Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "The Supermarine Seafire - Second Time's a Charm!" video.

Many were used on land-based duty in the Mediterranean.
6
To be truthful honest, Supermarine never did make a decent Naval fighter ever.
4
@Hachaimenesch if you think about it, that is why it is easier to make a great Naval aircraft into a land based one. Rather than this move. The Sea Vampire is one of the few that worked.
3
Different training mindset and equipment availability.
2
You have to remember there was no crystal ball. Rearmament was going on across the board in all the services. Technology Advances as well as tactics, we're changing rapidly.
2
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.
2
That is a good question. But better, left to some of our military Aviation channels. As a general rule? Most are purpose built. Most land base designs don't work as conversions. A good naval aircraft design needs to have the strength and landing gear to withstand the stress of a deck Landing. It has to be compact to operate in a limited space available. It must have excellent low-speed handling and stall characteristics. Visibility is a must. Must have short take-off capability. Excellent ditching characteristics are helpful. They must be easy to service quickly. Long-endurance is always a must-have quality.
2
@ghostfacesaint it was mentioned. The Corsair and Hellcat were both better.
2
@Hachaimenesch eventually they did buy hellcats.
2
@jeffreyskoritowski4114 I'm not just talkin about the Seafire. Every plane after into the Jet era was lackluster. The company never had a great plane after the Spitfire.
1
@88porpoise I think you meant to say the C model vs the A?
1
@matthewwillis5650 Superior? The Sea Hurricane had its own issues. The Martlet was better is that role.
1
On the contrary, the Bearcat was lacking in the long-range and multi-role capabilities. The Ryan Fireball should thrown into this mix at the time as well.
1
@08jag81 Kurt Tank And the boys at FW would disagree. You can make a fast and aerodynamic air cooled design.
1
@johnfrancisterne1072 I wouldn't say irrelevant. Just that other factors as well as sheer power overcame the advantages of the inline.
1
@08jag81 the Sea Fury was a great bird.
1
@colbeausabre8842 I wouldn't even go that far. None of Supermarine's Naval Fighters were great.
1
Just because it's pretty or British, does not make it a good Naval fighter.
1
It's not just an issue about visibility. They have different handling characteristics, especially stall speed.
1
@ph89787 he probably would have been pretty bad. Just look at the German example
1
@d.olivergutierrez8690 it's a silly idea.
1
@DERP_Squad you're limited in that kind of aircraft by hangers & elevators.
1
@DERP_Squad that's kind of a glass half-full versus glass half-empty kind of view.😏🥃 Jutland is a outlier.
1
@fouraces9137 it wasn't even a contest. The Corsair was Superior.
1
@ericamborsky3230 it was done. There was a floatplane version of the Zero called, the Rufe. A prototype Floatplane Seafire was built.
1
@hamishneilson7140 likely for dock maneuvering.
1
@stephengloor8451 by the time the Typhoon was introduced, you had American built Naval types in service.
1
@jehl1963 the short answer to your question is a need to support British aviation industry. Nor was Grumman in the position to mass-produced additional aircraft. Production expansion was not in place.
1
@mikebrownhill8955 not really. Not when you have access to purpose-built American naval aircraft.
1
You have to keep in mind all of this in context for the time. There was no significant carrier threat in the Atlantic or Mediterranean. Thus, their forces were developed with that in mind.
1