Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_42

Is the in-game Supermarine Seafire too slow??

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
181 posts

After flying the Supermarine Seafire, I am feeling that it is definately modeled poorly to its RL counterpart. These were faster than the Wildcat, but the Seafires (tierVIII) in-game are way slower than tier VI planes. Feels like I'm flying a tier IV biplane. I'm scratching my head on this. Are not higher tier planes supposed to be faster than lower tier ones?? Seafire's speed should be somewhere closer to and slightly faster than the Wildcat.

If so, I do hope this will be seriously reviewed by the WG staff/developers.

In-game Performance...

Seafire (tierVIII) speed:  136/186 max

Wildcat (tierVI) speed:    153/207 max

Corsair (tierVIII) speed:   169/228 max

 

Real world performance...

Seafire
Maximum speed: 359 mph (578 km/h) at 5,100 ft (1,554 m)
Cruise speed: 218 mph (351 km/h)
Range: 513 mi (825 km)
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (9,754 m)
Rate of climb: 1.9 min to 5,000 ft (1,525 m)


Wildcat F4F
Maximum speed: 331 mph (531 km/h)   288 knots
Cruising speed: 264 km/h
Range: 845 mi (1,360 km)
Service ceiling: 39,500 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 2,303 ft/min (11.7 m/s)

Corsair F4-U
Maximum speed:  425 mph (684 km/h)  380 knots
Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h; 77 kn)
Range: 1,005 mi (873 nmi; 1,617 km)w/droptanks
Combat range: 328 mi (285 nmi; 528 km)
Service ceiling: 41,500 ft (12,600 m)
Rate of climb: 4,360 ft/min (22.1 m/s)

Edited by WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,736
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
24,119 posts
13,281 battles

That slower speed is a benefit and allows you to actually use your rockets as soon as you spot those pesky DD's instead of coming around after running over them, losing sight of them, and making a blind attack.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,155 posts
6,031 battles

Being able to spot DDs to rocket for myself is nice, but I refuse to be pigeon-holed as a loli-bote chaser just because AA balance is SNAFU.

In-game speeds are supposed to be more "balance" related than real-world. The Seafires are tougher, (nearly 50% more HP per plane compared to the Kyofu, about 40% more than the Corsair), therefor they're slower. Buuuut they also get fewer planes in a squadron (6 as opposed to 8 or 9) and the lower speed means they have to spend more time penetrating AA. I've found that RN squadrons are rather tougher doing quick runs versus individual ships, but melt with almost comical speed if forced to swing around for another attack or go after a group. Honestly on average I'd say the bombers could use an extra five knots, the fighters around 15 more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
734 posts
5,648 battles

Aren't those airspeeds for an un-laden (swallow) Seafire, Wildcat and Corsair?  Compared to speeds when loaded up with rockets?  What is the relative weight of each plane's payloads?  I thought there were differences in number of rockets and diameter across the tiers and nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,745 posts
11,049 battles
28 minutes ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_42 said:

After flying the Supermarine Seafire, I am feeling that it is definately modeled poorly to its RL counterpart

Only taking this part to save space but yes you are correct in that it is modeled poorly, frankly many of the planes are such as the Swordfish - that outlived the Albacore partially due to it's mobility handles like a brick. 

That said you pulled the numbers for the Seafire L Mk III - which in truth is a rather poor opponent for the F4U, in all reality the Mk III version should be tier 7, replacing the Fulmar which while more accurate as a rocket using plane, better suits the DB role possibly at a lower tier. The tier 8 should be something closer to one of the Mk 45-47 variants - These were closer to or outright surpassed the F4U-1 and gave the F4U-4 a run for it's money. The Hurricane should in fact outpace the F4F down at tier 6. In cases the same story on TB's and DB's - mainly because most UK aircraft are inline liquid cooled engines with similar or more horse power, at times lighter frames, and somewhat importantly more aerodynamic frames. To which point -

23 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

In-game speeds are supposed to be more "balance" related than real-world. The Seafires are tougher, (nearly 50% more HP per plane compared to the Kyofu, about 40% more than the Corsair), therefor they're slower. Buuuut they also get fewer planes in a squadron (6 as opposed to 8 or 9) and the lower speed means they have to spend more time penetrating AA. I've found that RN squadrons are rather tougher doing quick runs versus individual ships, but melt with almost comical speed if forced to swing around for another attack or go after a group. Honestly on average I'd say the bombers could use an extra five knots, the fighters around 15 more.

There's a point of "yeah okay, balance" - the question though is "why in the hell is it balanced this way"? UK aircraft were in fact faster, while USN were far more durable, and IJN's far more agile. So while "Balance" is a thing why are they not done so in a manner that actually better demonstrates these traits. With UK being high speed, mid mobility and HP, USN being high HP, low mobility, mid/low speed, IJN low HP, mid speed, high mobility. Same concept but more historically accurate. 

Also on a per plane basis - sure, they have higher HP but this is the exact same red herring as fighters had in RTS though that was more DPS related. Total HP of tier 8 rocket armed groups -

Implacable - 10320

Lexington - 11700

Shokaku -  10080

Kaga - 8880

Saipan - 9660 (yep, logic, more HP than tier 10 USN planes)

GZ - 9040 unless wiki has inaccurate info. 

So, overall "Most HP", funny enough, goes to Lex by about 1400 points, with more speed in it's planes, and as I recall, more rockets with better pen (24x3 with 33 mm pen vs 20x3 and only 27 mm pen) and ekes out Shokaku by 240 HP.  And then you have the mess that is premiums. They also have less run time, problematically so at times, despite a similar overnerfed time to set the attack up. And so they still failed to actually give it more HP overall while making them painfully slow. Only really accurate they have more HP at tiers 6 and 10 where they have the same number of planes. Except USN still has edge in ability to pen so it has the ability to do something. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,155 posts
6,031 battles
25 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

There's a point of "yeah okay, balance" - the question though is "why in the hell is it balanced this way"? UK aircraft were in fact faster, while USN were far more durable, and IJN's far more agile. So while "Balance" is a thing why are they not done so in a manner that actually better demonstrates these traits. With UK being high speed, mid mobility and HP, USN being high HP, low mobility, mid/low speed, IJN low HP, mid speed, high mobility. Same concept but more historically accurate.

Yeah I don't get it either, but that's the style they went with because raisins for all we know.

25 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Also on a per plane basis - sure, they have higher HP but this is the exact same red herring as fighters had in RTS though that was more DPS related. Total HP of tier 8 rocket armed groups -

Implacable - 10320

Lexington - 11700

Shokaku -  10080

Kaga - 8880

Saipan - 9660 (yep, logic, more HP than tier 10 USN planes)

GZ - 9040 unless wiki has inaccurate info.

Unless the HP numbers have changed since I checked, it comes out like so:

Implacable - 10320
Lexington - 11700 (right on the money with these two)
Shokaku - 11340 (not quite as big a disparity with Lex since they use the same 9/3 layout when elite)
Kaga - 9600 (the worst, but sufficient for throwing wave after wave of planes at your opponent)
Saipan - 9960 (those Bearcats may be tier 10, but that 6/3 layout does them no favors)
Enterprise - 15600 (the best, "because FFARs" is the only reason I can think of, stupid 12/3 layout)
Graf Zeppelin - 10752 (wonky 8/2 layout works a bit more in her favor)
Indomitable - 11400 (a mere 20 HP less than the tier average spread across six planes)

And yeah, WG has shown yet again that they can't balance different-sized squadrons against each other. Either they're comparing one stat at a time or they just have a different definition of "balance". Oh right, they're balancing based on the fact that level bombing is supposed to be consistently effective. How could I forget that... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,745 posts
11,049 battles
3 minutes ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_42 said:

l

 

many thanks @WanderingGhost !! +2:cap_horn:

Np, also yeah, not done UK yet as a line - trying out the UK ships so the "Main Line" takes what WG has, least in terms of level bombing and all so they don't have to completely rework everything, get some ideas and info, etc.Plus I have to pull the data off my old laptop for some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,745 posts
11,049 battles
5 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Yeah I don't get it either, but that's the style they went with because raisins for all we know.

Unless the HP numbers have changed since I checked, it comes out like so:

Implacable - 10320
Lexington - 11700 (right on the money with these two)
Shokaku - 11340 (not quite as big a disparity with Lex since they use the same 9/3 layout when elite)
Kaga - 9600 (the worst, but sufficient for throwing wave after wave of planes at your opponent)
Saipan - 9960 (those Bearcats may be tier 10, but that 6/3 layout does them no favors)
Enterprise - 15600 (because FFARs is the only reason I can think of, stupid 12/3 layout)
Graf Zeppelin - 10752 (wonky 8/2 layout works in her favor)
Indomitable - 11400 (a mere 20 HP less than the tier average)

Yeah, hopefully as these are still technically testing maybe we can convince them to change there minds. Doubt it but who knows, stranger things have happened.

 

Also, yeah, I forgot (haven't played it in a bit) that Shokaku went to 9 planes which is why my math was off there. And I likely try and black it out because the ever more cookie cutter nature of CV's is getting on my nerves.

GZ I went purely on Wiki info and bits I heard, E and Ind had no where near enough what state they were in to take a guess  even. That said Enterprise should still be using F6F's in which there is no damn reason they should even HAVE FFAR's. 

I'm not sure where your getting the Kaga number (unless the wiki is out of date or your factoring in an upgrade or skill) I know that one is still 4x2 for a total of 8 planes. I mean, I almost never use those planes but still. The fact that you can actually kinda mitigate losses with reserves to me has actually made Kaga one of the more fun ones to play 70% of the time. Least what little joy I currently get from them.

And I don't know how your writing that out is that planes/# of strikes? Cause if it's planes/planes per group I wish Saipan had groups of 3. Even if it meant each one had 2 rockets per plane but mounted properly. 

But yeah, that it's HP is less than Shokaku actually makes it that much worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,460
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,155 posts
6,031 battles
42 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

GZ I went purely on Wiki info and bits I heard, E and Ind had no where near enough what state they were in to take a guess  even. That said Enterprise should still be using F6F's in which there is no damn reason they should even HAVE FFAR's. 

I'm not sure where your getting the Kaga number (unless the wiki is out of date or your factoring in an upgrade or skill) I know that one is still 4x2 for a total of 8 planes. I mean, I almost never use those planes but still. The fact that you can actually kinda mitigate losses with reserves to me has actually made Kaga one of the more fun ones to play 70% of the time. Least what little joy I currently get from them.

And I don't know how your writing that out is that planes/# of strikes? Cause if it's planes/planes per group I wish Saipan had groups of 3. Even if it meant each one had 2 rockets per plane but mounted properly.

Maybe? I'll have to double check and do some math when I get home, what I wrote down for Kaga was 1200 per plane. She's still a fun ship, I'll agree wholeheartedly there.

It's supposed to be planes per squadron/planes per attack run but I guess my info on Saipan was wrong. It's the only premium I don't either own or know a guy who owns. I'll have to correct that in my notes to 6/2.

Just make Enterprise something like 9/3 or 10/2 with F6Fs loaded down with HVARs and she would still be perfectly wonderful. She's still got AP dive-bombers for wrecking people after all.

Edit: Wait, something just caught my eye in the OP.

2 hours ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_42 said:

Corsair F4-U
Maximum speed:  425 mph (684 km/h)  380 knots
Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h; 77 kn)
Range: 1,005 mi (873 nmi; 1,617 km)w/droptanks
Combat range: 328 mi (285 nmi; 528 km)
Service ceiling: 41,500 ft (12,600 m)
Rate of climb: 4,360 ft/min (22.1 m/s)

If that's right, then it makes me question how the heck the Corsair got certified for carrier operations. Why? Well, here's a quote on the testing of a Navalized P-51 Mustang for possible use as a B-29 escort in the Pacific:

Quote

During the months of September and October 1944, Lt. Elder made nearly 150 simulated launches and landings with the ETF-51D. Sufficient data concerning the Mustang's low speed handling had to be gathered before carrier trials could begin. The Mustang's laminar-flow wing made for little drag and high speed but was relatively inefficient at low speed, resulting in a high stall speed. As the arrester cables could not be engaged at more than 90 mph, Elder reported that “from the start, it was obvious to everyone that the margin between the stall speed of the aircraft (82 mph) and the speed imposed by the arrester gear (90 mph) was very limited.

If 8mph is "very limited" then how in the name of Bull Halsey did the Corsair get away with safety margin of 1mph?!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,745 posts
11,049 battles
4 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Maybe? I'll have to double check and do some math when I get home, what I wrote down for Kaga was 1200 per plane. She's still a fun ship, I'll agree wholeheartedly there.

It's supposed to be planes per squadron/planes per attack run but I guess my info on Saipan was wrong. It's the only premium I don't either own or know a guy who owns. I'll have to correct that in my notes to 6/2.

Just make Enterprise something like 9/3 or 10/2 with F6Fs loaded down with HVARs and she would still be perfectly wonderful. She's still got AP dive-bombers for wrecking people after all.

Edit: Wait, something just caught my eye in the OP.

If that's right, then it makes me question how the heck the Corsair got certified for carrier operations. Why? Well, here's a quote on the testing of a Navalized P-51 Mustang for possible use as a B-29 escort in the Pacific:

If 8mph is "very limited" then how in the name of Bull Halsey did the Corsair get away with safety margin of 1mph?!
 

Yeah, Saipan is 3 groups of 2 planes with 3 TT's a piece - with one dead center under the body where it'd likely go through the prop despite the delay TT's had. 

 

And to answer the question on the Corsair vs P-51 - the P-51 tests were in full landing condition, it's speed was still too high and needed modifications like the Bf-109 received to be better suited for CV service such as extension of the wings. The tested P-51 was simply equipped with a tailhook and strengthened gear/body for the increased landing stresses. The number he lists for the Corsair is regular level flight stall speed. The landing stall speed (flaps and all that) of the Corsair is actually 76 MPH or lower (depends on version and other details) as long as it has power. So it had at least 6 mph more play room than the P-51.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html

They clean it up and make it easier to read in this case but they pull off declassified documents and such that they have links to the pictures of them/PDF's of them, etc. A couple of them are under "Minimum speed" as opposed to stall on that page. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,054
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
9,803 posts
9,171 battles

yes the Seafires are too slow, comically so. No, being slow is not in anyway an advantage.

It makes you slower to reach targets,

  1. slower to scout, slower to scout,
  2. slower to react,
  3. slower to help you team mates,
  4. slow = more time spent in enemy AA,
  5. slow negates hp advantage.

Being slow is the major handicap of Brit squadrons in WOWS. Should the seasfires be measurably faster? On balance, yes, even if only to make gameplay a little bit more comfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

if only people would learn when it comes to climb rate, the US and UK had different testing methods back then, with one being far more representative of actual performance than the other, which is why there is a discrepancy between F4U-# (and others) test in the UK vs. test of the same in the US, with the former being more representative of real operation, likewise UK aircraft were tested using the same methods to produce conservatively realistic operational performance data, rather than some idealised headline figure that was dependent on a list of caveats and was seldom achieved in operation.

 

As Corwin H. Meyer (American WW2 Grumman test pilot and lead project pilot for the F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther, F9F-6 Cougar, Jaguar, Tiger, and Mach II Super Tiger and eventual President and CEO of Grumman American who had flown all comparable allied and axis fighter aircraft) said of the Supermarine Seafire LF Mk III:

Quote

Spins were like a training aircraft, with instant recovery as soon as the controls were released. Even if I couldn't find the trim tab controls handily, which I couldn't, I didn't need them. The stability about all three axes of the aircraft was low enough to be a fighter pilots dream and high enough to fly hands-off in mildly turbulent air, it was a great combination, acrobatics were a pleasure, the aircraft responded right after the thought came to the pilots mind, seemingly without effort.

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.

The Lend-Lease Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsair fighters were only workhorses, the Supermarine Mk III Seafire was a dashing Arabian stallion!

from his 2006 book:  Corky Meyer's Flight Journal: A Test Pilot's Tales of Dodging Disasters - Just in Time. (extracts from chapter 14 pages 130 & 131)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,690 posts
5,230 battles

?format=750w

Everyone has their favourites.

For me, it was the Seafire LFIII

A [edited] on the deck , but a ballerina in the air...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,555
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,834 posts
4,056 battles
On 3/13/2019 at 11:43 PM, WanderingGhost said:

That said you pulled the numbers for the Seafire L Mk III

Those have to be Seafire Mk II numbers.  Seafire L.Mk III climbed closer to 5000ft/min than 2500ft/min.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,868
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,745 posts
11,049 battles
35 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Those have to be Seafire Mk II numbers.  Seafire L.Mk III climbed closer to 5000ft/min than 2500ft/min.

The OP states the climb rate as 5000 ft/min, and I state it would be an Mk III - so if written right, not sure what your trying to say.

If there's a typo of sorts and your trying to say "The Mk II had a 5000 ft/min rate of climb, the Mk III was closer to 2500, therefore the numbers are for a Mk II"

My first point would be that I can pretty much guarantee that the OP copied them from the wikipedia a page dedicated to the Seafire, which is listed as a Mk III, I know the page and layout well. So, he was pulling those numbers.

My second point, would be that that is actually incorrect. The Mk II and Mk III both had a normal climb rate between 2500-3000 ft/min at normal rating, and both were closer to 5000 ft/min when using combat rating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,555
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,834 posts
4,056 battles
9 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

The OP states the climb rate as 5000 ft/min, and I state it would be an Mk III - so if written right, not sure what your trying to say.

If there's a typo of sorts and your trying to say "The Mk II had a 5000 ft/min rate of climb, the Mk III was closer to 2500, therefore the numbers are for a Mk II"

My first point would be that I can pretty much guarantee that the OP copied them from the wikipedia a page dedicated to the Seafire, which is listed as a Mk III, I know the page and layout well. So, he was pulling those numbers.

My second point, would be that that is actually incorrect. The Mk II and Mk III both had a normal climb rate between 2500-3000 ft/min at normal rating, and both were closer to 5000 ft/min when using combat rating. 

I recalled it as climbing about 3800ft/min, but checking www.spitfireperformance.com I see it was 2600ft/min.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[P-V-E]
Members
1,382 posts

At normal power the early Seafire Mk III at in excess of 98% of maximum take-off weight could maintain >2500ft/min all the way to over 14000ft at 150mph IAS, with the peak of just over 2600ft/min at 14000ft

By comparison the rate of climb of 4,360 ft/min for the F4U-4 is at combat power at just ~85.2% of maximum take-off weight.

When more normalised to normal power settings it is <2230ft/min and that is still at just 93% of maximum take-off weight.

 

Time to 10,000ft at normal power:

F4U-4 LR fighter at 93% of MTOW = 4.5min

Seafire Mk III at 98% of MTOW = 3.95min

 

Time to 20,000ft at normal power:

F4U-4 LR fighter at 93% of MTOW = 9.4min

Seafire Mk III at 98% of MTOW = 8.15min

 

As a bonus (to show the problem with idealised headline figures and why some things have lower more conservative "ratings" and why the UK and US differ in how they present ratings "numbers")

At combat power Seafire LF Mk III with the merlin 55M (as opposed to the merlin 50 of the first Mk III) at 98% of MTOW had a peak climb rate from 0ft to 4000ft of 4150ft/min.

Its time to 10,000ft at combat power at 98% of MTOW was just a fraction under 3min.

Its time to 20,000ft at combat power at 98% of MTOW was just a fraction under 7min.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×