 1938. Iran/Iraq: Iraq was also partial to Germany and its military leaders overthrew their government 1 April 1941. Britain then invaded Iraq. Iran also favoured Germany and 50% of its trade was with Germany - Britain invaded Iran in 1941 and replaced its german friendly leader. Germany's interest was the oil fields owned by the Anglo-Persian oil company (BP Oil). Coincidently, the Lend-Lease Act was also signed into law on March 11, 1941. Main reason - protecting oil sources. They were not too concerned about England and knew germany wasn't interested in invading her.

@spudskie3907 Жыл бұрын

I had to look up the word "bodge" before watching the video. Now I can't wait to use it in a sentence!

@IntrospectorGeneral Жыл бұрын

The Royal Australian Navy appears to have never operated Seafires but lists one land-based Spitfire in service as a "trainer". The Royal Australian Navy established its Fleet Air Arm in 1948, embarking Sea Furies on its first carrier in 1949. The Australian War Museum online collection has some 1951 footage of deck landing practice with their new aircraft (Furies and Fireflies) demonstrating "enthusiasm unmatched by skill".

@jamesfisher4326 Жыл бұрын

Report I've seen indicated that the Seafire had poor landing characteristics on a carrier. It tended to float rather than set down. Of course in intense carrier use it wasn't up to the pounding.

@manricobianchini5276 Жыл бұрын

Hey Rex, hard to believe it could better the Corsair.

@paulbantick8266 Жыл бұрын

At certain altitudes it was faster than the Corsair. It was certainly more maneuverable.

@bobsakamanos4469 Ай бұрын

Why? The Corsair was a brute; heavy with a very thick wing that would be a drag at low level. The Seafire III was definitely faster and more manouverable under 10,000' especially with the Merlin 55M optimized for that level.

@jamesdalton2014 Жыл бұрын

I've often wondered why no one considered using a Boulton-Paul Defiant as a naval fighter. It fell out of favour with the RAF after the Battle of Britain so, it could have been adapted for naval use without much resistance. It could have been offered in 2 versions: a two-seat variant without a turret and a single-seat version. I've researched the likely performance characteristics of these versions and they would have been better than anything until the later Seafires. It had wide landing gear, good armament and probably could have been modified for carrier use relatively easily. The curse of institutional inertia and lack of imagination strikes again.

@jamesricker3997 Жыл бұрын

The FAA had their own version, the Roc. It was worse than the Defiant and left a bad taste in their mouths.

@rokuth Жыл бұрын

Didn't they do that with the Skua, and Roc? (Except for the single seater version...)

@jamesdalton2014 Жыл бұрын

@@rokuth There is a lot to unpack in order to compare these aircraft; mostly because the Defiant versions that could have been used were just prototypes. The FAA chose the Roc over the Defiant but, when one examines their performance characteristics, it's clear the FAA didn't base their choice on which was the superior aircraft. The Roc weighed nearly 20 kgs more than the Defiant but, it's engine was more than 100 hp less powerful. This meant the Roc's top speed was 80 mph slower than the Defiant and it's cruising speed was 50 mph slower. The Defiant Mk.1 may have lost that edge once the airplane was modified for carrier use (strengthened landing gear, arrestor hook and folding wings) but, the Mk. 2 had a 1,280 hp engine that would have compensated for the additional weight. Given the continued development of the Merlin engine, later (hypothetical) marks of the Defiant would have been even more powerful. So, simply swapping the Defiant for the Roc would have led to a better outcome for the FAA over time. However, a much better case for the Defiant can be made by removing the turret and giving it forward-firing guns. The single-seat P.94 prototype weighed at least 1,000 lbs less (the purported weight of the turret) and was reported to have a top speed of 360 mph. This put it in the same class as the Spitfire, even if it wasn't as maneuverable. It would have beat the pants off anything the FAA had (or was even considering) at the time. A two-seat version (without a turret) would have made the Skua look third-rate but, to be fair, the Skua was really a dive bomber not a fighter. The Fairey Fulmar is a more accurate comparison and a turretless Defiant would likely have been the superior aircraft (based on likely power-to-weight ratios). As I said, the reasons for not choosing the Defiant had nothing to do with performance and everything to do with institutional bias and lack of imagination. (As an aside, based on the Skua and the Roc, one might be led to surmise that Navy men just prefer ugly birds!)

@rokuth Жыл бұрын

@@jamesdalton2014 ; Wow! Thanks for the detailed response. Truly appreciate the time and effort you took. Does fill in a lot of blanks for me.

@darrenjpeters Жыл бұрын

Seriously? A Hurricane would have made far more sense than the ill conceived Defiant.

@colinmartin2921 Жыл бұрын

It would have helped if the FAA had not insisted that carrier-borne fighters had to be cumbersome two seaters, right up to the Fairey Firefly, which could have been a pretty good fighter.

@jaiell2049 Жыл бұрын

I remember seeing a presumably photos hopped single seat Firefly V, and it looked fine

@Seraphus87 Жыл бұрын

Beautiful, potent, dangerous AF to its own users.

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

Bit like the P38 then or better still the corsair untill some nation was first to master it on carriers....

@acomingextinction Жыл бұрын

Man, that's as blunt an initial assessment as I've heard from Ed. But not wrong, at all.

@johnforsyth7987 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for another very informative video. This video reminds of the saying "You go to war with that you have. Not what you want."

@Liddledriver Жыл бұрын

Observation was the primary emphasis dictated by the admiralty for fleet aircraft with the Barracuda being an excellent example. The air combat capability was secondary until it became essential to have aircraft that could protect the fleet. Sturtevent"s epic publication is a great resource. Also Mike Crosley"s book They Gave Me a Seafire is a must have book for. FAA fans,

@martinhowell3475 Жыл бұрын

The word you are looking for Ed is "modify" not bodge, cheers for the video.

@starpilot101 Жыл бұрын

The firefly was one of the rare good WW2 British naval fighters. Very good armament, decent turning ability and excellent low speed handling - crucial for carrier landings. The extra size (for the navigator) is a drawback, should have been a gunner instead like on American helldivers.

@Zorglub1966 Жыл бұрын

Hi! What a good surprise! Let's have a look!

@aceofhearts573 4 ай бұрын

Sad that the Supermarine Seafang never made it to the fleet

@robbudden Жыл бұрын

They gave me a Seafire by RM Crosley, is bar none one of the greatest books I have read. It is a must

@nomorebikes Жыл бұрын

Ok... as an avid aviation enthusiast, especially of WW2 aircraft, I'm rather ashamed to admit I was not aware of the significant RAF involvement in the Pacific Theater. I'm a US Navy vet, my dad a Navy fighter pilot and my grandfather was a Navy B-24 pilot in the Pacific... thus, most of my reading entails development of American aircraft. For my UK brothers/sisters in arms, I offer my most sincere apology for my obvious naivety, but more deeply my gratitude for the blood, sweat and courage put forth by your finest. My glass in raised in your honor! Cheers!

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

Better late than never i suppose?, but the damage already done?, but thanks for the thought....you are certainly in the minorities.... Take care and same to you friend!..

@gunner678 Жыл бұрын

Great video, thoroughly enjoyed that. The illustrious Eric 'winkle' Brown has an interesting account of the Seafires and Sea Hurricanes. 👍

@johndavey72 Жыл бұрын

Excellent coverage Ed. I know quite a lot about all the varients but everydays a school day . As for purchasing any literature . Due to circumstances beyond my control l can hardly afford a tin of baked beans at present . I 'll know in a few weeks if l can keep the house !!!! .....you just never know what's around the corner !

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Жыл бұрын

Yesh! Sorry to hear that man. Hope it all works out.

@raymondyee2008 Жыл бұрын

That’s the problem with the Seafire; the landing gear cannot handle carrier deck operations where rough going is the norm on landing. On the other hand, they proved dangerous to Japanese Kamikazes over Okinawa when assigned to the British Pacific Fleet.

@ottovonbismarck2443 Жыл бұрын

No need to talk about the quality of this video - just standard excellency. 👍😄 What is that "payload" at 11:20 ? Looks like four mortar shells strapped to the belly.

@maxstoner5527 Жыл бұрын

Great title! This is a must watch ✌️🇦🇺 We had these? That’s awesome I wonder if any museums have 1 on display down under

@ratofvengence Жыл бұрын

We had Spitfires, but no Seafires. By the time we got carriers, Sea Furies were the best piston naval fighter.

@russdority6295 Жыл бұрын

We only used them for flight deck training

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

@@russdority6295why would you train in something that was notoriously temperamentle but very much needed if not ever going to be using or flying them after anyhow, your comment makes no sence, in fact it makes you look rather silly or just blatantly a saltyphobe!, so which one is it?....

@johndell3642 Жыл бұрын

Another good video Ed - However I think you rather overplay the "nasty Air Ministry and RAF" card! - There are minutes of meetings where the Air Ministry try to talk the Admiralty out of carrying on with the orders for the Roc and adopt something more suitable. It was the Admiralty who had a thing about not accepting aircraft ordered for the RAF, preferring to have them designed specifically for the Navy. Indeed, RN doctrine did not see a need for single-seat fighters, thinking that the fleet should defend itself with AA fire alone. The "Sea Gladiators" were only taken on because the delivery of Rocs was behind schedule and the Gladiator production line was still going. Supermarine actually designed a beefed-up folding-wing variant of the Spitfire - The Type 338 - as early as 1939. - The First Sea Lord turned down the project - that was Winston Churchill! - The chapters on the Seafire in Morgan and Shacklady's massive tome "Spitfire-The History" cover this well.

@john_smithchiropractor3931 Жыл бұрын

Who needs a book when Ed provides a much better narration!

@marioacevedo5077 Жыл бұрын

Great video. Always a pleasure to learn more about one of my favorite subjects, the aircraft of WW2,

@williamprince1114 Жыл бұрын

I have often wondered if the creative minds that turned the spitfire into the Seafire could have turned the P40 Warhawk into a P40 Seahawk for use off jeep carriers to stymie UBoats and raiders. The P40 had a reputation as a decent ground support aircraft, gave good performance at low level as a fighter, and operated well from rough runways. Strengths that would apply to carrier borne craft. But as is so often the case …. by the time you knew what you needed, the time to build it had passed.

@theodorsebastian4272 Жыл бұрын

Gloster F5 and Miles fighter would have been an ideal fighter for carrier conversion,Another missed opportunity by the British I guess.

@superjuca55 Жыл бұрын

Gloster F5, Vickers Venom and Bristol Type 146, all 3 radial air cooled, all metal monoplanes that at least according to wikipedia were pretty competent designs. All they needed was more powerfull engines (Bristol Hercules) and they could have had 'british zeros'.

@stephensowell9578 Жыл бұрын

Ed, have you produced a video on the Seafury? If not, will you consider one? Seafury has been very attractive to me, Yet I know little about it. Thank you for the Seafire video. Much was learned about the struggles to incorporate it into carrier-based operations.

@rokuth Жыл бұрын

FYI : kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oax3hNyHlc29YXU.html

@stevetournay6103 Жыл бұрын

Fury is my favourite too. Canadian here; our navy had ex-RN carriers for about twenty years after the war and had both the Seafire XV and Sea Fury FB.11 on strength, with the latter replacing the former. One Seafire and two Sea Furies survive in Canadian museums.

@kevkfz5226 Жыл бұрын

Great video Ed

@DavidtheNorseman Жыл бұрын

Sounds like great credit goes to the pilots' dedication and skill and the training of the RN air arm.

@stevethomas4310 Жыл бұрын

Great video. Thanks very much for the effort you obviously put into the research.

@wideyxyz2271 Жыл бұрын

Great video as always. Some really great photos too.

@DONALDSON51 Жыл бұрын

Cheers Ed.Another top video

@linuschan39 Жыл бұрын

Great video, nice work Ed 👍

@phann860 17 күн бұрын

Sometimes a bodge job is just barely adequate, but if there is no choice you go with it.

@rancidschannel3206 Жыл бұрын

Really enjoyed this

@louwvandermerwe178 Ай бұрын

Amazing colour footage

@sealove79able Жыл бұрын

A great fantastic video about an aircraft I knew nothing about. Have a good one Mr.Ed.

@alexanderlawson1649 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting, I do enjoy you're excellent presentations.

@paulkirkland3263 Жыл бұрын

One of your best videos. Thank you.

@davidrobinson4553 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting Ed.Thank You.

@Knuck_Knucks Жыл бұрын

This doc is F.A. ... eFFing Awsome! Thx Ed ! 🐿

@mathewkelly9968 Жыл бұрын

Amazing they made it work at all really

@mustang5132 Жыл бұрын

Excellent video! I like this long form style

@dereksollows9783 Жыл бұрын

Excellent review

@robertsansone1680 Жыл бұрын

Very excellent & interesting. Thank You

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Жыл бұрын

The single stage supercharger without intercooling equipment Merlins were lighter and _shorter_ than the complex Spitfire IX 60 series engines and they made the early Seafires lighter and faster at low level and better balanced for landing.

@lhkraut Жыл бұрын

Another great video! I love the picture of the Mark XVII with the camera window behind the fuselage. 20:30

@veryrevrufus Жыл бұрын

Great and balanced video. Your channel deserves far more subs. Hope you get them.

@redjacc7581 Жыл бұрын

nice one Ed

@paulhumphriesz4557 Жыл бұрын

thanking you for revealing more information on this aircraft which My late farther flew whilst serving in the Fleet Air Arm I remember him telling me they added weights to the tail to keep it down whilst take off and landing. just wish I had spent more time with him discussing other Aircraft he flew like the "stringbag" or the sword fish and Mosquito and many other types.

@johnjephcote7636 Жыл бұрын

From the early lash-up to the contra prop Seafire 47 of 1949 shews just what an adaptable design the airframe was.

@jonathanklein383 Жыл бұрын

It did great for a bodge job but let's be frank... putting an uprated Merlin into a sea hurricane would have bought a year and it was better suited to carrier work... And as the mustang shows you can develop a good fighter in half that time. Simple fact is the Brits didn't need a high performance carrier plane after Norway until Sicily and even then it was a marginal need until brit carriers really got into the fray in the pacific.

@rovercoupe7104 Жыл бұрын

Brilliant. Thank you. M.

@covertops19Z Жыл бұрын

What a fabulous Brief..Many Thanks... BRAVO ZULU 💯👍

@billhanna2148 Жыл бұрын

Thanks Ed another top shelf video made my day.

@hughn Жыл бұрын

We all know what sort of videos are stocked on the top-shelf, away from children. 🤣

@RichardGoth Жыл бұрын

Great work Ed! I have David Browns book "The Seafire"...quite dated now but he was the first aircraft author I encountered who was a real Seafire fan

@yes_head Жыл бұрын

Nice video, Ed. I learned a new word today: bodge. 😆

@SimonWallwork Жыл бұрын

That's a great photo around 12:20. Never seen that before.

@Binkygetsby Жыл бұрын

Great video.

@cjhenry41 Жыл бұрын

Ed, perchance referring to the Buffalo as a high performance fighter was a tad charitable? Seeing it with the Zero reminded me of “which one is not like the other?” puzzle.😊

@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Жыл бұрын

Lol indeed, but compared to the Skua, or even the Fulmar the F2A was a rocket ;D

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Жыл бұрын

It was better than most realise, it was great for the Finns in the Winter War.

@LordNinja109 Жыл бұрын

I think it was Gregory Boyington who viewed the F2A as an excellent aircraft that quickly went downhill when burdened with the weight that came with carrier operations. He considered the "improvements" of the F2A-3 over the F2A-2 to be the cause of its failure. The Finns did indeed make the most of it by stripping it of all carrier related modifications.

@salvagedb2470 Жыл бұрын

Can you just imagine the Mechanics taking a Saw to the Spitfires blades , I will think about that next time I do the same to a 8 x 2 ..Great Vid.

@geordiedog1749 Жыл бұрын

Bloody crabs made a bollocks of WW2. Glad the FAA got shot of them!:) Great video. Needs more unconditional love for the Fulmar, though. ( Fullies v German LBF ratio of kill:loss was 1:1 although the cohort is tiny weeny).

@ProjectFlashlight612 Жыл бұрын

Lash up it may have been, but there were still Seafires in Royal Navy reserve units when Ticket To Ride was #1 in the charts. Nuff said.

@andrewoliver8930 Жыл бұрын

We had steam trains when Japan had the bullet train.

@wor53lg50 8 ай бұрын

The mallard was the fastest steam locomotive in the world and thats ever been...

@ramal5708 Жыл бұрын

I heard the Seafire requires an hour to be prepared for a full launch, while the American Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsairs would only take half an hour the most to do the same

@andrewmetcalfe9898 Жыл бұрын

Jeffrey Quill’s autobiography has some valuable information as to the development of the Seafire, especially the landing doctrine he effectively created - which for similar reasons was also used by the FAA for the Corsair (allowing it to be used as a carrier borne fighter before the USN). Quill was Supermarine’s chief test pilot and was seconded to the FAA with a rank of Lt. commander, serving on board numerous carriers for months as in effect an operational test pilot.

@LV_CRAZY Жыл бұрын

Would love to see a comparison between the 1945 Seafire and Bearcat. Thank you for the educational video!

@markriley7723 Жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7t0gLSK0tXNnmw.html&ab_channel=Greg%27sAirplanesandAutomobiles

@avipatable Жыл бұрын

Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel has done it - it his typical superb analysis!

@13stalag13 Жыл бұрын

Or the Bearcat and the Sea Fury.

@rokuth Жыл бұрын

@@13stalag13 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oax3hNyHlc29YXU.html

@avipatable Жыл бұрын

@@13stalag13 Yup he has them as well - a series on "the super props"

@aldenconsolver3428 Жыл бұрын

Seafire with the Griffon was maybe the best of the fighters during the second world war deployed on carriers . As you correctly point out the US fighters were work horses not thoroughbreds. Wildcat, hellcat and corsair were built to survive years of carrier deck landings with range to deal with the Pacific and ready to limp home after a hit or 10, sorta the idea of the P47. But the seafire could dog fight with the Japanese aircraft one on one without problems. The US carrier aircraft used their high diving speed, superb armour and armament that was almost perfectly designed to shoot down the lightly protected Japanese aircraft.

@daniellowry660 Жыл бұрын

I think you might be underselling the performance of the Corsairs

@blackenedmagic888 Жыл бұрын

If by "thoroughbred" you mean sleek and pretty with good performance, then you are correct. No one can honestly call a Wildcat, Hellcat, or Corsair "pretty". In terms of dogfighting ability, you are incorrect - a Seafire of any Mark could NOT match an A6M Zero in a one-on-one dogfight unless it was at higher speeds. This was proven in 1942 when Spitfires were brought to the Pacific Theatre in an attempt to deal with the Zero. After all, the Spitfire was a match for the ME109 - widely considered to be the best fighter in the world at the time - so it should be a match for a Zero, right? Wrong - even the vaunted Spitfire encountered the exact same problems with the Zero as the other allied fighters did - in a slow-speed (around 200 mph) dogfight, it got outturned by the Zero. So, like all other allied fighters, the Spitfire (and Seafire) would have to rely on its speed and surprise when dogfighting a Zero. Furthermore, Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles did a video comparing the performances of Corsair, Hellcat, and the FW190 (probably the best piston-engined German fighter in WWII) and all three were very close in terms of maneuverability. Of the three, the Hellcat was the slowest at all altitudes and the Corsair was actually faster than the FW190 below 25,000 feet and had a better climb rate.

@BobSmith-dk8nw 24 күн бұрын

It is my understanding, that the Americans did Carrier Trials with P-51 Mustangs. It was decided to call the trials off before they killed someone as the Mustang was entirely to fragile for Carrier Operations - in the opinion of those testing it. .