The Supermarine Seafire - Second Time's a Charm!

Today we talk with author and historian Matt Willis about some of the developmental and service history of the Supermarine Seafire, the navalised version of the Spitfire.
Find out more about the Seafire here:
shop.navywings...
www.casematepu...
www.mortonsboo...
Book Review here:
www.usni.org/m...
Free naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi...
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifelDrydock
Episodes in podcast format - / user-21912004
Music - / ncmepicmusic

[@Drachinifel]

Pinned post for Q&A :)

[@Knight6831]

Would the Supermarine Seafire have benefitted if the RN got the Gloster F.5/34 before the Seafire? as the Whales has wings alt-history book has this develop into the Gloster G-38 Goshawk

[@unnamedchannel1237]

Is a banana a vegan sausage?

[@ph89787]

Q&A: How would Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier operations in World War 2 be affected. If the RAF never return control of the Fleet Air Arm to the Royal Navy?

[@Right-Is-Right]

How long would this vid be if you edited out, ahh, erm, umm, and other variants?

[@d.olivergutierrez8690]

A battleship firing its main guns for anti air combat (like yamato, musashi and tirpitz did in their final moments) count as firing their guns in anger?

[@timclaridge7455]

Don't you just love it when you are happily listening to an older drach episode, and the latest one pops up just as the previous concludes! You are a wizard Drach👍

[@Zogerpogger]

You're a wizard Drachy!

[@nl-oc9ew]

That's a good day.

[@quigglebert]

Always Samar

[@wardaddyindustries4348]

I had that happen once a wizard indeed.

[@timandellenmoran1213]

Decisions, decisions

[@khaelamensha3624]

I love when British said : I am that if I may call myself that 😂 Translation is : sorry, I wrote only 7 books and 36 articles on this particular subject and I still do not have the full serial numbers of the rivets used to construct these 2 345 aircrafts 🤣

[@taccovert4]

No Sir, you may not...you do not have the names of every factory worker that ever touched these aircraft memorized!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

serialized rivits? these are british fighters not german ones

[@RictusMetallicus]

@@AsbestosMuffins Are you insinuating on something?

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@AsbestosMuffins😂 well you know as French, as long as the airplanes do have a wine cellar I am happy 🤣

[@oscarsusan3834]

Secondary subject of expertise would be trains and locomotives.🤓

[@billbrockman779]

Watching those men perform maintenance while pom-poms fired mere yards away at oncoming dive bombers defines courage under pressure.

[@Big_E_Soul_Fragment]

Can't wait for the episode on the FAA's greatest aircraft: The venerable Swordfish

[@isaacdestura7495]

I cant tell if this is in jest or dead serious 😂

[@MandoWookie]

I'm actually quite interested in the Swordfish. It's something of an anachronism yet it struck one of the most historically famous blows in early WW2. It just cool that an obsolete biplane was instrumental in disabling a full battlship. It showed just how much a game changer air power was in a naval context.

[@chriswillis515]

It may arrive s l o w l y but like all Swordfish it will arrive whatever is thrown at it!

[@snebbywebby2587]

No, you mean the Blackburn Blackburn

[@RonOhio]

As an old retired guy, I approve of this. Always good to see an old timer get the job done.

[@johnevans7261]

Slow it might have been, but the Fulmar is credited with the greatest number of RN air victories during WW2, having made life something of a misery for the Regia Aeronautica's bombers during 1940-42.

[@Baron-Ortega]

A testament to the skill of the pilots

[@Niels_Larsen]

The fleet air arm asks for basic equipment to fulfill its role. RAF: yOu Are nOt alLOwEd tO hAve nICe tHInGs. Later in the war; RAF: WHY aREn'T tHe nAvY DoINg mOrE? The navy air arm ponders how effective dive- and torpedo bombs are against ground targets.

[@gokbay3057]

Dive Bomber should do as well over land as over the Sea. They could have a go at the Treasury as well once they are done with the RAF/Air Ministry.

[@88porpoise]

@@gokbay3057 But the RAF didn't really care about that type of aircraft, the primary focus was medium and heavy bombers. Those were to be the decisive weapons of war. Even fighters were there primarily to protect and/or shoot down those bombers. Only the Germans made the more tactical and close air support roles the focus of their land based air forces.

[@gokbay3057]

@@88porpoise I was more talking about OP's last line than RAF and the aircraft types it chose to grace the FAA with.

[@observationsfromthebunker9639]

According to the USN dive bombers and Avenger bombers could do a good job of hitting ground targets. USS Ranger pulled it off during Operation Torch with her Dauntlesses pasting a Vichy air base before doing some ship hunting.

[@harbl99]

Naval engineer: "Put wheels on the torpedoes."

[@SeaTorrie_1]

Just got home from watching Duxford Air Show and one of their Supermarine Spitfires, then came home to watch an episode on SeaFires. Today is a good day :)

[@mbryson2899]

Uncle Drach, thank you for having Mr. Willis as a guest, I found it fascinating. I very much enjoyed his drifting from the questions, particularly as I personally often have a difficult time asking the right questions and often the sidetrack comments are just as informative.

[@cannonfodder4376]

2:33 Circa 1939, was the Royal Navy actually looking at single seat Seafire at that time? 14:39 Last ditch attempt to save the first proposal with the Napier Sabre. 19:55 When did they revisit the proposal of navalizing the Spitfire? Development history 24:39 Initial Seafire 25:35 How rapidly does the Seafire start to be deployed? 29:41 Seafire variants development (late 1942 - 1943) 31:29 How is the Seafire stacking up against contemporaries? 36:38 Landing attrition and problems 41:05 Strengths of the Seafire 44:00 Seafire post war career and phase out 57:18 Supermarine Seafang

[@ArmouredCarriers]

Seafires are a fascinating story of necessity driving innovation ... and the price that often entails.

[@allangibson2408]

They eventually fixed it with the Seafang which was developed from the Supermarine Spiteful.

[@JohnnySmithWhite-wd4ey]

Well eventually they used American naval aircraft. The Wildcat, Avenger, Hellcat and Corsair all find themselves in British service.

[@thebronzegoose9169]

Ah the "If we put Sea in front of the name it will work" approach

[@mikepette4422]

the SeaTesla ?? will it work underwater

[@LMixir]

ehhh... Carrier operations are all about psychology, anyway. Trust me, those arrestor hooks and folding wings are just for moral support! Right?

[@rogersmith7396]

It worked for "Sea Biscuit".

[@jonrolfson1686]

​@@mikepette4422 Sea Tesla? Expect that we might see a stunningly bright, vanishingly brief future for the Sea Tesla.

[@RictusMetallicus]

Quite orky

[@willannoy120]

Great video, thank you Drach! Your inclusion of naval aviation topics are always a treat. Good shout on buying Matthew's book from Navy Wings too

[@jamesmasonaltair]

Drach, your guests are always top notch. Informed and well spoken, your guests always bring their A game. I always learn new things. Yet another great vid!

[@tobiasGR3Y]

Welcome to Matthew, always cool to have guests and other naval topics on the channel! Hopefully this means my beloved Sea Fury will get a spotlight one day.

[@nickdanger3802]

"Military and naval aviation in America has been developed to the full. What a relief that has been to the Australians and New Zealanders. The United States Naval Air Service has provided us with many types of naval machines that we lack." below 820 Hansard FLEET AIR ARM HL Deb 27 January 1943 on line

[@88porpoise]

41:30 In other words, the Seafire was really good at what the Spitfire was designed to do in the first place, intercept incoming attacks.

[@Hachaimenesch]

Really? If in any mission scenario the enemy just didn't show up to a fight, Seafires would likely suffer attrition upon landing. I am aware of the British fondness for epic failure, but isn't the Seafire pushing that envelope a little too far?

[@88porpoise]

@@Hachaimenesch The Spitfire was designed to intercept and shoot down enemy bombers (and their escorts) flying near their air bases in England. As noted in the video that was exactly where the Seafire was at its best. The early Seafires were stopgap measures. A fighter capable of tangling with anything the enemy threw at you had value even with high attrition rates when the alternative was the Fulmar that might be great at landing and taking off but can't really compete against any enemy fighters that show up. Later versions that would serve in the British Pacific Fleet still weren't as reliable as other carrier fighters, but they were a lot better than early Seafires at taking the stress of carrier operations. And there was nothing else at sea as capable of intercepting and destroying incoming bomber and/or kamikaze attacks as a Seafire. Both of these, not being a great carrier aircraft but being a great interceptor, come from the Spitfire initially being conceived as a land-based interceptor to protect Britain from attacks. The late WWII Seafire was really good at one thing, but that one thing was valuable enough that it continued to serve alongside fighters that could do pretty much everything else better.

[@Hachaimenesch]

@@88porpoise Have you ever considered the low cost of puchasing Hellcats from the U.S. instead of messing up a local attempt to create a carrier fighter? Transforming a good land-based fighter into a naval fighter riddled with problems, because it was introduced as a stop-gap solution is not, what I would call good judgement.

[@88porpoise]

@@Hachaimenesch Well, there were no Hellcats when the Seafire was first adopted with it being operational a year before the Hellcat. And it wasn't like there were a big pile of whatever fighters the British wanted lying around. The USN had priority for any aircraft they wanted and there weren't always enough left to meet British needs. The reason that the British adopted the Corsair the way they did was because there weren't enough other aircraft available to them. If they could have filled their hangers with Hellcats, they wouldn't have messed with the Corsair. And by the end of the war, the Seafire was still a better interceptor and a good enough carrier aircraft.

[@monza1002000]

@@Hachaimenesch The Brits used all the US naval aircraft they could get hold of. Not enough available

[@furballphantomgaming6791]

Oh my god, how have I only just found this channel. I love it.

[@Davey-Boyd]

Do yourself a favour, watch Drach's video 'The Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron - Voyage of the Damned'. It's bloody hilarious, and one of his best video's! It must be one of the nuttiest naval stories ever.

[@Tepid24]

Hot on the heels of this topic, it would be interesting to do a similar deep dive into the Sea Fury, Sea Hornet and Wyvern. The article on their use in the Korean War was the first thing I read by Dr. Clarke back in the day.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

To me the Sea Fury allways looks like a FW-190 with elliptical spitfire wings boltet onto it xD

[@tommeakin1732]

Yeah these are all incredibly cool aircraft imo

[@left_ventricle]

@@hernerweisenberg7052 Uh, though I do see where you come from, just for the sake of giving you more information I shall elaborate. Sea Fury is a navalised Fury, which then is lighter Tempest, which then is a development of Typhoon, whose fuselage structure idea goes back to Hurricane days. Though the Fw 190 A and Sea Fury may look increasingly similar, it would be fair to assess that the two designs come from totally different backgrounds. However there is one very important common ground - the various features implemented to reduce the drag from air-cooled radial with larger frontal area. This, coupled with the two designs using quite similar cowling arrangement, both quite different from various US cowling designs and fairly large and blunt propeller spinner gives it a similar aesthetics. Hope this helps.

[@notbobrosss3670]

Nice cupa Drach in the morning. More refreshing than a cup of coffee in the morning.

[@nathanzylla4961]

I did see a sea fury in action at the reno air races! it was great to see it flying all out

[@nnoddy8161]

Would love to hear more about the Sea Hornet. I have repeatedly heard for a long period of time that it was probably the ultimate piston engined fighter-bomber aircraft.

[@forthleft]

Brilliant effort. Expertise and the meandering of experts is a joy.

[@kentbarnes1955]

An interesting video. I'm blessed to live (Columbia MO) where one of the few Seafire Mk XVs is based (it may indeed be the only flying example...and not sure when it was last flown). Beautiful aircraft. Odd tail hook installation.

[@chemech]

An interesting topic would be a discussion of how things went for the Fleet Air Arm with the adoption of various American airframes such as the Grumman F4 & F6, and especially the Vought F4U Corsair, where, legend has it, the RN pilots developed some flying and especially *landing* techniques that later drastically improved its usefulness for the US Navy / Marines.

[@nickdanger3802]

The Marine Corps was operating from land bases. Most of what the RN did with the Corsair came from previous experience with landing Seafires on carriers. The USN did not need to operate Corsairs from carriers because it had the Hellcat at about the same time. As I understand it.

[@johnshepherd8687]

@@nickdanger3802 in Drach's Bunker Hill video he noted the veteran VF-17 deployed with Corsairs and had no issues. The real reason for not operating Corsairs of the carriers was logistics. During the Okinawa campaign carriers were loading up with the newly arriving -4 variants that could be used for ground support and kamikaze interception.

[@zzirSnipzz1]

they used the same technique to land seafires on the Corsair come in at slight off angle so you can see the carrier to the last possible minute i believe it was cant be sure was a long time ago i researched this

[@mikebrownhill8955]

@@nickdanger3802 the USN couldn't get to grips with landing the corsair. Apparently it's undercarriage was extremely stiff and the plane just bounced when it hit the carrier deck. The RN pilots figured out how to land the thing and I guess pass it on to the USN. That's at least what I heard from veterans on Armoured carriers.

[@gregforrester4851]

@@johnshepherd8687 the us certainly used carrier based corsairs and were used for attack &defence ,and they initially did have a high attrition rate of new pilot's and not only the logistics of the matter many lives were lost Britain's success in useing the corsairs for deck landings convinced the usn to reaccesing

[@hansstromberg5330]

Impressive? No, much more than that. Even the word awe-inspiring is an understatment. Two knowledgeable people -nay experts - discussing important matters is the best form of entertainment imaginable, as well as a deepsource of wisdom. I'd rather see this type of discussions on prime time TV than most of the things presently shown. Hans Strömberg, amateur historian and aviation nerd Stockholm, Sweden

[@kranjcalan]

Matt Willis thank you for very good talk.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

First off - thanks for this. I knew a bit about the aircraft but learned some more. My personal summation would be that the UK took what it had and even if it wasn't really suited for it - made the best of it that they could. One thing this made me wonder about - was if that long nose on the Seafire - helped them develop the curved landing approach which they applied to the F4U's and which the US adopted when it decided to make a second effort at putting the Corsairs to sea. .

[@truenetgmx]

Awesome! In future think about collab with Rex's Hangar (small channel deserving a little push) ;)

[@RexsHangar]

My good sir I was not expecting a PLANE today! 😁

[@iancarr8682]

What an impressive presentation from Matt Willis. Thankyou Drach.

[@SoloRenegade]

F2G, Bearcat, F4U-5, Sea Fury, A-1D, etc. There were a number of good carrier based super props to come out of WW2.

[@drewski5730]

Yes, but remember why the airforce wasn’t developing “super props,” and hadn’t been for some time at that point, there were a couple, but the writing was on the wall by the debut of the Me262 over the western front. All the air forces of the world had or were in the process of dropping piston development in favour of jet engines, the worlds navies were a few years back from the research and development of the jet.

[@dleggett]

@@drewski5730 To be fair to the world's navies, they weren't just lagging behind. It was unclear whether early jet aircraft would be able to take off or land on the deck space of late-war carriers. Super-prop fighters were a known quantity that were guaranteed to work, and were for a time at least going to be competitive with early jet fighters, so it makes sense they went with them - at least until experiments prove that existing jets could be operated off carriers.

[@craigelectric5241]

Congratulations to both of you You've nailed this one. I have downloaded. Spectacular contribution !👍👍

[@johnappleby405]

I think there is one Seafire III still in existence I’d love to see it flying especially in BPF colours. Thank you for the video on this flawed but fascinating plane

[@peterhughes7099]

Just finished a long slow shift in work, and saw this episode dropped into my notification box, so boots off, feet up with a brew and listen to this. Thanks Drach 🙂

[@ARC_30-06]

Seeing the F-4 Phantom II pic hanging on Matthew’s wall behind him won me over as a fan RIGHT away! Knda petty of me isn’t it? Lol but I grew up in the Cold War era living near Barksdale Airforce base, me in East Tx. Saw those beautiful things in the sky all the time, loved em…

[@tommeakin1732]

Colonialism is great, isn't it? I'm glad to see you're proud

[@camberweller]

Always a delight to see your stuff. Hope that you enjoyed your brief visit to Canada.

[@williambrasky3891]

Candada? Never heard of it.

[@camberweller]

@@williambrasky3891 - We try to keep a low profile. Success!

[@johncab23]

Not trying to correct the guest gentleman historian. I am the son of a hump pilot who also flew Air Sea Rescue in Great Britain after the war. Most of the navigation was done in cockpit using long formulas or “pilot math”. I know this fact from finding most of my father’s flight logs/diary and notes. If radios are available and functional they can also find bearings to the station using an instrument in the cockpit. He is spot on with the mention of the Nav methods being incredibly complicated.

[@CharlesStearman]

I think the dropping a float and circling technique that was described must have been used to assess the amount of wind drift which could then be taken into account when using dead reckoning.

[@matthewwillis5650]

Thanks. The method with a smoke float was described to me by an Observer who flew Swordfish and Avengers in the Atlantic and Pacific but this was just part of the process, in essence to provide accurate data to assist the pilot math. Things did change somewhat during the course of the war though, not least in the RN’s sense of the Observer as the ‘captain’ of the aeroplane

[@johnevans7261]

My late godfather was a RN Lieutenant aircraft engineer who was aboard HMS Triumph off Korea in 1950. Intensive operations involving rocket and bomb ordnance led to cracking of the Griffon Seafires' fuselages, and he eventually had to 'ground' many of them.

[@martijn9568]

The Seafire F Mk XVII has to be one of the best looking Spitfires. A nice clean looking bubble canopy, with a nose that doesn't look as ridiculously long as on the 2 stage supercharged Spitfires and a vertical tail assembly that doesn't look too big.

[@lzappa9109]

Really appreciate the effort by these wonderful men. [More British speakers please.] Grazie Mille!

[@bnipmnaa]

Prego!

[@gurk_the_magnificent9008]

Last time I was this early Warspite’s steering gear was intact

[@thehandoftheking3314]

Last time I was this quick I got my wife pregnant.

[@marseldagistani1989]

Bloody hell we've been Bismarcked! Sir what do you mean we've been Bismarcked? 'Ell if I know Nigel

[@mcduck5]

Could you imagine PoW and Warspite going after Bismark? Bismark would have gone home lol

[@veli-pekkamalmi5546]

@@mcduck5 yeah. Noped The Hell off from that fight. Look Hans, its HMS Unsinkable...

[@drakeconsumerofsoulsandche4303]

@@veli-pekkamalmi5546 "raise the white flag" "But we've almost got the firing solution" "Did I stutter?"

[@tomtruax6775]

Very detailed and interesting presentation on the history of the Seafire.

[@colbeausabre8842]

1) I think the Sea Gladiator - a single seat aircraft - was adopted in desperation to get something like a "modern fighter" into the FAA before the twin seat Fulmar was ready. At that time the IJN was flying the A5M with the A6M not far behind and the USN's F2F's and F3F's soon to be replaced by the F4F - all single seaters 2) Low Level Fighters - The RAF's LF variants were known for being "Cropped, Clipped and Clapped" The supercharger impeller blades were cropped short, upping low level horsepower, the pointed wing tips were removed to improve the roll rate by "clipping" the wings and they had "Clapped Out" engines as none were built new but were time expired engines removed from other aircraft and refurbished by Rolls. 3) Seafires were short ranged, fragile (some had the forward fuselage keeping down the deck while tail stayed hooked to the arrestor cable), with narrow, weak landing gear, poor vision because of the long nose and they had the ditching qualities of a submarine. And now for their bad points.... 4) If I remember correctly, the famous "Winkle" Brown devised the curving landing approach for the Seafire

[@nickdanger3802]

Clipped wings Starting with the Mk. V, some Spitfires had their classic elliptical wingtips replaced by shorter, squared-off fairings reducing span to 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m). Shortening the wing span substantially enhanced the roll rate, closing the gap in this respect between the Spitfire and the formidable German Focke-Wulf Fw 190. The clipped-wing Spitfires are sometimes being referred to as “L.F.” versions, e.g.: LF Mk Vb. Formally, this is a misunderstanding as the LF designation referred to the low-altitude version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and while many LF Spitfires had the clipped wings, a number did not. Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types page

[@frankfischer1281]

Quite an in-depth look at an interesting and historic aircraft.

[@josuefHuerta]

Perfect timing, now i can hear this video on my way to work

[@christopherboyle1479]

Drach, your department: I have understood from various of your articles that RN carrier doctrine, at least after the collapse of the inter-war naval treaties, recognised that carriers might come under attack from land-based aircraft. That led to increased anti-aircraft guns and the armoured flight deck. Yet the doctrine for carrier-based fighters seemed to assume that they would never encounter fighters of anything like contemporary competence. The simply awful Blackburn Skua, as noted, would have struggled to intercept an He111 and would have been target practice for a Bf109 or even a Bf110. Was the FAA not on the same page as the RN naval architects? Or was there a massively brave assumption that carriers might be in range of land-based bombers but not escorting fighters?

[@peterstickney7608]

Consider that in the mid-1930s, warning of an air attack was limited to what could be seen from a ship, or above a ship - roughly 20-30 NM to the horizon, so that would be the furthest that you'd be able to see an incoming raid. With an incoming raid coming in at about 5 NM per minute, that gave about 6 minutes of warning. It wasn't considered possible to vector a combat air patrol (They hadn't come up with Fighter Direction yet) or launch more than a couple of interceptors,. which would not be able to climb up to to the incoming strike. So - the only defense that was considered possible was a strong anti-aircraft battery, and (hopefully) hardening the ship against at least some bomb hits.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Keep in mind that carrier Aviation is a book being written as they went. And the idea that AA guns rather than the Fighter for defense made sense. They also did not face a significant carrier opponent.

[@christopherboyle1479]

@@peterstickney7608 Thank you. That makes perfect sense. Retrospective apologies to the FAA.

[@alexwinfield9540]

You all seem to forget politics, at the time and to this day the RAF deliberately prevents the FAA from getting the best equipment. See the decision to get rid of the harrier fleet rather than 3 tornado squadrons to kick the FAA out of fixed wing aviation. In short screw the RAF

[@wintermute4978]

I came across your video by chance, it was in my KZbin feed., and because the subject was the Seafire I had to watch it. The Seafiire is an aircraft forgotten about by most people, but not by me. My father was an airframe rigger on Seafires embarked upon HMS Ocean, and I think based from Malta for a time, from 1946 to 1948. My brother has Dad's photo albums with lots of photos of the Seafires and Fireflys on HMS Ocean. It was an excellent video and a great, but brief, history of the aircraft.

[@Token_Civilian]

A very fine discussion. Thanks for bringing this to us Drach and Matt.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Well so far, so good. Some of the more unusual decisions emanating from the early 30s are explained well here, and are not as silly as some choose to make them out to be. Great vid - will resume after walking the dogs on the beach. TTFN! Yup - great video, very informative indeed. Thank you gentlemen.

[@stephenrichards339]

Landing the bloody thing, you have to do another interview with that man because that was bloody brilliant

[@khaelamensha3624]

You know you are on Drach s channel when someone is talking of broadside about an aircraft weaponry 😉😁

[@scottgiles7546]

Wonder which aircraft had the best broadside? 😁

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@scottgiles7546 tell me about it, new concept 14 inch guns on a diving bomber 🤣

[@scottgiles7546]

@@khaelamensha3624 Some B-25's had a 75mm cannon. (B-25G)

[@khaelamensha3624]

@@scottgiles7546 and let s not talk about spooky and others spectre versions 😉. If my memories serves, the German did have a 50mm on a heavy fighters.

[@tristikov]

I just watched an 11 minute video about the history of the P-38 Lightning and thought "this was good, but it was nowhere near in-depth enough for my taste. I need a Drach-length ww2 aircraft video..." Looks like my prayers were answered before I even knew it!

[@scottgiles7546]

As for the P-38, you just need to know where to look: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5_IeIuja8qXjJY

[@scottgiles7546]

But Wait! There's more! kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIbJq6Cwbqegq9U

[@nickdanger3802]

"The initial Packard modifications were done on this engine by changing the main bearings from a copper lead alloy to a silver lead combination and featured indium plating. This had been developed by General Motors' Pontiac Division to prevent corrosion which was possible with lubricating oils that were used at that time. The bearing coating also improved break-in and load carrying ability of the surface. British engineering staff assigned to Packard were astonished at the suggestion but after tear down inspections on rigidly tested engines were convinced the new design offered a decided improvement." Has ! Not secure warning Packard Merlin Aircraft Engine - Combat Air Museum on line

[@cleardiddion8135]

I have to say I've been looking forward to more naval aviation videos

[@iexist.imnotjoking5700]

Another naval aircraft guide! Wonderful! :D

[@John.0z]

Thank you Matt, I learnt a lot from your presentation.

[@Aubury]

Perhaps theres a correlation between Jutland, British shells, and the feet air arm aircraft shortfall. Both effecting the raison d'etre, of their whole existence.

[@mikeyboy3054]

I love a naval channel that does aviation.

[@davidlewis9068]

wow a nice change from the normal and very nicely done too.

[@superdog1964]

Great information and interesting topic. It appears that I have developed a preference for Drac's style of narration. He always seems to stay on topic and never allows my focus to waiver, no matter how dull the segment is of the subject being presented. While I watched this video to the end, there were times when I had to really work at paying attention. The man providing the information seems very well versed on the subject at hand and no disrespect towards him. Perhaps I am the only one? I just like Drac's oration technique and feel that even on a dull subject like the history and evolution of out houses and privies would be interesting and worth a listen, Lol

[@anthonyjackson280]

The issue is the constant hesitations - 'umms, err, ahh, hmm' etc that break the continuity. It takes a great deal of training and practice to speak fluidly when delivering, what is, in effect, a lecture. It is even more difficult to speak on a subject entirely extempore, even though it a subject upon which one is an authority. I was going to make a similar comment but scanned first to see if it had been mentioned (I dislike seeing 10 almost identical comments as though nobody reads them first). Personally I got through entire episode as the subject is of great interest but it took 3 sittings.

[@dogefort8410]

I'd watch the full segment on naval outhouses. ("Heads now and then"), and trust he'll find angles and anecdotes to make it well worth the time

[@stretch3281]

Ha! I saw you're deliberate mistake. At 33. 30 that was a Firefly mk 1. Very similar wing but you can see those big old youngman flaps. You'll have to try harder to catch me out . 😉 Edit 1 If i had a pilots license and loads of money my number 1 choice would be a Firefly but i would have a sticker on it that read " my other aeroplanes a Cosaire"

[@petercrawford5085]

Thanks - I saw it wasn't a Seafire and was going to ask.

[@BCB-9000]

That intro music always cheers me up

[@erikberg1623]

The US gave the RN quite a few Martlets, F4U Corsairs & Hellcats. They had similar armament to the Mustang & Thunderbolt. This was more than adequate for German & Japanese aircraft. According to many RN aviators, the Corsair was the long range hot rod they wanted, not the short range and fragile Seafire. Once the RN taught the USN how to land the beast safely on fleet carriers, Hellcats were pushed into RN service.

[@JS-fe8sx]

The RN didnt’t show the USN how to do it. The USN was well aware of the Corsair as it was developed for them They felt that the drawbacks of the Corsair deck landing problems were not worth it as they already had the Hellcat, which was much better behaved on landing and more than adequate as a fighter. Vought had a program called “Dog” to tame the Corsairs landing issues. With significantly modified Oleos and a modified wing to create a better stall, they were adopted by the USN as they were a better fighter than the Hellcat. The British had to clip the wing tips to fit in their carriers. This helped with the stall issues and they installed a modified canopy so the pilot could raise their seat, improving visibility on landing. The British were an example of necessity being the mother of invention. The British lost a significant number of Corsairs that bounced over the arresting wires and hit the barrier, going up on its nose. Much time spent by the mechanics fixing.

[@88porpoise]

In terms of armament, the Seafire had a big advantage over any American aircraft in that they had reliable cannons. The US didn't stick with the .50 cals because they wanted to, they were constantly trying to bring in cannons but they couldn't figure out how to produce Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon that worked. In the end, the Seafire was a naval Spitfire with all that entailed. It was an interceptor and excelled as an interceptor. But it wasn't nearly in other roles. Just like the Spitfire was an amazing interceptor, but lagged way behind the Mustang as an escort or Typhoon in ground attack etc.

[@silverhost9782]

'Gave' otherwise known as 'purchased'

[@erikberg1623]

@@silverhost9782 I believe that they didn’t have to pay for aircraft that were not returned. Lend lease was a two way street, the US was able to reverse lease Corvettes & Frigates early in the war. I have not found out yet, but I believe the USS Robin the was ‘borrowed” from the RN for use in the Pacific was reversed leased. I need to read the book on lend lease. I believe that the UK was one of the few countries that paid their debt. I’m not sure if the UK benefited from the Marshal Plan, I need to find that out.

[@88porpoise]

@@erikberg1623 Correct, under lend-lease they only had to pay for equipment or supplies retained after the war. Anything destroyed/lost/consumer in the war or returned to the US after was not paid for. In practice very little was returned to the US, and the US didn't want used hardware returned when they had more new stuff than they knew what to do with. As I recall, the British dumped a bunch of fighters into the ocean at the end of the war because the Americans didn't want them back and the British didn't want to pay for the used aircraft when they had newer ones available. However even what they paid for they were only charged around 10% of the cost and the US provided a loan for it all.

[@stephenboshears4832]

To my knowledge even the Seafire 47’s were still overstressed structurally Greg’s Airplanes channel did a great video on the mark 47 Seafire kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4anfoSPotScpJo

[@Easy-Eight]

Some years past I heard a RN air arm officer say the Sea Hurricane was a better aircraft than the Wildcat. *However* , the issue was simply landing. If 24 Sea Hurricanes went to see then inside of two week the whole lot would be broken in one way or another. The Wildcat (Martlet) just kept on landing and didn't break.

[@jamesfisher4326]

The Sea Hurricane would have been superior in a dog fight, but it lacked fire power and had less range. Then there is the minor problem of surviving carrier landings.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@jamesfisher4326 *Then there is the minor problem of surviving carrier landings* Actually, I loved this video when they said the propellor from the Sea Spitfire could pop off in a landing. I can see why the Royal Navy deck crew got a hit or two of "grog" after a shift. The poor bastards needed it. Years past I remember when the USN took the F-17 and adapted it to be the F/A-18. The landing gear was proofed by dropping it from a three story building.

[@nickdanger3802]

Single engine fighters on Midway Island June 1942 21 Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo 7 Grumman F4F-3A Wildcat

[@richardvernon317]

@@Easy-Eight Pity they kept the F-17's 17% fuel fraction. The main reason that the legacy Hornet's had too short a range!!!

[@threecedarshomestead1330]

Two things, One, my first encounter with the Seafire was building a model (Revall?) in the early 70's, and the biggest visual difference (aside from the tailhook) was the "tropical" (as they termed it) airfilter/intake. What was the need/purpose that it was a response to? And how well did it meet that need? Second, IF that first proposal with the gull wing, had been allowed to develop, with shorter, sturdier landing gear, an increase in fuel loading, better slow speed landing/handling, a more powerful engine, and Grumman style fold back wings. I know, quite the "what if"/alternative history divergence there!

[@marktuffield6519]

The large Vokes Tropical Intake were designed to eliminate sand getting into the engine in areas like the Middle East. They proved highly effective in use, however No. 103 MU (Maintenance Unit) Aboukir trimmed the filter back to a much smaller unit named the Aboukir filter. This weighed less and had a lower drag profile and ultimately replaced the larger filter on later aircraft.

[@threecedarshomestead1330]

@@marktuffield6519 Thankyou!

[@thegreatdominion949]

I've always wondered why early Seafires were fitted with Vokes tropical filters, especially when the contemporary Sea Hurricanes were not.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Many were used on land-based duty in the Mediterranean.

[@piney4562]

Awesome topic.

[@derrith1877]

Fascinating! Thanks! Great interview too.

[@luciuslomax336]

This guy was good. Well spoken, not too wonky & clear

[@stunleyandwin3649]

This guy was excellent. More please!

[@billbrockman779]

I get the idea that the RN’s 1939 plan was similar to the USN hypothetically considering the Dauntless as their carrier dive bomber/fighter.

[@jamesfisher4326]

Hypothetical is right. The Brewster Buffalo predated the Dauntless and the Wildcat went into production and service at the same time as the Dauntless. Considering the Dauntless superior rate of climb and record of 138 kills, it might have been the equal of the Fulmar as a fighter and superior to the Skua.

[@Philistine47]

The difference is that the USN never considered the SBD as a primary fighter type, but strictly as a *backup* that could fill in against enemy strike aircraft in an emergency. (Note that "SBD" stands for "Scout Bomber, Douglas" - had it ever actually been intended as a fighter, it would have had an F somewhere in front of the D.) The Dauntless did indeed fill this role at the Battle of the Coral Sea, but AFAIK never again after that. @@jamesfisher4326 Yeah, on paper at least the SBD Dauntless and the Fairey Fulmar are too close in performance to call. The Fulmar had a small speed advantage at low altitude, while the SBD seems to have had a small edge at height.

[@billbrockman779]

@@jamesfisher4326 I realize my comment could be taken as thinking the USN did consider the SBD for such a role. I didn’t mean to imply that.

[@martijn9568]

@@billbrockman779 No worries :-)

[@MartinCHorowitz]

We need a fun Friday or April 1 video on the British Air navy and Fighters from Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow....

[@subcreecha]

I see a string bag behind you drafs! Great channel mate!

[@jagh1410]

Huh? I saw Spitfire and was thinking: Rex uploaded nice long vid. And wild Drach appeared.

[@RexsHangar]

I too was also confused for a moment 🤣

[@ianbell5611]

Great video. Damn brillcream boys. Messing with senior service...

[@99IronDuke]

Every single British air to air kill since, at least, 1948, has been by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. Fly Navy...

[@GorgeDawes]

I’m assuming the RAF Phantom that shot down the Jaguar at Brüggen doesn’t count?

[@nickjames2370]

@@GorgeDawes LOL

[@adamrudling1339]

@@GorgeDawes well the phantoms where ex navy

[@88porpoise]

@@adamrudling1339 As far as I understand the FGR.2 Phantoms were ordered specifically by the RAF, the FG.1s were the Navy aircraft later transferred to the RAF.

[@jasondouglas6755]

Even in Korea?

[@ArmySatcomGuy]

Thanks for the great vids Drach

[@currawongee1]

In IL2 46 Ultra Pack the Sea Fury in our opinion is the best fighter going. Thanks for this informative vid. Cheers.

[@petercrawford5085]

V. Interesting, thanks. Just ordered the book too :-)

[@scottclaymore8097]

Many sing the praises of the Seafire, particularly at Okinawa. I don't really understand how rate of climb is a huge asset vs. kamikaze's. They mostly came in low when making their attacks. I would think that longer endurance would be a much better quality. Help me if I'm wrong but from the research that I've done it would appear that Seafires claimed about 9 1/2 victories In that battle while American fighters had over 1,000.

[@scootergsp]

Very interesting. It's good to be reminded that the Spitfire and it's lineage wasn't defined by just the Battle of Britain.

[@tinafoster8665]

The photos are amazing 👋

[@khaelamensha3624]

Do agree, Drachinifel is one of these channels that display documents I have never saw before...

[@egocyclic]

“Point defense” is mentioned several times as the Seafire’s one true strength, but it’s well-known short range also means that the Seafire wouldn’t have nearly the loiter time as the F6F or F4U. That definitely would be relevant to effective combat air patrol over a task force. A CAP of Seafires would need to be cycled more often during an era in which aircraft carriers couldn’t simultaneously launch and recover aircraft. And an aircraft carrier can not launch fighters as fast as an airfield. Granted, RN & USN fleets had early warning radar for most of the Pacific War, but that only goes so far. A fair number of solo kamikaze attacks did manage to sneak past the radar pickets.

[@scottgiles7546]

For those interested in more information on WWII carrier aircraft may I recommend "Armoured Carriers" and "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" as two useful KZbin channels. Armoured Carriers is total RN and has interviews of the pilots who flew Seafires, F4Fs. F6F's, and F4U's during the war. It is well worth the time. Greg's Airplanes + goes into stunning detail on the aircraft he covers which include the Seafire, F4F, F6F, F8F, and F4U along with many others. Just pay no attention to the Muscle Car posts, or the Fiat fetish...

[@scottgiles7546]

kzbin.info/door/ynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSgvideos

[@scottgiles7546]

kzbin.info

[@michaelmclaren7373]

…and now we know partly why the RN flew Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsairs in addition to whatever navalized bits and bobs the Air Ministry would let them have. Gotta love inter-service rivalries. 😳🙄

[@kenneth9874]

90% of RN fleet carriers in the pacific carried us fighters, primarily corsairs

[@edsutherland8266]

@@kenneth9874 That was partly due to availability, notably of spare parts. By the time the RN had transitioned to more Pacific ops, the American fighters were very readily available (compared to early war). It was also a range issue, since the big Grumman duo & the Corsairs had huge range, which was absolutely essential in the Pacific.

[@ohgosh5892]

​@@edsutherland8266 There is also the singular fact that US airmen had been unable to safely land the Corsair on a carrier, so there was a plentiful supply of them. The FAA found a reliable way of lining up the carrier deck for an approach, and landing safely, hence could use the aircraft from a carrier. The US Marines adopted the Corsair after that point.

[@centurionmk.1365]

Yay another long vid about plane on the ships

[@Maple_Cadian]

Any love for more FAA aircraft in the future. Maybe a video for the RCN banshee?

[@martindice5424]

Having worked at the FAAM it was nice to see their Seafire again. Didn’t the FAA get the Corsair acceptable for deck landing because of their experience with the Seafire? Same long nose problem meaning new deck approach techniques were developed.

[@RexKarrs]

Sounds like by the time the Seafire was available for service, the Corsair was just about to arrive.

[@dmcarpenter2470]

Very enjoyable, thank you.

[@tinafoster8665]

Drachs doing planes ❤️!

[@khaelamensha3624]

Yes but only planes that use rum for their engines 😂

[@haroldbradshaw5539]

The windscreen on that first aircraft looks like it would slow the plane down like a barn door.

[@scotthill8787]

There was some grumbling among USN pilots about carrier landings with the F4U Corsair, due to its long nose. The British were given them, under Lend-Lease. They loved the 2000 HP radial engine, and the pilots learned to make their initial approach a little wider than with other planes.

[@rogeranderson8763]

It was the US Marines who took on the F4U and developed that long turn to Port that enabled them to see past the nose on landing....I've a 90 year old friend who flew Corsairs in his day.....I've enjoyed the company of this Honorable man for over 30 years now....and cannot imagine what it must have felt like to be 20 years old and gotten to fly that machine. And be issued bullets to go with it! He never flew in Combat...but he did have to use his parachute once....He is sure to mention it was engine failure...he was NOT shot down -Veteran '66-68

[@daveharrison61]

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children had the corsair because the navy couldn't make them work on carriers and they flew them (very successfully) from land based air strips. It was however FAA pilots flying lend lease ones that came up with the turn into a carrier landing. Also it turned out many of them they received were the dross that from subcontractor factories. And they loved them- the rejects the USN and USMC didn't want and often considered unfit for use were loved by the FAA because they were so much better than the crap they had had previously.

[@michellebrown4903]

@@daveharrison61 The Fleet Air Arm did indeed adapt the Corsair for carrier ops ,but only after they had done some serious modifications to the landing strut olios to stop the aircraft bouncing back into the air on landing.

[@tinafoster8665]

Aviation expert, excelegant 👍the naval spitfire

[@jonrolfson1686]

kudos on the portmanteau coinage 'excelegant' With your permission I'll watch for appropriate opportunities to use the word.

[@willfriar8054]

Isn't it great to be free isn't it wonderful to know some people did some things my America great always Semper Fi

[@mycroft1905]

Excellent episode. TFP

[@kenhelmers2603]

Interesting! Thanks guys

[@geordiedog1749]

God. The Crab cream boys really bollocked things up in WW2, didn’t they!

[@MetalRodent]

Interesting and decent summary, though if I could just comment in defence of the venerable Hurricane the Sea Hurricane did have 20mm cannons, the Mk Ic (and upgraded IIc) variant had them and were present during Pedestal

[@matthewwillis5650]

Despite many published accounts indicating there was a single Mk IC involved in Pedestal, there's no contemporary evidence at all that this was the case. The only contemporary evidence refers to an unspecified up-gunned Hurricane, which is more likely to have been a spare RAF Hurricane Mk IIB that was navalised (but fitted with a Merlin III). There almost certainly were never any ICs in front line service and unlikely to have been more than a handful in existence - possibly no more than one (Francis K Mason talks about hundreds being converted but there's no evidence for this and it's unclear where he got the info from). The Sea Hurricane IIC was not available in quantity until the lead-up to Operation Torch, and was principally used on escort carriers as it was superior to the Seafire in that role and its heavy armament was useful against Fw 200s and Ju 290s

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@matthewwillis5650 Superior? The Sea Hurricane had its own issues. The Martlet was better is that role.

[@matthewwillis5650]

@@WALTERBROADDUS I said superior to the Seafire, which the FAA tried to put on escort carriers but found them to be too fragile. If enough Martlets had been available the FAA would certainly have preferred them, but they were not, hence there being any need for the Sea Hurricane and Seafire at all