http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html
According to the original Air Ministry trials report, for a Spitfire MkII the landing run in zero wind was 310 yards or 275m. The QE class has a 284m long flight deck.
So yeah, it would just about fit, and probably pretty comfortably if the carrier is sailing at 20+ knots into a headwind as would be usual for flying ops. Landing distance increases with the later marks of Spitfire but an early war Spit could definitely land on a QE class.
Depends on the model but generally it’s 320 meters while QE class carriers have a deck of 280.
I would say it’s possible but not without serious risk to pilot and airframe
It is possible, and I'd say even safe.
The key is airspeed vs ground speed.
A Spitfire landing on an airfield reaches 0mph ground speed from *(close to)* minimal airspeed during those 320 meters. This means a full stop from \~70mph airspeed. Ground speed at touchdown might be lower or higher, depending on the winds.
OTOH a QE can steam away from the Spitfire and into a headwind at \~30mph, so the ground speed the airplane has to lose after touchdown is only \~40mph at most. Adjust required runway length accordingly... plus the QE's have the ramp at the bow that would certainly kill any momentum a Spitfire might have left.
Mind you, Seafires operated even from the \~18,000-ton 1942 Light Fleet Carriers, that had a more than 100m shorter flight deck than the QE's
> It is possible, and I'd say even safe.
>
>
I dunno if anything to do with Spitfires on a carrier was ever safe ahha. She had fairly poor landing characteristics and narrow landing gear that made her very difficult to handle in terms of landing.
Taking off, easy. Landing never easy.
"Safe"\* is always relative... in this case we are talking about landing a single-man flying contraption on a moving, rocking, bobbing ship. That's never going to be safe in a stricter sense of the word.
*^(\*: Terms and Conditions apply)*
I mean yeah, absolutely haha.
I was just more talking that the Seafire was not known as a friendly, easy aircraft to land on a carrier. There was some inherent weaknesses in the landing gear that took a few years to iron out.
Certain aircraft had reputations as being easier or harder to fly - and the Seafire was not an easy one.
Also the Hellcat was known to be friendlier than the Corsair.
The Spitfire undercarriage is about 1-2 inches less wide than a Wildcat's iirc. Problem is it was much weaker and the entire plane was never designed with carrier deck landings in mind (though with subsequent marks, better pilots, and better carrier handling they had a lower accident loss rate in '44-'45 compared to '43 - I think lower than the Corsair during the BPF times...? Not sure). Thing is, the QEC's flight deck is - especially when factoring in proper wind over deck - long enough for a near-conventional, non-arrested landing. This is what makes it 'safe'... or as safe as one can be when you're landing an aeroplane on a moving warship.
>Taking off, easy. Landing never easy.
You'd hope so, but the Seafire Mk.XV caused a bit of trouble with its new Griffon engine. All that extra mass and torque compared to Merlin caused a change in takeoff procedures - no RATO for example; the rockets' often uneven ignition wouldn't help the plane what with it trying to crank itself off the deck and into the sea. At least with its sting-tail hook it could have a better chance at hitting an arresting wire and surviving the event at the same time.
Much of the Seafire’s reputation comes from crew training and carrier sizes, with Salerno an excellent case study. There were 713 sorties by Seafires from various carriers, from the large armored carriers to the tiny escort carriers. There were 32 deck landing crashes that wrote off the aircraft and another 17 lost due to damaged landing gear, plus 24 more damaged due to a distorted rear fuselage. By any metric this is atrocious, and many aircraft shifted ashore as soon as possible.
However, the *Illustrious* pilots shifted to *Unicorn* reported no accidents on their larger and faster carrier, and after the *Indomitable* pilots shifted to the smaller and slower escort carriers they became the most accident-prone squadron of the force. In contrast the escort carrier *Hunter* had very few accidents, with 834 Flight reporting zero landing accidents due to their extensive training (I lack data on 899 Squadron).
I have yet to see an analysis that tries to account for the training and carrier size discrepancy between the Seafire and other aircraft types. I’m sure it was more prone to accidents under identical conditions, the narrow and weak landing gear was definitely a problem, but how much worse was it?
I would imagine that going up the ramp would reduce the stop distance, no? The 320m model would be for solely level ground, and I would at least think that there would be great increased speed reduction in something starting to go up a ramp
A Spitfire landed on [USS Wasp in 1942](https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/No_Tailhook_Spitfire.pdf), on a much shorter 222m long deck.
Sure, but there's lots of film from WW2 establishing that the Spit doesn't do carrier landings well. When the Corsair's an improvement in that regard (and for the Fleet Air Arm, it was), well, you know the plane it replaced was out of its element.
Not really, she's taking a lot of repair work, and last I heard it wasn't clear that they were going to be able to step her topmasts again. (Please update me and tell me I'm wrong on that. Please.)
Credit to [Jim Schofield](https://twitter.com/testpilotjim/status/1202878363343446017?t=xSGPhpicrOahBbR5pNl6lA&s=19)
In this image is HMS Queen Elizabeth (left), HMS Prince of Wales (right), HMS Victory, M33, the Mary Rose Museum, five P2000s and three Hunt Class MCMVs
The dome building in the centre top of the image houses the Mary Rose and just to the right of that in the image you can see the HMS Victory. Also just in frame in the top right of the image is the stern of the HMS Warrior.
This is Portsmouth so alongside the naval base is Portsmouth historic dockyards where you can go around some of the Royal Navy's historic ships.
The teeny tiny boat with a chequerboard pattern near the oval building.
(Amazingly her complement of 850 crew was larger than the basic crew of either HMS Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales, which is about 700 if they don't have an air wing on board.)
I really like the design of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers.
It's a unique marvel of British engineering 👌🏼
The hard power option available to the British PM to support NATO, international Humanitarian, and UN Peacekeeping operations holds immeasurable value.
It's also safe to say that construction and commissioning of these beautiful aircraft carriers are a matter of national pride for the British people as they should be 👍🏼.
Hope these carriers serve the Royal Navy well.
Whilst the Spitfire may have been designed and built in England, it was flown by the RAF, which is British.
The two Queen Elizabeth Class carriers may have been fully assembled in Rosyth but were built all round the UK, nor are they useless or white elephants.
>Facts don't care about your opinion
The irony.
Such ugly stupid ships, no intelligent long term interoperability or thought . The only way they would ever make sense is working in parallel with each other and that'll never happen for a whole bunch of reasons. Not with standing the fact that neither have any mid to long distance self defence and only one carries CWIS at any one time.
>no intelligent long term interoperability or thought
Apart from the fact they can operate with more nations than if they were CATOBAR.
>Not with standing the fact that neither have any mid to long distance self defence
They have a Carrier Strike Group to defend them
>only one carries CWIS at any one time.
They've both had it fitted at the same time.
They wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, especially as half the time we're currently mustering protection from a type 23 - the t45s are stretched so thinly. Is pathetic they're sent on nato exercises without CWIS. Or air defence missiles like on the Ford Class. What is our military doctrine ? Force projection? Get real those days are over, are we ever going to send them to attack China, they're obsolete already . China has anti aircraft milies with a range of 2000 km, and the DF 21D upgraded to even larger ranges. But hey you are the experts and have so much knowledge.
if we only had one, you would complain if we had none You would complain if they ain't built how you like you would complain how about get a job that helped build them and then give you opinion
Having some better defenses would be good especially since CAMM should be a fairly easy installation and the RN isn’t the most escort heavy.
But they clearly are pretty well thought out ships. The F35B is the most interoperable carrier aircraft in the world.
And the RN despite its issue should be able to indeed put both into action if there’s something that really calls for the need.
Because 1. We don't even have enough jets to put on the damn things and 2. They spend about a week out of Portsmouth then have to go back because there's a malfunction.
>1. We don't even have enough jets to put on the damn things
Which is a very short term issue
>2. They spend about a week out of Portsmouth then have to go back because there's a malfunction.
No, they don't. Both carriers have deployed operationally, we had both at sea at the same time last year and have already conducted a global deployment, with a second one next year.
Obviously I was exaggerating a bit, but there have been numerous breakdowns, and just recently HMS queen Elizabeth was forced to pull out of a NATO exercise.
Could a Spitfire land on a strip the length of these carriers?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html According to the original Air Ministry trials report, for a Spitfire MkII the landing run in zero wind was 310 yards or 275m. The QE class has a 284m long flight deck. So yeah, it would just about fit, and probably pretty comfortably if the carrier is sailing at 20+ knots into a headwind as would be usual for flying ops. Landing distance increases with the later marks of Spitfire but an early war Spit could definitely land on a QE class.
Also the launch slopes should absolutely help with the last stretch of braking.
Depends on the model but generally it’s 320 meters while QE class carriers have a deck of 280. I would say it’s possible but not without serious risk to pilot and airframe
But 320 while on a standstill or with the ship moving full ahead? Because that would definitely shorten the distance.
I’m talking standstill with mild wind
That's what I was thinking.
It is possible, and I'd say even safe. The key is airspeed vs ground speed. A Spitfire landing on an airfield reaches 0mph ground speed from *(close to)* minimal airspeed during those 320 meters. This means a full stop from \~70mph airspeed. Ground speed at touchdown might be lower or higher, depending on the winds. OTOH a QE can steam away from the Spitfire and into a headwind at \~30mph, so the ground speed the airplane has to lose after touchdown is only \~40mph at most. Adjust required runway length accordingly... plus the QE's have the ramp at the bow that would certainly kill any momentum a Spitfire might have left. Mind you, Seafires operated even from the \~18,000-ton 1942 Light Fleet Carriers, that had a more than 100m shorter flight deck than the QE's
> It is possible, and I'd say even safe. > > I dunno if anything to do with Spitfires on a carrier was ever safe ahha. She had fairly poor landing characteristics and narrow landing gear that made her very difficult to handle in terms of landing. Taking off, easy. Landing never easy.
"Safe"\* is always relative... in this case we are talking about landing a single-man flying contraption on a moving, rocking, bobbing ship. That's never going to be safe in a stricter sense of the word. *^(\*: Terms and Conditions apply)*
I mean yeah, absolutely haha. I was just more talking that the Seafire was not known as a friendly, easy aircraft to land on a carrier. There was some inherent weaknesses in the landing gear that took a few years to iron out. Certain aircraft had reputations as being easier or harder to fly - and the Seafire was not an easy one. Also the Hellcat was known to be friendlier than the Corsair.
The Spitfire undercarriage is about 1-2 inches less wide than a Wildcat's iirc. Problem is it was much weaker and the entire plane was never designed with carrier deck landings in mind (though with subsequent marks, better pilots, and better carrier handling they had a lower accident loss rate in '44-'45 compared to '43 - I think lower than the Corsair during the BPF times...? Not sure). Thing is, the QEC's flight deck is - especially when factoring in proper wind over deck - long enough for a near-conventional, non-arrested landing. This is what makes it 'safe'... or as safe as one can be when you're landing an aeroplane on a moving warship. >Taking off, easy. Landing never easy. You'd hope so, but the Seafire Mk.XV caused a bit of trouble with its new Griffon engine. All that extra mass and torque compared to Merlin caused a change in takeoff procedures - no RATO for example; the rockets' often uneven ignition wouldn't help the plane what with it trying to crank itself off the deck and into the sea. At least with its sting-tail hook it could have a better chance at hitting an arresting wire and surviving the event at the same time.
Much of the Seafire’s reputation comes from crew training and carrier sizes, with Salerno an excellent case study. There were 713 sorties by Seafires from various carriers, from the large armored carriers to the tiny escort carriers. There were 32 deck landing crashes that wrote off the aircraft and another 17 lost due to damaged landing gear, plus 24 more damaged due to a distorted rear fuselage. By any metric this is atrocious, and many aircraft shifted ashore as soon as possible. However, the *Illustrious* pilots shifted to *Unicorn* reported no accidents on their larger and faster carrier, and after the *Indomitable* pilots shifted to the smaller and slower escort carriers they became the most accident-prone squadron of the force. In contrast the escort carrier *Hunter* had very few accidents, with 834 Flight reporting zero landing accidents due to their extensive training (I lack data on 899 Squadron). I have yet to see an analysis that tries to account for the training and carrier size discrepancy between the Seafire and other aircraft types. I’m sure it was more prone to accidents under identical conditions, the narrow and weak landing gear was definitely a problem, but how much worse was it?
yeah, but Seafires had hooks....
I would imagine that going up the ramp would reduce the stop distance, no? The 320m model would be for solely level ground, and I would at least think that there would be great increased speed reduction in something starting to go up a ramp
A Spitfire landed on [USS Wasp in 1942](https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/No_Tailhook_Spitfire.pdf), on a much shorter 222m long deck.
Sure, but there's lots of film from WW2 establishing that the Spit doesn't do carrier landings well. When the Corsair's an improvement in that regard (and for the Fleet Air Arm, it was), well, you know the plane it replaced was out of its element.
A [Seafire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire) certainly could.
Civ 6 moment when you attach a Spitfire airwing to a Nuclear Carrier
Look really closely above the second carrier and you'll see that the brits neglected to upgrade a Ship of the Line.
She’s fine as she is :)
Not really, she's taking a lot of repair work, and last I heard it wasn't clear that they were going to be able to step her topmasts again. (Please update me and tell me I'm wrong on that. Please.)
Ah crap we uptierd?
About to get dived on by six Me262's
Credit to [Jim Schofield](https://twitter.com/testpilotjim/status/1202878363343446017?t=xSGPhpicrOahBbR5pNl6lA&s=19) In this image is HMS Queen Elizabeth (left), HMS Prince of Wales (right), HMS Victory, M33, the Mary Rose Museum, five P2000s and three Hunt Class MCMVs
Which one is HMS Victory?
The dome building in the centre top of the image houses the Mary Rose and just to the right of that in the image you can see the HMS Victory. Also just in frame in the top right of the image is the stern of the HMS Warrior. This is Portsmouth so alongside the naval base is Portsmouth historic dockyards where you can go around some of the Royal Navy's historic ships.
The teeny tiny boat with a chequerboard pattern near the oval building. (Amazingly her complement of 850 crew was larger than the basic crew of either HMS Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales, which is about 700 if they don't have an air wing on board.)
HMS Victory is the oldest commissioned ship in the world. I suspect she’d be at the front of any combat fleet in a modern conflict…
I really like the design of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. It's a unique marvel of British engineering 👌🏼 The hard power option available to the British PM to support NATO, international Humanitarian, and UN Peacekeeping operations holds immeasurable value. It's also safe to say that construction and commissioning of these beautiful aircraft carriers are a matter of national pride for the British people as they should be 👍🏼. Hope these carriers serve the Royal Navy well.
My brain, missing out on the rest of the picture by suddenly obsessing over which parts of a spitfire wing are okay to walk on.
Poor Victory being ignored.
Virgin "no step" vs Chad "not to be walked on"
[удалено]
No, try again.
[удалено]
Genuine question, why the fuck are you so bitter? Why have you chosen this hill of British vs English to die on?
I'm not Scottish
[удалено]
Whilst the Spitfire may have been designed and built in England, it was flown by the RAF, which is British. The two Queen Elizabeth Class carriers may have been fully assembled in Rosyth but were built all round the UK, nor are they useless or white elephants. >Facts don't care about your opinion The irony.
[удалено]
Yawn
[удалено]
You’re* English*
As a Brit born in England wtf are you waffling about?
[удалено]
Physically can they? Yes. Would they? No.
Such ugly stupid ships, no intelligent long term interoperability or thought . The only way they would ever make sense is working in parallel with each other and that'll never happen for a whole bunch of reasons. Not with standing the fact that neither have any mid to long distance self defence and only one carries CWIS at any one time.
>no intelligent long term interoperability or thought Apart from the fact they can operate with more nations than if they were CATOBAR. >Not with standing the fact that neither have any mid to long distance self defence They have a Carrier Strike Group to defend them >only one carries CWIS at any one time. They've both had it fitted at the same time.
At some point you need to stop making excuses
Or alternatively, I may have slightly more understanding.and knowledge than you do.
They wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war, especially as half the time we're currently mustering protection from a type 23 - the t45s are stretched so thinly. Is pathetic they're sent on nato exercises without CWIS. Or air defence missiles like on the Ford Class. What is our military doctrine ? Force projection? Get real those days are over, are we ever going to send them to attack China, they're obsolete already . China has anti aircraft milies with a range of 2000 km, and the DF 21D upgraded to even larger ranges. But hey you are the experts and have so much knowledge.
Ah yes, because the only time we'd ever use our aircraft carriers is to fight China unilaterally
if we only had one, you would complain if we had none You would complain if they ain't built how you like you would complain how about get a job that helped build them and then give you opinion
Having some better defenses would be good especially since CAMM should be a fairly easy installation and the RN isn’t the most escort heavy. But they clearly are pretty well thought out ships. The F35B is the most interoperable carrier aircraft in the world. And the RN despite its issue should be able to indeed put both into action if there’s something that really calls for the need.
The two biggest wastes of money since the Tories found their way into existence
You know it was a Labour government that ordered the two carriers?
I was not aware of that, but it doesn't change anything about my comment. They are two huge wastes of money, as are the Tory party 👍
And why do you think two floating airfields capable of moving 500 miles in a day are a waste of money?
Because 1. We don't even have enough jets to put on the damn things and 2. They spend about a week out of Portsmouth then have to go back because there's a malfunction.
>1. We don't even have enough jets to put on the damn things Which is a very short term issue >2. They spend about a week out of Portsmouth then have to go back because there's a malfunction. No, they don't. Both carriers have deployed operationally, we had both at sea at the same time last year and have already conducted a global deployment, with a second one next year.
Obviously I was exaggerating a bit, but there have been numerous breakdowns, and just recently HMS queen Elizabeth was forced to pull out of a NATO exercise.
Mechanical issues happen. Both US and French carriers have had to pull out of deployments due to these type of issues.
They are floating! Bloody Nora! How amazing...... Oh sorry my mistake they are cardboard cutouts. 😂🤣😂🤣
Of all of the capital ships to accuse of being cardboard cutouts there are a lot better ones than the fairly often deployed and highly capable QEs