PDA

View Full Version : Seafire inquiry



VW-IceFire
09-05-2004, 03:49 PM
Its my understanding that we're getting a Seafire Mark IIIc for Pacific Fighters. I've done a little reading and it says that the Seafire IIIc had two interesting options for it.

The first is that it was capable of carrying a 500lb bomb or zero length rockets.

The second is that it apparently used the shorter, lighter, faster firing, lower muzzle velocity Hispano Mark V cannon.

So my question to anyone who can speculate, has information, or knows, is have these things been modeled for the Seafire in-game?

I sure hope so!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

VW-IceFire
09-05-2004, 03:49 PM
Its my understanding that we're getting a Seafire Mark IIIc for Pacific Fighters. I've done a little reading and it says that the Seafire IIIc had two interesting options for it.

The first is that it was capable of carrying a 500lb bomb or zero length rockets.

The second is that it apparently used the shorter, lighter, faster firing, lower muzzle velocity Hispano Mark V cannon.

So my question to anyone who can speculate, has information, or knows, is have these things been modeled for the Seafire in-game?

I sure hope so!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Seafire_LIII
09-06-2004, 03:02 AM
The Seafire III was made in three variants. The FIII, LIII which had the over-boosted low altitude engine, and the FRIII which was the same as the LIII but could carry two cameras, one vertical and one oblique, behind the cockpit. All had the same wing which was similar to the universal "c" wing of the Spitfire but had the wing folding capability and could only carry two cannon (the short barrel Mk5s) and four 0.303 MGs. This was known as the "navalised wing"- note that the "c" designation was never used for the Seafire III or any Spitfire mark where only one type of wing was ever fitted. IIIs could carry a 500lb bomb or the slipper fuel tanks (although some squadrons in the BPF fitted P-40 drop tanks instead). The Seafire III could carry rockets but these were not cleared for use until after VJ day.
Hope this helps.

VW-IceFire
09-06-2004, 12:06 PM
Excellent...thats the sort of thing I wanted to know.

I didn't know that the rockets weren't used till after. Very interesting details for sure.

So all Mark III's had the Hispano Mark V cannon? I guess weight was a major concern and the lighter cannon was a big help? Should be interesting to see used on this version.

Any idea how much ammo capacity it has?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Seafire_LIII
09-07-2004, 02:11 AM
The 20mm Hispanos had 120 rounds per gun. The 0.303MGs had 350 rpg. The MG were regarded by many squadrons as having little value except at extremely close range (whereas the Hispanos had an effective range of up to 600yds). Only one enemy aircraft, a Vichy Dewotine D.520 was ever downed by Seafire MG fire alone. No3 Fighter Wing (flying over Normandy during the Allied invasion in 1944) removed the outboard MGs saving 250lb weight and improving low-level high-speed manoeuvring.
The 500lb bomb carried by Seafires had a cropped tail for safe ground clearance. Take-off distance with 500lb bomb with 40 knots over the deck was 210 feet. A 250lb with a strengthened tail could be carried at higher speeds. It was also possible to carry a 250lb bomb under each wing but I've never seen a picture of a Seafire III doing that.
Incidently some Seafires (and Spitfire) were fitted with the GGS Mk2 computing gyro gunsight later in the war. However it was regarded as inferior to the GM2 sight for dogfighting- also it was only 200mm from the pilot's face which made bailing out a difficult proposition due to lack of space and a facial injury a high probability during a crash landing (which my father experienced).
Hopefully they'll get all these options, as well as engine power and the low level performance (including the 45 degree climb angle of the LIII) right in Pacific Fighters.
By the way, I've done a few Seafire skins that can be downloaded at IL2 Skins. I'm doing more, but it's a difficult busines due to the weird mapping of the rear fuselage skin on the Spitfire in in IL-2 FB.

JG53Frankyboy
09-07-2004, 03:09 AM
you have production numbers of Mk.III and L.MkIII ?

were the clipped wings common ore more the normal wingtips ?

biggs222
09-07-2004, 09:37 PM
there were no clipped winged Seafires the "L" in the Seafire title doesnt mean clipped wing, it means what type of engine was used...its a common misconseption to think that because it has "Low flight" in its title its means clipped wings.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2004, 10:13 PM
Doesn't matter which Hispano. If the modeling stays the same as FB, all you'll have to do is point them within about 5 degrees of an Axis plane and get an instant oil rupture and holes in the canopy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Must be nice not to have to worry about ballistics.

Seafire_LIII
09-08-2004, 12:20 AM
Biggs you are correct about engine being the difference between the LIII and the FIII (that's what I said in my first post above)and not clipped vs std wings. But there were Seafires with clipped wings. Many LIIc had clipped wings especially for the Salerno landings (to counter the Fw-190 roll rate). For example see: Sturtivant's book; also a good photo of one landing on in "Memoirs of a Reluctant Batsman" by Cappy Masters; another good photo in Poolman's Allied Escort Carriers of WWII in Action; and movies of the Pathe library). 885 NAS flew clipped wing LIIIs over Normandy during the Allied invasion (doing target spotting for the naval guns). I am not aware of clipped wing Seafires operating with the BPF- I would guess the extra roll rate was not needed against Japanese aircraft.

WOLFMondo
09-08-2004, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Doesn't matter which Hispano. If the modeling stays the same as FB, all you'll have to do is point them within about 5 degrees of an Axis plane and get an instant oil rupture and holes in the canopy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Must be nice not to have to worry about ballistics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ust be a good shot cause I never get hits that easy.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

nyme1
09-08-2004, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by biggs222:
there were no clipped winged Seafires the "L" in the Seafire title doesnt mean clipped wing, it means what type of engine was used...its a common misconseption to think that because it has "Low flight" in its title its means clipped wings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's of course correct that 'L' means engine set for optimal power in low altitudes.

Regarding clipped wing, in all books we can read that there were not 'clipped wing' Seafire III (/ L III). But all what we can read do not have to be absolutely correct. Sometimes one historical photo changes a lot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/jpg/supermarine%20seafire.jpg
Now we know that at least one Seafire III had 'clipped wing'. But this also doesn't mean that 'clipped wing Seafire III is a 'must' in PF. There is no reason, we know only one 'clipped' Seafire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

[This message was edited by nyme1 on Wed September 08 2004 at 12:56 AM.]

Texas LongHorn
09-08-2004, 03:40 AM
nyme1, WOW... what a great shot. It's funny too how in a conflict as long as WW2 they eventally turned out so many varients of AC that in the end almost anything is possible &lt;ggg.&gt; Heck, just look at the German 109 series! There were so many models I suspect even the Luftwaffe had trouble keeping them straight. LOL. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

Mashie_Nibblick
09-08-2004, 01:34 PM
Actually, Nyme, IIRC, the wingtips on Seafires folded inwards with the wings in folded state in order to save vertical space. I think that might be what's giving the impression that that's a CW Seafire.

One13
09-08-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mashie_Nibblick:
Actually, Nyme, IIRC, the wingtips on Seafires folded inwards with the wings in folded state in order to save vertical space. I think that might be what's giving the impression that that's a CW Seafire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the wingtips folded outwards. That is a clipped wing Spit. As Seafires were low altiude fighters quite a few had clipped wings. Also it would be easier to remove the wingtips from folding wings (it would make for a lighter and more reliable wing).

-----------------------------
First flight 20th Sept.1943

http://uk.geocities.com/peter.squire3@btopenworld.com/vampire-sig.jpg

Get my skins at....
il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=one13&ts=1073140490&comefrom=credits)

JG53Frankyboy
09-08-2004, 04:45 PM
http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/supermarine_seafire.html

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
09-08-2004, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Doesn't matter which Hispano. If the modeling stays the same as FB, all you'll have to do is point them within about 5 degrees of an Axis plane and get an instant oil rupture and holes in the canopy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Must be nice not to have to worry about ballistics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aren't you a good shot. Something could be said for having a much better muzzle velocity with a heavier shell but that doesn't really matter does it? No certainly not...

Hispano Mark V has a higher fire rate and a lower muzzle velocity...on the whole its superior in most respects to the MG151/20 (where its even on fire rate and better on muzzle and weight). I think the MG151/20 still wins on reliability although I've also read that the ShVAK gets that award too. Even so I think the Hispano V solved most problems with the gun.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

biggs222
09-09-2004, 01:39 PM
yeah stiglr what do u care...FB is a "totally inferrior sim" to u anyway....why arent u off playing target instead of spewing rubbish on these boards.