FAA Role in the Pacific.?

[Graham Boak]

Given that the Seafire was only an overweight Spitfire Mk.V with a low-rated engine, some doubt must be cast on such a simply-expressed opinion. At very low level the aircraft should not be under-rated, as proved in the BPF's CAP mission (trying to drag the discussion back to the original point!).

Perhaps the most critical judgement that can be made on the USN fighters is that they were not much more superior to the Seafire, given their later design period and much greater power. However, some of this has to be credited to the specifically naval requirements. The need for a big wing does reduce the top speed, but improves manoeuvrability. The combination of a big wing and a big engine is a fairly good recipe for a fighter, although small size and light weight often gives better point performance numbers. The lighter weight of a landbased fighter will provide an advantage - but so will a 2000hp R2800!

In mid/late 1930s terms, that's exactly what a Spitfire was - big wing and big engine. But for the early 1940s a Griffon was needed - to my mind the big mistake of the Admiralty was not the second man in the Firefly but that the engine would have been better employed in Seafires....but that is being even more digressive. Sorry.

Edit after crossposting: apologies, Nick, I thought that they did make claims against Fw190s in an encounter during Dragoon.