Supermarine Seafire; The Great British Bodge Job

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

[@S2Sturges]

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!

[@Ob1sdarkside]

That flap bodge is a wonderful English garden shed fix

[@philiphumphrey1548]

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]

It's enough to make yer weep...

[@JohnnyRocker2162]

​@@rosiehawtrey Boomps a Daisy......

[@joeperson4792]

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

[@hammer1349]

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

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

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

[@catmandoodoo7903]

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

[@exF3-86]

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

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@exF3-86 no it wasn't.

[@chonqmonk]

@@catmandoodoo7903 In what way?

[@catmandoodoo7903]

@@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.

[@benwilson6145]

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

[@gunner678]

Exactly, the guru of test pilots!

[@01Bouwhuis]

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

[@geordiedog1749]

Winkle could land Concorde on a lifeboat.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Aaaah, what did he know!

[@trooperdgb9722]

@@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.

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

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

[@Splattle101]

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.

[@Flyingcircustailwheel]

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

[@ianmcsherry5254]

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

[@jacktattis]

@@ianmcsherry5254 yES HE DID

[@avipatable]

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]

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]

@@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]

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'.

[@jacktattis]

@@bobsakamanos4469 I have Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History and on page 582 it mentions wing tanks but not coming from P40s Inhouse design only

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@jacktattis excess P-40 drop tanks (89 US gal) were acquired via horse trading for a case(s) of whiskey. HMS Implacable.

[@martentrudeau6948]

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.

[@simtalkayak]

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

[@garynew9637]

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

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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

[@whyjnot420]

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]

"An engineered solution to an unexpected problem"

[@whyjnot420]

@@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]

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

[@Demun1649]

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

[@whyjnot420]

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

[@jlvfr]

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

[@whtalt92]

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]

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]

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]

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

[@jacktattis]

@@jlvfr Both of which had a slow climb rate and piss poor turn

[@jlvfr]

@@jacktattis true, they were pure brute-force high speed fighters. Which is why the Seafire was a better interceptor/point defense CAPer: that stunning climb rate.

[@rogerkay8603]

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

[@chonqmonk]

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

[@owen368]

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

[@timhancock6626]

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

[@stevenlowe3026]

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

[@wor53lg50]

​​​​​​@@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!...

[@spudskie3907]

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

[@BHuang92]

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

[@13stalag13]

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

[@hatman4818]

@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]

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

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The difference being that Britain actually had functioning aircraft carriers.

[@FirstDagger]

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]

Our golden birds shall stay safe

[@ratofvengence]

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]

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

[@ratofvengence]

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

[@DoktorStrangelove]

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

[@andrewoliver8930]

Grumman made great naval planes.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@jacktattis]

And Brown said the SEAFIRE WAS THE BEST THERE WAS

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

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]

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

[@cjhenry41]

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]

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

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

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

[@LordNinja109]

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.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@sylvaleader]

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.

[@jacktattis]

Too true

[@Pete-tq6in]

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.

[@jacktattis]

Yes they are

[@kenking1228]

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]

What's a Sqn WO? WO1 ?

[@kenking1228]

@@bobsakamanos4469 Yes!.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@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.

[@johnforsyth7987]

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]

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,

[@aldenconsolver3428]

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]

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.

[@jacktattis]

Mate do not get carried away on just how generous the US was First Cash then Gold then Territory finally Lend Lease but no American ever mentions Reverse Lend Lease . Or the Tizzard Mission in 1940 where the US got all kinds of goodies for no payment as long as they would produce them for the Brits as well. e.g Cavity Magnetron ,better Asdic and more And te Brits built 200+ Airfields for the USAAF and never received a penny or the cost of which was never taken off their war Debt.

[@nickdanger3802]

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]

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......

[@jacktattis]

Gee thanks for that Nick and Brown was on the Audacity when she sank

[@IntrospectorGeneral]

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".

[@jamesdalton2014]

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]

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

[@rokuth]

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

[@jamesdalton2014]

@@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]

@@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]

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

[@johnlander4635]

The reason the Seafire was kept in service after ww2 is because all the American stuff was chucked over the side.

[@jacktattis]

Could be right however in his book he states that the Seafire regardless of it problems was the best that there was.

[@marioacevedo5077]

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

[@sealove79able]

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

[@robertbalazslorincz8218]

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*

[@jacktattis]

Nothing in Morgan and Shacklady about the P40 tanks . I just went to have a look and the Brits were usually very correct when they used another nations products

[@colinmartin2921]

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]

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

[@Seraphus87]

Beautiful, potent, dangerous AF to its own users.

[@wor53lg50]

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

[@raymondyee2008]

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.

[@acomingextinction]

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

[@paulhumphriesz4557]

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.

[@stevethomas4310]

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

[@johndavey72]

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]

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

[@linuschan39]

Great video, nice work Ed 👍

[@wideyxyz2271]

Great video as always. Some really great photos too.

[@davidrobinson4553]

Very interesting Ed.Thank You.

[@starpilot101]

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.

[@manricobianchini5276]

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

[@paulbantick8266]

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

[@bobsakamanos4469]

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.

[@jacktattis]

@@bobsakamanos4469 Even above 10000ft no Corsair could match it

[@gunner678]

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

[@lhkraut]

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

[@mustang5132]

Excellent video! I like this long form style

[@billhanna2148]

Thanks Ed another top shelf video made my day.

[@hughn]

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

[@robbudden]

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

[@Knuck_Knucks]

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

[@RichardGoth]

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

[@paulkirkland3263]

One of your best videos. Thank you.

[@Zorglub1966]

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

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

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.

[@martinhowell3475]

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

[@louwvandermerwe178]

47 makes the design even better!

[@covertops19Z]

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

[@DONALDSON51]

Cheers Ed.Another top video

[@miffedmax]

I think the HMS Formidable was Britain's most formidable carrier. I'm here all week, folks.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

*bu dum tish*

[@jonathanklein383]

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.

[@williamprince1114]

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]

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

[@superjuca55]

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'.

[@veryrevrufus]

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

[@kevkfz5226]

Great video Ed

[@mathewkelly9968]

Amazing they made it work at all really

[@rancidschannel3206]

Really enjoyed this

[@DavidtheNorseman]

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

[@john_smithchiropractor3931]

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

[@maxstoner5527]

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]

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

[@russdority6295]

We only used them for flight deck training

[@wor53lg50]

​@@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?....

[@rovercoupe7104]

Brilliant. Thank you. M.

[@alexanderlawson1649]

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

[@robertsansone1680]

Very excellent & interesting. Thank You

[@louwvandermerwe178]

Amazing colour footage

[@dereksollows9783]

Excellent review

[@johndell3642]

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.

[@SimonWallwork]

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

[@Wallyworld30]

I couldn't imagine being a Carrier Fighter Pilot trying to chase down a Kamikaze Plane with all that AA fire in the air. Anyone that has seen the ridiculous amount of lead the American's put up at the Kamikaze planes wouldn't want to be in the air with that going on.

[@jacktattis]

Captain Eric Brown said that it had plusses and minuses but that every new pilots could experience of flying the best there was And he flew every wartime seaplane

[@redjacc7581]

nice one Ed

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

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.

[@yes_head]

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

[@aceofhearts573]

Sad that the Supermarine Seafang never made it to the fleet

[@ramal5708]

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

[@geordiedog1749]

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).

[@johnjephcote7636]

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

[@ProjectFlashlight612]

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]

We had steam trains when Japan had the bullet train.

[@wor53lg50]

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

[@TallDude73]

Isn't it funny when you get into details, you see how the British Navy had scrape to get any decent fighters. You'd think the navy would be a priority for the Brits, along with Churchill being a former First Lord of the Admiralty. And then the fighter that came out ahead was a short range interceptor. Life is funny.

[@salvagedb2470]

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.

[@Binkygetsby]

Great video.

[@phann860]

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

[@nowthenzen]

also, let's keep in mind that outside of operations deep in the Atlantic the British assumed naval actions would take place in range of British land bases. While this was true, what was not calculated was the fact there would never be enough modern land aircraft to operate in every conflict zone.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

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. .

[@sbg911]

The Seafire had a hell of a long career for a supposed bodge job. Btw for every Seafire landing crash picture, there's a Wildcat/Hellcat/Avenger/Dauntless crash picture easily googled... all planes supposedly designed for carriers. Simple fact is carrier landings, esp in damaged aircraft, were always a risky activity. But in the air, I bet the guys on board were very happy to have Seafires overhead flying CAP and fleet defense...

[@Philistine47]

First, there were a _lot_ more of the USN types in service - something like 20x as many aircraft taking all those 5 types together - so similar loss _numbers_ actually indicate much higher loss _rates_ in the Seafire fleet. And second, those aircraft tended _not_ to be wrecked in the course of a normal landing of an undamaged aircraft, whereas even undamaged Seafires landing in normal conditions had an alarming tendency to, say, shed their entire aft fuselage when the tail hook caught the wire. The Seafire's longevity is mostly a result of the British aero industry's failure to build an actually suitable carrier fighter rather than the "excellence" of the Seafire itself. Because while the Spitfire was a first-rate land-based point-defense interceptor, as a carrier fighter what the Seafire really needed (and ultimately got, though not until after WW2) was a completely new aircraft with nothing but the name in common with the wartime production of the type.

[@sbg911]

@@Philistine47 Your points are well made but you missed the primary point of my post: the claim the Seafire was a "bodge" job, simply by focussing on its landing issues, and ignoring the capability it brought to the Royal Navy/FAA above lesser aircraft supposedly designed for carriers. Should the British have designed a carrier aircraft from ground-up? Sure, but desperate times called for desperate measures and the Spitfire proved once again its capability to be whatever the Allies needed it to be. The fact that specific carrier-designed aircraft became available, yet the Brits continued to evolve and use the Seafire, tells me this landing crash rate was not as big an issue as made out here, and certainly not enough to override what the Seafire gave them in capability/performance. This video infers that this issue was so serious that it almost seems like every Seafire crashed on landing - the loss % rate may be higher that USN designs, but their sortie rate was astronomical in comparison. Of 2600+ Seafires, the vast majority performed superbly is all facets of RN power projection, achieved everything it was called upon to do, and was used for over a decade by multiple countries when other options were available - something a "bodge" job would never have done. And the vast majority survived landings - hundreds of times over.

[@jacktattis]

@@Philistine47 Eric Brown in his book Wings of the Navy gives 19 pages to the Seafire 12 to the Wildcat /Corsair and 10 to the Hellcat

[@jacktattis]

@@sbg911 well said

[@Philistine47]

​@@sbg911 First, you've badly misunderstood what "bodge job" means. "Bodge job" refers to how a thing is made, not to its actual effectiveness - on occasion, "bodge jobs" can even work out well! So it wasn't the (wartime) Seafire's unfortunate penchant for breaking into pieces during landing that made it a bodge job, nor its woefully inadequate range, nor any of the other qualities that made it unfit for purpose as specifically a _naval_ fighter: what made the (wartime) Seafire a "bodge job" was that the FAA _"bodged"_ the first examples together by tacking tailhooks onto the aft fuselages of RAF Spitfires and calling them carrier fighters. Subsequent marks did a bit more in the way of conversion, but until the end of the war it was never much more than the bare minimum for carrier operations. Second, you've catastrophically underestimated how bad the (wartime) Seafire actually was at being a naval fighter. Take the landing aboard issue: during just one operation in the Med, covering amphibious landings in Italy, 61 of 100 Seafires on strength were wrecked within just a couple of days - and I did say "wrecked," not "shot down," because almost all of the losses came via cracking up on landing. As for the range issue, the (wartime) Seafire started with the same disadvantage as the RAF Spitfires: the type was designed as a point-defense interceptor, a role for which large fuel tanks (and the reinforced structure to support them) would have been an absolute hindrance. Postwar the Seafire finally got the clean-sheet redesign it needed to become a proper carrier fighter, and this corrected the type's worst deficiencies. The _postwar_ Seafire - with a brand new engine in an all-new airframe, all it shared with the wartime Seafire was the name and its general appearance - was the aircraft that served the FAA into the 1950s.

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

"Corky" Meyer's granddaughter was my daughter's nanny, briefly.

[@keiranallcott1515]

Well done ed ,great video , I wonder if the hawker typhoon would have being a better carrier aircraft I am fully aware that some carriers during the Sicily campaign actually ran out of props for the Seafire !

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

Maybe with the Centaurus engine, the Sabre engine was a maintenance hog and prone to catch fire on startup. At least the Seafire had the reliable Merlin, in all other respects it was less than stellar for carrier use.

[@blackenedmagic888]

@@KapiteinKrentebol The ease of maintenance and the ability to take battle damage are two of the big reasons why the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy preferred to use radial engines over liquid-cooled engines.

[@keiranallcott1515]

@@blackenedmagic888 I fully agree with that.

[@LV_CRAZY]

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

[@markriley7723]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4anfoSPotScpJo&ab_channel=Greg%27sAirplanesandAutomobiles

[@avipatable]

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

[@13stalag13]

Or the Bearcat and the Sea Fury.

[@rokuth]

​@@13stalag13 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXeqgqyMZcyMZ6M

[@avipatable]

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