"They gave me a Seafire..." - Seafire Mk IIc, 809 NAS FAA, HMS Stalker, Operation Avalanche September 1943

[TonyOD]

This is a placeholder for the first of my two Seafire builds for the Salty Sea Dog, in this case an early variant, an 807 Naval Air Squadron Seafire L Mk IIc that served aboard HMS Battler during Operation Avalanche, the Allied landings at the Italian port of Salerno in September 1943. This Seafire was essentially a navalised version of the Spitfire Mk Vc (though not with the benefit of folding wings – they didn’t appear until the Mk III). The delicate Spitfire with its narrow undercarriage wasn’t considered ideal for the rough and tumble of carrier ops (the sturdier lend-lease American Grummans were more up to the task), but the Admiralty didn’t have that many options.

 

There is a well known photograph of this particular airframe, arriving on deck with great enthusiasm. LR642 was built at the Westland factory and issued to 15 Maintenance Unit on 5th April 1943 and (after surviving a wheels-up landing at RAF North Front, Gibraltar on 3rd July) flew with 807 NAS from HMS Battler between July and September of that year. The mishap in the photograph (the arrester hook appears not to have lowered) apparently took place not on Battler but on HMS Hunter. After being repaired the airframe was sent home to 748 NAS at RNAS St Merryn in Cornwall, where it suffered yet another mishap, clipping a stationary aircraft with a wingtip in February 1944. It was then with another training unit, 761 NAS, from March to December 1944, and was eventually pensioned off in January 1946.

 

 

The kit I will be using is Special Hobby’s 1/48 “Torch and Avalanche” boxing, built OOB. I quite fancied the clipped-wing shark-mouth kite on the box but apparently there are some doubts over the authenticity of the scheme, whereas this one is pretty solid. Plenty SH kits have found their way into and out of my stash over the years, but I don’t recall ever actually finishing one! A short run kit after the joys of Airfix and Eduard may prove to be an interesting experience.

 

 

The title of this build comes from FAA pilot Commander R. “Mike” Crossley’s memoir of the same name, which in turn comes from a… pithy Fleet Air Arm song from wartime!

 

Thanks for looking in!

Edited February 8, 2023 by TonyOD

[ArnoldAmbrose]

16 minutes ago, TonyOD said:

arriving on deck with great enthusiasm.

Interesting way of describing it. 🙂

       "They Gave Me a Seafire"  -  I've actually got that book, picked it up at a free swap library here. I've not read it yet but now might be a good time.

I've read from another source (can't remember where, now) that the Pacific Fleet lost more Seafires to deck accidents than they did due to combat. I think the Seafire in the book was described as "elegant but fragile" or words to that effect.

Regards, Jeff.

[vppelt68]

 I have -and have read it too - the book in the title, and a Sword 1:72 scale Seafire Mk IIc kit I plan to build in this GB 🙂

[TonyOD]

45 minutes ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

I think the Seafire in the book was described as "elegant but fragile" or words to that effect.

 

Indeed. I saw a film a short while ago with a Grumman (might have been a Martlet) landing on a carrier, followed by a Seafire. When the Grumman was down it stayed down, whereas the Seafire bounced around the deck like a ping pong ball.

[Ngantek]

It's a good read Jeff, if you ever get around to it. 

 

I look forward to this one, I've been debating whether to build SH's LIII one day, so keen to see how it goes!

 

HMS Hunter is one of the options I was considering for my build, so that would make a nice pairing.

 

Andy

[Bertie McBoatface]

6 hours ago, TonyOD said:

arriving on deck with great enthusiasm

 

Phrase of the day!

 

I'd like to think that you will build it as per the photo.

[TonyOD]

7 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

"They Gave Me a Seafire"  -  I've actually got that book, picked it up at a free swap library here. I've not read it yet but now might be a good time.

I haven’t read it yet either… and as you say, now might be a good time! 

[Ngantek]

8 hours ago, ArnoldAmbrose said:

Interesting way of describing it. 🙂

       "They Gave Me a Seafire"  -  I've actually got that book, picked it up at a free swap library here. I've not read it yet but now might be a good time.

I've read from another source (can't remember where, now) that the Pacific Fleet lost more Seafires to deck accidents than they did due to combat. I think the Seafire in the book was described as "elegant but fragile" or words to that effect.

Regards, Jeff.

Crosley himself, despite having obvious affection for the aircraft, is very critical about them, which comes through more in his second book following his post war career as a test pilot. That training gives him a more technical perspective of its failings, and frankly the IIIs and even many of the mid mark Spits were not really fit as far a longitudinal stability was concerned. The Seafires particularly due to the weight of the hook and reinforcement so far aft of the CoG, and large positive weight added to the elevator control to counter this had several particularly bad effects, one of which was the fact that on chopping back the throttle when the 'cut' command was given by the batsman, the aircraft would naturally pitch up and 'float' (or bounce) over the wires. This allied to narrow track landing gear and a very small window (about 3 knots) between power on stall and 3-point touchdown speed, made it very unforgiving compared to aircraft that had been designed with deck operations in mind. With the fatigue of long wartime operations, even experienced pilots could at times make mistakes, and for an effective operational aircraft, it necessarily becomes a matter of probability.

 

Still, I think by the end of the war, the Implacable and Indefatigable Seafires were competitive, at least with the Corsair squadrons, as far as attrition was concerned, and the Implacable's use of P40 drop tanks gave them enough range to be effective beyond simply fleet CAP. I think you're right on that fact (about combat vs accidental losses), but it's also somewhat a measure the nature of the eastern war at that time, with little air opposition, and that mostly kamikaze; and the use of seafires primarily in CAP. 

 

Even the lovely 47s which were about as fit-for-purpose as they could make them, were just not that well suited as carrier aircraft, as evidenced by the attrition rate of the 800NAS aircraft operating off Triumph in Korea, and the comparative ruggedness and versatility of the Sea Furys that replaced them. 

 

Still, this is one of the reasons I really like Seafires, they seem to epitomise the FAA during the war to me, getting the job done with inferior, second hand, or unsuitable equipment. 

 

Yeesh sorry went off on one there, I must have a lot of work I'm supposed to be doing

 

This is all by way of saying, 'it's a good book, an entertaining and well written narrative'.

 

 

[Grey Beema]

10 hours ago, Ngantek said:

Still, I think by the end of the war, the Implacable and Indefatigable Seafires were competitive, at least with the Corsair squadrons, as far as attrition was concerned, and the Implacable's use of P40 drop tanks gave them enough range to be effective beyond simply fleet CAP. I think you're right on that fact (about combat vs accidental losses), but it's also somewhat a measure the nature of the eastern war at that time, with little air opposition, and that mostly kamikaze; and the use of seafires primarily in CAP. 

 

 

 

 

Range was always a problem with the Seafire.  In the Pacific Seafires on both Indefatigable and Implacable carried drop tanks.  On Indefatigable they were 90-gallon slipper tanks.  The impact was the carrier had to turn into the wind at least twice as many times as the Hellcat & Corsair armed carriers due to the short range of the Seafire.  I would be resonably sure that if there had been enough Hellcats, both Indefatigable and Implacable would have been so equipped.

 

The SH Seafire finishes up well (although @Troy Smith will tell you the fuselage is about 2mm short) - todate I have built 4.  One MkII (Operation Torch) and three MkIIIs (One D-Day, two BPF).  I have a wingfold, engine and gun bay set for a seafire too - but they are not going to be deployed in this GB..

 

 

 

[Ngantek]

3 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

Range was always a problem with the Seafire.  In the Pacific Seafires on both Indefatigable and Implacable carried drop tanks.  On Indefatigable they were 90-gallon slipper tanks.  The impact was the carrier had to turn into the wind at least twice as many times as the Hellcat & Corsair armed carriers due to the short range of the Seafire.  I would be resonably sure that if there had been enough Hellcats, both Indefatigable and Implacable would have been so equipped.

 

The SH Seafire finishes up well (although @Troy Smith will tell you the fuselage is about 2mm short) - todate I have built 4.  One MkII (Operation Torch) and three MkIIIs (One D-Day, two BPF).  I have a wingfold, engine and gun bay set for a seafire too - but they are not going to be deployed in this GB..

As you say. I think I read the most common fit for the 47s at Korea was all three external fuel tanks. I didn't know it was more than twice as much, although I suppose thinking about it comparing the endurances makes that a natural conclusion.  Do you have any good source recommendations about the Indefatigable operations or just BPF in general? One would think from Crosley's book that the slipper tanks were borderline unusable. 

 

Yep I'm sure the hellcats would've been preferable, again I have no knowledge on the supply situation and so on; but it always surprised me somewhat that only one of the fleet carriers used them. Am I right in thinking that corsairs didn't fit into the Implacable class?

 

Good to hear about the larger SH seafire. I'd love to do a BPF LIII at some point but sword kits are pretty rare these days, and 48 scale is a stretch for me without wingfolds. 

 

Aiyee and with that my flagrant threat hijacking is over! Sorry!

 

Andy

 

[Grey Beema]

31 minutes ago, Ngantek said:

As you say. I think I read the most common fit for the 47s at Korea was all three external fuel tanks. I didn't know it was more than twice as much, although I suppose thinking about it comparing the endurances makes that a natural conclusion.  Do you have any good source recommendations about the Indefatigable operations or just BPF in general? One would think from Crosley's book that the slipper tanks were borderline unusable. 

 

Yep I'm sure the hellcats would've been preferable, again I have no knowledge on the supply situation and so on; but it always surprised me somewhat that only one of the fleet carriers used them. Am I right in thinking that corsairs didn't fit into the Implacable class?

 

Good to hear about the larger SH seafire. I'd love to do a BPF LIII at some point but sword kits are pretty rare these days, and 48 scale is a stretch for me without wingfolds. 

 

Aiyee and with that my flagrant threat hijacking is over! Sorry!

 

Andy

 

Let's not ambush Tony's thread - I'll put something in the Inspiration thread..

[Troy Smith]

15 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

The SH Seafire finishes up well (although @Troy Smith will tell you the fuselage is about 2mm short)

indeed,  actually that was more about some of the utter tosh I had read about the SH kit and it's inaccuracies, eg -  that it was based on the old tool Tamiya kit, it's not, if it has an inspiration it's the Hasegawa Vb, and then 'modellers' moaning about wanting a replacement fuselage, or using a another kits fuselage,  which I still see.... (see the Spitfire XII thread, while a kit that does deserve a hammering, like the Airfix Spitfire XII seems to then get a free pass...) 

where if you have the skills to cross kit or the like, you can get the SH to be the right length with a couple of splices.. 

Inevitably mine sits in a box with a corrected fuselage and only that....

I've messed up my modelling space, and the my current project is not really inspiring me either...     I'd dig out the SH Seafire III, if I could find it in the storage pandemonium...  

Or maybe I should finish my Seafire IIc conversion I started in 1981.....

On 20/12/2022 at 12:16, TonyOD said:

I quite fancied the clipped-wing shark-mouth kite on the box but apparently there are some doubts over the authenticity of the scheme

I'd say that was an @iang  question?  

 

On 20/12/2022 at 12:16, TonyOD said:

The delicate Spitfire with its narrow undercarriage wasn’t considered ideal for the rough and tumble of carrier ops (the sturdier lend-lease American Grummans were more up to the task), but the Admiralty didn’t have that many options.

They were not designed for it.  Supermarine did offer a naval Spitfire quite early on, but it was turned down IIRC,  I can't recall which book it was in, possibly Seafire, the Spitfire that went to sea

which can be picked up pretty cheaply if you wait and is an interesting read. 

 

@gingerbob may know more on the Supermarine proposal.  

 

But the Seafire with the cropped engine impeller for low level use was incredibly fast, with amazing acceleration,  IIRC it happily out performed the US types in this aspect.   It's been a while since I read the above Seafire book but I think that is the source of that. 

 

cheers

T

[TonyOD]

6 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I'd say that was an @iang  question?  

 

I seem to remember seeing something about the size of the fuselage codes in particular.

 

6 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I can't recall which book it was in, possibly Seafire, the Spitfire that went to sea

 

This one's on my shopping list. (BTW I managed to pick up a copy of Spitfire The History for 15 quid posted, which I hope was a decent price!)

 

22 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

(although @Troy Smith will tell you the fuselage is about 2mm short) 

 

Where my modelling is concerned I'm ever mindful of what until just now I thought was an old Oirish prayer, but have just found out it actually came from an American in the 30s:

 

 

While anyone that knows me will tell you I'm not exactly overloaded with wisdom, I think those 2mm will fall into the serenity category 😉

[iang]

On 21/12/2022 at 12:35, Ngantek said:

As you say. I think I read the most common fit for the 47s at Korea was all three external fuel tanks. I didn't know it was more than twice as much, although I suppose thinking about it comparing the endurances makes that a natural conclusion.  Do you have any good source recommendations about the Indefatigable operations or just BPF in general? One would think from Crosley's book that the slipper tanks were borderline unusable. 

 

Yep I'm sure the hellcats would've been preferable, again I have no knowledge on the supply situation and so on; but it always surprised me somewhat that only one of the fleet carriers used them. Am I right in thinking that corsairs didn't fit into the Implacable class?

 

Good to hear about the larger SH seafire. I'd love to do a BPF LIII at some point but sword kits are pretty rare these days, and 48 scale is a stretch for me without wingfolds. 

 

Aiyee and with that my flagrant threat hijacking is over! Sorry!

 

Andy

 

 

WRT thread hijacking - Admiralty analysis is quite revealing (with apologies to the OP)

 

 

 

 

Vian and Rawlings both wrote to the Admiralty asking for Implacable's and Indefatigable's Seafires to be entirely replaced by Hellcats. I have copies of the correspondence, which I'll try and find..

[iang]

On 20/12/2022 at 12:16, TonyOD said:

 

 

I quite fancied the clipped-wing shark-mouth kite on the box but apparently there are some doubts over the authenticity of the scheme, 

 

 

 

I have an unpublished photograph of this aircraft on Hunter, plus several others where the code is not visible.  I agree that the codes are red, but the spinner is black and the shark-mouth is also likely black in my view (it's difficult to be sure about this as in the one photograph where the codes and shark-mouth are both visible, the shark-mouth looks darker than the code, but the shark-mouth is in slight shadow)

[TonyOD]

This is all intriguing stuff, thank you @iang. The shark-mouth one sounds almost go-withable, as well as the shark-mouth the clipped wings are appealing although my possible third build (ASR Spitfire Mk Vb) was a clippy, Black seems an odd choice for the shark-mouth, but maybe black is all they had to hand? I think I'm probably safer with LR642 as planned.

[TonyOD]

21 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Seafire, the Spitfire that went to sea

which can be picked up pretty cheaply if you wait and is an interesting read. 

 

£5.79 posted, very small Christmas present to self!

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, TonyOD said:

£5.79 posted, very small Christmas present to self!

I think it will be of interest. Not to many photos, but IIRC a useable one for a Seafire IB, but a decent read and history of the type.

One small error, the Seafire XV sold to Burma did not have their wings replaced by ones from Spitfire XVIII's.  

Did you get yourself some brushes as as  well? 

17 hours ago, TonyOD said:

I think those 2mm will fall into the serenity category 

It more like 3mm.  

As I mentioned, a common theme re the SH Spitfire/Seafire kits was they were very inaccurate, while not complaining about other kits that had more problems....  And it's wrong. 

the SH shortness is more that it is in two places,  just in front of the cockpit, making the wing too far back, and just in front of the tail.  

See here, https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235079685-148-seafire-iii-best-option/#elControls_3814469_menu

 the fix, but still seems to be too much work!. 

This is aligned over a cutting mat, and the vertical strips show certain positions, 

top is an adjusted SH, lower is the Airfix Vb, one thing not clear is the unadjusted SH tail is very slightly canted forward.

 

 

One poster on SH problems theme actually used the Hase VB as a basis for Seafires

....  the Hase Vb top ..vs the SH V lower,  the difference if you look closely is the SH wing is further back, which is what the paper is for to show the positions, but they are the same (short) length.    This image not draw a reply IIRC.

 

Re length,  since this is a ramble, frame 5 the engine firewall to rudder post is the same length on EVERY Spitfire. 

245 inches in real life, or 20ft 5"

in 1/48th that is 5 and 5/48th's inch,  or  129.64 mm 

 

In reality, it's hard to see the problem unless you know what too look for, unlike on other kits.    I can edit out the above if clutter, but thought clarification of this maybe of use.  I appreciate that continual nit picking of kits is tiring,  but I think it is of use to have detailed explanation of the problems and way to fix this if you choose.

What frustrates me is the all to often lack of the possible part,  or a request for AM to fix it, or silly fixes, like cross kitting a  correct length fuselage, which is as much, or more work than just fixing the kit.

Modellers, funny lot.  

 

Hope of interest/use.  

 

PS if you have not seen it (and I've only flicked through it) there is a 33 min youtube on the Seafire here, fortunately with actual pilots memories and not some badly researched voiceover...

https://youtu.be/MnVJJ9BVLGU

 

There is some interesting observations on senior RN officers not really understanding , link to time of George Baldwin talking about Salerno operations, and how later the accident rate was less than the RAF

https://youtu.be/MnVJJ9BVLGU?t=1831

 

 

Lots of great newsreel footage, but there is a Seafire warbird mixed in made into B/W.    

Edited December 23, 2022 by Troy Smith
added a PS

[Troy Smith]

On 20/12/2022 at 12:16, TonyOD said:

LR642 was built at the Westland factory and issued to 15 Maintenance Unit on 5th April 1943 and (after surviving a wheels-up landing at RAF North Front, Gibraltar on 3rd July) flew with 807 NAS from HMS Battler between July and September of that year. The mishap in the photograph (the arrester hook appears not to have lowered) apparently took place not on Battler but on HMS Hunter. After being repaired the airframe was sent home to 748 NAS at RNAS St Merryn in Cornwall, where it suffered yet another mishap, clipping a stationary aircraft with a wingtip in February 1944. It was then with another training unit, 761 NAS, from March to December 1944, and was eventually pensioned off in January 1946.

 

 Looing through that Seafire vid comments, I noticed a link to Eric Brown talking about it

https://youtu.be/MnVJJ9BVLGU?t=1097

with some interesting colour footage, the Y£ code ones are a training unit, yellow codes, and post 1945, C upperwing roundels.  

but the main reason for the quote, is there has been discussion on here that some Westland built Seafires had the uppers in Dark green/Ocean Grey,  not EDSG/DSG of TSS

And... here

https://youtu.be/MnVJJ9BVLGU?t=1165  there is what I think got referenced,  about 5 secs of colour film...

Wonder if I can find the thread.

Note the similarity to your reference image has a high contrasting uppers while TSS usually is low contrast in B/W photos. 

PS 

the thread in question

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234991849-early-westland-seafire-colours/

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Troy Smith
added a PS

[TonyOD]

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Did you get yourself some brushes as as  well? 

 

We'll see what Santa brings! 

 

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Hope of interest/use.

 

Always appreciated... but I'm still serene... 😇

 

The issue of the Westland colours though? Oh boy...  

The contrast does indeed look quite high in my pic. (Quick check) Special Hobby's callouts indeed suggest Ocean Grey rather than EDSG... but they also say Dark Green instead of Dark Slate Grey, and Medium Sea Grey instead of Sky for the underside ("The references differ in used camouflage colors. Either it was sprayed with naval colors or Day Fighter Scheme colors.") So effectively day Fighter Scheme instead of TSS? This isn't what I want! Not so bleedin' serene now, am I?

 

Thanks for the video stuff, I'll have a look over a mulled wine.

[TonyOD]

Thought I'd have a delve in the box and see what we got. I've never built a Special Hobby Seafire in 1/48 (or a Special Hobby anything in any scale for that matter!) but they offer a goodly range of Mk II's, III's and XV's, with some interesting FAA, IAC and Aeronavale scheme, I have a couple to do in the future, as well as two Spitfire Mk V's, which are largely the same kit as the Mk II. Anyways, there's a lot in the box, some nice looking plastic with all the extra bits like slipper fuel tanks, resin bits and etch. That white thing isn't a mask, I understand they get stuck on the fuselage to represent some kind of strengthening plates. Decals look decent with a full set of stencils.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The jury is out now on what Seafire I'm going to build, as it looks likely that Westland-built LR642 was painted in Day Fighter Scheme, I definitely want something in classic FAA Temperate Sea Scheme. I do fancy the shark-mouth plane on the box with the four-bladed prop and the clipped wings, I have a copy of David Brown's The Seafire inbound, I believe it contains a pic of that particular plane and if there isn't anything to suggest that the scheme is definitely incorrect I may well go with it. Failing that, there is this beautifully photographed example for which I believe 1/48 decals can be obtained:

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by TonyOD

[Col.]

From what I can remember of that sharkmouth scheme there was some evidence it was on a full-span wing but of course I can remember where I seen that now. What I do recall is having trouble getting the fuselage halves close around the cockpit, so be ready to do lots of test fitting and trimming in that area, along with one wing being slightly thicker than the other where the upper wing parts meet the fuselage fillets and needing trimming along the leading edge join to avoid a step.

[iang]

46 minutes ago, Col. said:

From what I can remember of that sharkmouth scheme there was some evidence it was on a full-span wing but of course I can remember where I seen that now. What I do recall is having trouble getting the fuselage halves close around the cockpit, so be ready to do lots of test fitting and trimming in that area, along with one wing being slightly thicker than the other where the upper wing parts meet the fuselage fillets and needing trimming along the leading edge join to avoid a step.

Shark-mouth 5A definitely clipped wings and with black, not red, spinner (I'm looking at 3 photographs of the airframe as I type this).

[TonyOD]

4 minutes ago, iang said:

Shark-mouth 5A definitely clipped wings and with black, not red, spinner (I'm looking at 3 photographs of the airframe as I type this).

Thanks - I seem to remember seeing something about the size of the codes too but unless incontrovertible evidence turns up on this I’ll go with the call-outs.

[Troy Smith]

On 27/12/2022 at 19:00, TonyOD said:

Failing that, there is this beautifully photographed example for which I believe 1/48 decals can be obtained:

 

 

one of the best documented Seafires, in colour too..

Seafire IIc,  c1942. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

Seafire by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

Seafire by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

Note the Sky Blue undercowl. 

 

The decals were on this sheet

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/model-alliance-48118-on-target-profile-n-5-seafires--1087918

 

Note the sheet is listed as MB183, 

Though in the image you posted is does look like MB183.   

 

Though a sharkmouthed 4 blade clipped wing Seafire does sound rather neat......