Did Brit-designed, FAA aircraft visit USN CVs?

Nick P

Donor
I can't find any pics of FAA Seafires, Swordfish, Fulmars, etc. onboard a USN carrier at sea. Even with the later jets, like the Scimitar, Vampire, etc. I see no pics. The best I can find is a pic of SHAR visiting a USN CV.

Did British-designed, FAA aircraft visit USN CVs? I'm especially interested in the WW2 period.

How about a film of a Vampire landing on the USS Antietam?

Blackburn Buccaneer XN974 did land on the USS Lexington in 1965 as part of Carrier-Compatibility Trials http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/S2_XN976_files/0_S2_XN976.html
Pretty sure this is now in the Yorkshire Air Museum.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gbq719wUaQ8/Tld259Xk4LI/AAAAAAAAHbE/MyhTZbtEs_A/s1600/geoff+higgs+002.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PsYOyRlrpeE/Tld26OTj8MI/AAAAAAAAHbM/Kn26LvRvZyk/s1600/geoff+higgs+001.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U1Pm3RzpQdg/Tld25_ND8CI/AAAAAAAAHa8/secMzgNNWfE/s1600/geoff+higgs+004.jpg

Supermarine Scimitar landing on USS Forrestal - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...r_landing_on_USS_Forrestal_(CVA-59)_c1962.jpg
Sea Vixen on USS Ranger - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...2_NAS_landing_on_USS_Ranger_(CVA-61)_1963.jpg
Sea Vixen damaged while landing on USS Ticonderoga, Subic Bay, October 1961. http://www.seavixen.org/correlation-squadrons-ships/892-sqn-to-hms-victorious-1960-to-1962

The F-4K Phantom was redesigned to incorporate British Spey engines and other parts. These did land on US carriers. http://www.seaforces.org/usnair/VF/Fighter-Squadron-101.htm

Let's not forget that todays USN pilots learn to land on carriers in British-designed jets, the T-45 Goshawk :)
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/t-45-goshawk-trainer.page
 
I read somewhere that RN LSO landing signals were the opposite of USN signals which caused problems when they started cross decking in WW2, and had to be harmonised.
I suppose the RN's FAA has never landed an aircraft on a Japanese carrier. Considering Britain helped the IJN get its carrier aviation started, it's not a complete stretch to cross deck between the RN and IJN, likely before the cancellation of the Anglo-Japan alliance.

FAA rotary wing aircraft may have landed on JSDF warships post-war, including up to today.
 
I don't understand how this applies.

You asked if Seafire was not used by the USN because it was too fragile

I think that it was not used because it was not needed

The Seafire was not available until 1943 - by this time the USN has the Hellcat and Corsair (although not really ready for a deck in 43) in vast numbers

Had the Seafire been available earlier then there might have been greater interest shown by the USN as it outperformed the Wildcat in most aspects
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks for that great pic. USS Wasp served closely with the RN, so she has the best odds of having FAA visitors.

I'm wondering if the USN refused Seafires on their carriers due to the type's weaknesses.
You mean while the RN was grabbing every F4F and F4U they could get their hands on? The U.S. was able to produce far more aircraft than the British, AND the U.S. aircraft did not require modification to operate on USN decks, did not require the addition of an entirely different supply system (including coolant by the barrel), and training mechanics on a completely different engine type). All U.S. carrier aircraft were air-cooled radial engines with most aircraft using either the R-2600 or R-2800.
 
During the BPFs sojourn in the Pacific in 1945 I did read a story where two seafires crash landed on a US Flattop (due to their carrier being Kamikazee'd and the deck temporarily out of use) - both crash landed due to the difference in the arrester wire height which had not been adapted for the Seafire and they subsequently went into the crash barrier.

The USN already had a gazillion Hellcats for their carriers by 44 and later on (after the RN got them to work in 43-44) the faster Corsairs - so it did not need the relatively short ranged Seafire as it already had a choice of 2 very suitable Carrier aircraft.

Had the seafire been available in say 1941 - it might have been a different story

In Korea the RN Seafire F 47 were used for point defence when the UK carriers operated with the USN.
 
You'd think by then the FAA would have sufficient Sea Fury to deal with point defence.

I think the Seafire was only used on HMS Triumph, which was already in the Far East with a Seafire squadron on board when the Korean War broke out. Subsequent RN and RAN carriers had Sea Furies when operating off Korea.

Apparently after the Korean cruise peacetime airworthiness rules were implemented on 800 NAS and only 3 of their Seafires weren't written off due to rear fuselage wrinkling from carrier landings.
 
Last edited:
Were RN BPF carriers every operating close enough to US carriers for a Seafire to need to land on one?
Perhaps not. The USN's evaluator liked the Seafire, but operated it from land.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-variants/

US Navy test pilot 'Corky' Meyer got to fly a Seafire III at a Navy Fighter Conference in March, 1943, Florida.

In his own words:

Without argument, the Spitfire/Seafire configuration was probably the most beautiful fighter ever to emerge from a drawing board. Its elliptical wing and long, slim fuselage were visually most delightful, and its flight characteristics equalled its aerodynamic beauty.The Seafire had such delightful upright flying qualities that, knowing it had an inverted fuel and oil system, I decided to try inverted 'figure-8s'. They were as easy as pie, even when hanging by the complicated, but comfortable, British pilot restraint harness.I was surprised to hear myself laughing as if I were crazy.I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since, or felt so comfortable in an aeroplane at any flight attitude. It was clear to see how so few exhausted, hastily trained, Battle of Britain pilots were able to fight off Hitler's hordes for so long, and so successfully, with it.The Lend-Lease Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsair fighters were only workhorses. The Seafire III was a dashing stallion!

That's not to say the Seafire, if properly handled could not be safely landed on a carrier.

0:02 - perfect landing
1:39 - hard landing, landing gear holds up
1:50 & 8:11 - good landings, but arrested by barrier, landing gear holds up
2:27 - perfect landing
2:38 - perfect landing
6:11 - hard landing, landing gear holds up
6:16 - perfect landing
8:55 - gear up landing, showing strength of airframe
9:48 - perfect landing
9:55 - perfect landing


1:55 and 2:12 - this is more what we've been led to believe is the norm.

 
Last edited:
Were RN BPF carriers every operating close enough to US carriers for a Seafire to need to land on one?

Apparently the USN and RN carriers worked the opposite coasts, with a CVE taking over from a CVL when one wasn't available.
 
Apparently the USN and RN carriers worked the opposite coasts, with a CVE taking over from a CVL when one wasn't available.
Likely the case, though with some exceptions, here a US Navy Hellcat takes off from Royal Navy’s HMS Emperor during the invasion of Southern France, in August 1944.

a4feb23cd6cc77e0e8d41a44f561139c.jpg
 
Likely the case, though with some exceptions, here a US Navy Hellcat takes off from Royal Navy’s HMS Emperor during the invasion of Southern France, in August 1944.

a4feb23cd6cc77e0e8d41a44f561139c.jpg

Then there is OPERATION TORCH where all planes were painted in US markings to make the French think it was a US only operation...
 
There is a great story on that Armored Carriers website about a Seafire squadron trading several cases of scotch to a P-40 squadron in New Guinea in exchange for 89 gallon drop tanks.
 

hipper

Banned
There is a great story on that Armored Carriers website about a Seafire squadron tradingade several cases of scotch to a P-40 squadron in New Guinea in exchange for 89 gallon drop tanks.

It's very true they enabled the spitfire to fly from one coast to the other over Japan, the Drop tanks were not usually dropped in combat I believe , and they made landing easier by lowering the landing speed of the aircraft. (More air resistance)
 
It's very true they enabled the spitfire to fly from one coast to the other over Japan, the Drop tanks were not usually dropped in combat I believe , and they made landing easier by lowering the landing speed of the aircraft. (More air resistance)

The tanks increased the combat radius to 225 miles, but increased drag by 10%. This may be pertinent to whether or not they were released in combat, and they improved landing characteristics, but did not reduce landing speed.
 
Top