Talk:Hawker Sea Fury

Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of World War II
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II is currently used as a reference, dated 1946, with Studio editions as Publisher and with Fred T. Jane as author. There are a few problems with this however. Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II is actually a 1989 reproduction (with reformatting and amendments and the addition of a foreword by Bill Gunston) of the 1946 edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft, originally compiled by Leonard Bridgman. Fred T. Jane is definitely not the author or editor as he died in 1916. This should really be fixed and accurate bibliographic details added from someone who has the 2001? edition (ISBN 1851704930) that is used - not just copying stuff of WorldCat, if it is going to be used as a reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a 1998 Crescent Books edition ISBN 051767964 clearly written by Bridgman with a forward by Gunston, the page number (127) is still correct but the this version doesnt support the second statement The Sea Fury was powered by the newly developed Bristol Centaurus piston engine, which drove either a four or five-bladed propeller. it makes no mention of four-bladed propeller? MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have updated to use the 1998 edition but removed the four-bladed bit (as far as I know only the prototype SR661 had the four-bladed prop. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the five-blader was introduced to reduce a vibration that occurred at certain engine speeds on the original Sea Fury four-blader Centaurus installation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge to FW 190?
Per this change, the Sea Fury is just a copy of the FW 190. That is crap.

First of all, the word "Sea". This land-based fighter is still designed as a carrier-based naval fighter, with the wing folding, landing strength and long-travel undercarriage needed for a carrier-based aircraft. The FW 190 was another aircraft that had such strength (and wide track U/C), but this was from Tank's oft-reported commentary describing the Bf 109 and Spitfire both as fragile racehorses.

Size of both aircraft is significantly different, again as a result of their different roles and the designer's intentions (Tank had gone larger here, but he was still working in the German tradition of small fighters). Crucially, there's 10% difference in wing loading (49 vs 44) and it's the 190 that has the higher loading, against the general trend of the heavier, larger and more powerful late-war Allied single-seat aircraft being the ones to increase their wing loading the most.

The key feature of the Fury is of course the Centaurus. It's not so hard to produce a higher performance aircraft with an engine with so much extra power over the 190. An engine that could have been available earlier in the war, but wasn't, owing to the idiotic politics around Bristol and Fedden. It's not a revolutionary aircraft, it's just the natural evolution of a Hawker design sequence that had passed through the Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest, but now had a big fat radial to play with. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I received the following unsigned post from User:GrafSpee65, answered below:

"Sir, With all my respect! You have removed my text about the Hawker Sea Fury without serious raisons Have you had the humility to check the cited reference? I'm really wondering. Tell me about your expectation. I wrote this text based on historical fact with cited reference. Regards,"
 * I have checked the cited reference and what you have done is make an unattributed direct quote from it, which is a copyright violation. You should re-state such content in your own words, not copy and paste (or type) the exact same words from somebody else's work.
 * This edit was inserted in the lead. An article's lead is a summary of what is contained in the remainder of the article, it is not the place for stand alone items of information not referred to elsewhere in the article.
 * Whilst there appears to be some support in the literature for the FW190 being the seed that eventually led to the development of the Sea Fury, the Sea Fury was the last of a line of aircraft developed by Hawker and by the time it was under development that link was tenuous at best. Your edit gives undue weight to the FW190 idea and at most it deserves a passing comment in the origins section of the article.
 * I have addressed other matters on your talk page. - Nick Thorne  talk  21:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have we any evidence that Operational Requirement OR.121 was actually influenced by the Fw 190, the subsequent specification called for a Centarus-powered single-seat fighter with a high-rate of climb and an optimum performance at 20,000 ft not really any comparison with early Fw 190s, and as Andy Dingley pointed out they are not that similar when you start to look more closely. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else read the cite ref? It's far from a scholarly work and although it is quite specific that the captured FW190 gave rise to the OR, which in turn gave rise to the Fury, I just don't believe it. Of course there was a general view of, "I say chaps, Jerry seems to have a bit of a corker with this one. Can the boffins come up with anything to match?" but that's too obvious and vague to stand here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen a few other references to the FW190 WRT the Sea Fury, but they are all from less than particulalry reliable sources, so although I stand by my statement that there is some support for the idea, I agree with your assessment of the level of the actual influence the 190 had. Really, it is only that there is a very superficial resemblence between the FW190 and the Hawker line of aircraft leading to the Sea Fury that this discussion is being had at all.  Upon reflection, I think we would be best advised to leave out all mention of the FW190 from this article. -  Nick Thorne  talk  02:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The only influence the Fw 190 had on British aeronautical design was in persuading the Air Ministry that a radial-engined fighter could have equal performance to an inline-engined one, and that it was possible to produce a clean radial engine installation producing the minimum of drag. Prior to this radial-engined fighters had all had performance inferior to the best inline-engined ones such as the Hurricane, Spitfire, and Me 109, and as a result all new fighter specifications had specified inline-engines, except where the fighter was intended for use in hotter climes, where the reduced performance was accepted, bearing in mind the low-performing fighters that were thought to be possessed by any likely enemies in that part of the world. This was before the existence of the Mitsubishi Zero was known. This is one of the reasons why of the three US-produced fighters bought by the UK, the Airacaobra, Tomahawk, and Buffalo, only the latter was sent to the Far East, it having an air-cooled radial engine.

Japan had been an ally of Britain in World War I and, still - in 1940 - being on reasonably friendly terms with HBMG, was not considered to be a likely enemy, that just left China as the only other power in the area, and they were thought to be in no position to challenge or threaten any parts of the Empire. That is why it was not considered a priority to safeguard the British possessions, such as Singapore, Malaya, Burma, and Hong Kong in the Far East. There was thought to be no-one to defend them-from. So fighters with air-cooled radials of a lower performance were thought to be quite adequate for the Far East. And at the time, 1940, Britain had more pressing problems closer to home that, not unaturally, took priority.

The Fury was designed with inline engines, the Napier Sabre and the Rolls-Royce Griffon, with the Centaurus being chosen for hot climate (tropical) use, the only such enemy at the time being Japan, which is why subsequent Furies and Sea Furies had the Centaurus, the war in Europe by that time being over. Although designed with a radial (the Centaurus) from the outset, as the Fury was intended for use against the lighter Japanese fighters, the inline-engined variants were built for use against the generally faster more heavily-armed German fighters, although again, the war in Europe then ended and so these variants became superfluous, and were not continued-with. The Sabre and Griffon-engined variants were both faster than the Centaurus-powered ones, around 20mph faster IIRC.

The Sabre and Griffon Furies would have both had engines rated at higher altitude for use against the Luftwaffe, but IIARC the development of the Sabre's supercharger was abandoned and the fighter Griffon eventually received a two-stage, three-speed one such as was used in the Griffon 101-powered Supermarine Spiteful XVI. The final Sabre variants were Type tested at over 3,000hp. The Fury would have had a Sabre VIII with 'nearly 4,000 h.p. on test'. 

So, the final Fury/Sea Fury entered service with a low-rated Centaurus because it had by then been intended for use against the Japanese in the Far East where most combat took place at low-to-medium altitudes and because RN naval fighters are usually optimised above-all for carrier and fleet defence.

BTW, the later highest-performance versions of the Fw 190 - the Fw 190D and the Ta 152 - also had inline engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the performance of the Centaurus powered Sea Fury as "low-rated". The key arguments of this post have the flavour of original research and in any case none of this can be considered for inclusion in the article without verifiable, reliable sources.  Come back when you can back it up, otherwise it just isn't going to make it into the article. -  Nick Thorne  talk  13:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The 'low rated' refers to the altitude at-which the engine is optimised to produce its rated power. It doesn't mean low power. British aero engines of the time were rated for low and medium, or medium and high altitude, and the supercharging optimised for one or the other. FAA fighters were 'low rated' for use at sea level up to around 15,000ft. RAF ones usually for much higher. This can be seen in the various Rolls-Royce Merlin variants optimised for the low, medium, and high, height bands, and utilised in the Supermarine Spitfire LF, F, and HF versions.


 * FAA fighters were optimised for air defence of the carrier, so fighter engines were low rated for this purpose.


 * One of the factors rarely mentioned when the performance of the 190 is compared to other fighters is that it was a physically smaller aircraft than the others.


 * BTW, that was one of the reasons why the RN version of the McDonnell Douglas Phantom II was re-engined with the Spey. To optimise it for low-to-medium altitudes and air defence of the carrier, e.g., against aircraft carrying the anticipated likes of Exocet, Sea Eagle, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "An engine that could have been available earlier in the war, but wasn't, owing to the idiotic politics around Bristol and Fedden." - The Centaurus was late entering service because Bristols were asked by the Air Ministry around 1940 to concentrate their effort on developing the Hercules, an engine that was already (or about to be) powering aircraft in service, whereas the Centaurus was not - nor were there any fighter aircraft designs ready immediately that could take it. It was for the same reason that Griffon development was temporarily halted so that Rolls-Royce could concentrate on the Merlin. In 1940 the Battle of Britain was being fought, and so projects that had no immediate effect on the battle and immediate future of the war were temporarily halted while more pressing needs were taken care of.


 * In 1940 Britain's enemies, Germany and Italy, had no aircraft carriers nor was the war envisaged as having to be fought in the Pacific. Hence the only aircraft any FAA fighter was likely to meet out at sea was the long-range Fw 200 Condor which is why the FFA's only purpose-designed fighters were the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not thinking of 1940, so much as 1942 and Fedden's departure from Bristol. Imagine a Centaurus a year or two earlier, available as a long-range escort fighter instead of the P51, an aircraft in Italy which could taxi across an airfield without overheating, something fast enough for chasing V1s, or for ground attack in the Tempest / Typhoon role without the Sabre's development problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Phantom got its Spey engines as pure pork-barreling to R-R, and as a political sop to having bought American in the first place. Nor did it ever get the engine versions it should have had, as the full diameter of the Spey reheat nozzles was too big for the F-4. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Much post-war criticism of wartime decisions even by reputable authors requires the people then making the decisions to have been psychic. The decisions made were made for what seemed like good valid reasons at the time. The Sabre's development problems were fairly normal for any new high-powered engine at the time, as they also were for the Vulture, what made the development problems important was WHEN they occurred. Both the Sabre and Vulture were rushed into service due to the outbreak of war well before they would have been allowed to under normal peacetime certification rules. The Centaurus was not, otherwise it is likely it too would have suffered similar problems. The Centaurus could only have entered service earlier if Bristol had stopped work on the Hercules, as high-power aero engine engineering is a highly-specialised field and there are only a limited number of personnel with the necessary qualifications and experience available at any one time to work on any particular engine design. Additional personnel take time to train and to gain experience, so just increasing the number of such personnel is a long term answer only.


 * I understand your point. The loss of Fedden however probably had little or no effect on the course of the war, he had already designed the Centarus by the time he left, and Bristol subsequently developed no more new piston engines (the Orion was IIRC a scaled-up Centaurus) moving instead to gas turbines after the war, so his departure probably didn't do Bristol's any harm. I don't know enough about his situation at Bristol's other than he fell out with the management, which may or may not have been justified on his part. Sometime management are less than useful, but then again some personalities - perhaps Fedden - are notoriously awkward to deal with.


 * The policy set out and agreed by the War Cabinet and by Government was aimed at winning the war with as few Allied casualties as possible and in the shortest possible time, and the other things you mention were merely 'operational difficulties' which, despite the complaints from the people involved, had little bearing on the actual outcome of the war. Hence while important to the 'users' concerned, they were relatively unimportant in the great scheme of things, and when such things were important, they were usually sorted out.


 * The Phantom got Spey engines because the Spey-Phantom was better at doing the job the Royal Navy wanted it for, which was not the same reason the USN or USAF wanted their Phantoms for. The Spey-engined Phantom was slower at high altitude than the J79-engined one, but was faster and had better acceleration and fuel economy low down - the Spey was a turbofan - which is why it was selected by the RN.


 * At the time of the operational requirement that led to the Spey-Phantom the likely future threat to the fleet was low-altitude aircraft carrying sea-skimming missiles. This required the defending fighter to already be in the air, as the attacking aircraft would be flying below the radar horizon only 'popping up' momentarily now-and-then to locate the target and then again once-or-twice later to allow the missile's radar to locate and later lock-on to the target, hence good endurance was required, as 'scrambling' the defending fighters when the attacker was detected on radar would by then be too late. The sea-skimming missiles BTW might possibly be nuclear-armed. Almost this exact scenario was to occur later in the Falklands War in 1982, except that the attacks were not in the open ocean. And the Exocets weren't nuclear-armed.


 * BTW, an additional reason for selecting the Spey was that while the J79 was more powerful dry, the Spey was more powerful in reheat, and this was helpful when taking off from the smaller RN carriers, as the J79 didn't offer the required margin of safety should an engine fail on take-off. In another addition to this, the RN was also going to be using the Spey in the Buccaneer S.2, which was soon to enter service. IIRC, the only low-bypass turbofans available at the time were the Conway and the Spey, and the Conway was too large, so the choice of possible engine and manufacturer wasn't exactly a wide one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again...
The lead currently states:

"The Sea Fury has many design similarities to Hawker's preceding Tempest fighter, but the Sea Fury was a considerably lighter aircraft"

But according to the numbers right here in this article, the Sea Fury was almost exactly the same weight as the Tempest V, within 10 pounds. which I suspect is less than than differences in the weight of the paint. So...

1) this statement is wrong 2) the number here is wrong 3) the number in the Tempest article is wrong 4) someone has a very strange definition of "considerably".

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The (unbuilt) Fury was considerably lighter than the Tempest. It became heavier as the Sea Fury owing to the carrier landing capability, of uprated undercarriage for deck landings, arrester gear and mostly the wing folding gear. A "Sea Tempest" would be even heavier.
 * Wording might benefit from changes, but the basic point that the comparable Fury airframe was lighter than the Tempest is a good one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But the point is that this sentence clearly suggests that the Sea Fury was lighter than a Tempest. And that is simply not true. The Tempest Mk.V had very comparable weight and the Tempest Mk.II was 360lbs lighter (fully loaded excluding fuel). The sentence should be changed to reflect that. Of course a Tempest outfitted for carrier-duty would have probably become heavier. But that is nontheless a presumption, which you would have to back up with a source.Juliet Six (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote earlier in this talk page, the Fury was originally designed as a 'lightweight' Tempest optimised for fighting the more nimble Japanese fighters in the Far East. That was why it was initially called the "Tempest Light Fighter". Japanese fighters had less armour and armament than comparable British and German designs, so were lighter and more manoeuvrable. The "Tempest Light Fighter" was intended as a smaller, lighter Tempest, with the same power.


 * The Tempest was thought to be rather larger than ideal for fighting the smaller more nimble Japanese fighters then likely to be encountered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.184 (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A 1990 documentary on the Sea Fury of the RN's Historic Flight here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.216 (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Second sentence says "single piston"
"It was the last propeller-driven fighter to serve with the Royal Navy, and also one of the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built."

It has 18 pistons? Is there a word missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.7.129 (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It says "single piston-engined aircraft", which means it has one engine, which has pistons. Not "single-piston engine aircraft", which would mean its engine has only one piston. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't the last Fleet Air Arm prop fighter, anyway, because that was the Westland Wyvern, in action at Suez in '56 and retired several years after the Sea Fury. A turboprop, but still a prop, and a strike fighter, but still a fighter. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Weight again, again......
I've edited the "lighter than a Tempest" comment to reflect it's origins in the "Light Tempest Fighter" specification as referenced later in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Smoo Ellis
Someone's inserted a claim that 'new research' shows that Brian 'Smoo' Ellis (it's Smoo, not Schmoo) shot down the MiG over North Korea. This is based on a single misleading article in The Times. As was already known, Ellis fired on a MiG and probably damaged it, then lost sight of it. The Times reporter misunderstood Ellis's account. Robert F. Dorr, in Korean War Aces (Osprey) recounts that Peter Carmichael saw that MiG going off at reduced speed. He lost sight of it as well. The dogfight continued until Carmichael spotted a MiG below him, going slowly. That was the one he shot down. It might or might not have been the same one hit by Ellis. Unlike Ellis, Carmichael did then see an aircraft hit the ground and explode, and since all the British pilots were all right it must have been one of the MiGs, apparently Carmichael's victim. (Though Carmichael did not claim he was the only one who'd hit it.) As you can see here, there is nothing official about the Times story and the Royal Navy still credits Carmichael with the kill. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2017/september/05/170905-sea-fury-flies-again-after-three-years-restoring-vintage-faa-fighter Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This scholarly article on the post-war Fleet Air Arm: http://www.britishnavalhistory.com/peaking-obsolesence-forgotten-innovation/ ...has a footnote of some interest, in regard to the cited Rowland White article: 'lv (White 2001) – a dispute based on number of rounds fired seems strange, because a pilot could fire hundreds of shells and be unlucky, and another could fire one or two and be more fortunate – there are too many variables in such a situation to rule out anything without conclusive proof. The officer credited with the kill, (then) Lt P. Carmichael Royal Navy, always considered it a team effort, writing such in his report (TNA Admiralty: 1/23260 1952) [as] did others, Lt. P.S. Davis, A/S/Lt B.E. Ellis and A/S/Lt C.E. Haines), and there is no real necessity to look beyond that without causing unnecessary division and upheaval. What is interesting is the flight’s employment of a Scissor Movement, something not dissimilar to the Thack Weave (Hone 2013, 125-6)which was used by USN/RN pilots in World War II against their faster Japanese opponents. It’s also interesting that after this engagement which had resulted in one shot down, and two damaged, practically the same flight achieved another possible kill the very next day (TNA – Admiralty: 1/23260 1952).' Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If you’ll note the references I added, this claim is based off research/interviews conducted by Paul Beaver on behalf of the Royal Aeronautical Society.

I certainly agree it’s not a clear-cut case. However, if you read Ellis’ account, you either need to call him a liar, or accept that that he’s telling the truth. There’s no ambiguity in his tale as you suggested. He claims the MiG kill.

He also claims everyone in the flight was aware of this. Furthermore, he claims that Carmichael returned missing only about 10% of his ammunition, which he expended on the way back on a ‘gun-check’ run on a beach. Whether he was actually checking his guns, or wanted to have appeared to have fired his guns, who knows. Ellis seems to believe it was an actual gun-check. Meanwhile, Ellis returned with absolutely no ammunition.

If you have proof Ellis is lying or is a known liar, please feel free to add it. Otherwise, it’s a significant claim to do with a significant moment in aviation history, and should remain in the article, IMO.

MWFwiki (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Humans confabulate. And the burden is on him who asserts, not him who denies. It can be noted that Ellis made the claim, but it relies on his own unsupported word over 60 years later, and he does not seem to have advanced it when the others were alive. Historically the claim has been assigned to the entire flight, with Carmichael credited as flight leader. The Royal Navy, being in possession of the pilots' combat reports at the time, did not award the claim solely to Ellis. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And, on the matter of ammunition counts, see the quote above. Running yourself out of ammunition does not mean you were shooting well or achieving anything. It can mean the opposite. Ellis's hyperbolic claim, and his attempt to slander Carmichael's memory, is an embarrassment, it's what the RAF would call a line-shoot, and you do him no favours by amplifying and repeating it as if it were true. It's not in dispute that Ellis took part in that dogfight and apparently engaged a MiG. But any claim that he and he alone landed rounds on that MiG and that none of the other three British pilots in the melee ('a knife-fight in a phone box' as usual) could have had anything to do with it... That's not credible, and is not even something that he could reasonably know in the circumstances. The 'gun-check' thing is, as far as we can tell, simply made up to suit his story. It's certainly unsupported by any other source and he waited till the others were all dead before trying it. His claim that the other two pilots in the flight agreed with him... you've got the same problem there. Self-serving and even imaginary overclaims by fighter pilots are unfortunately a thing. Carmichael always gave the credit to the whole flight. Ellis seeks to claim it all for himself.
 * If Carmichael did return with 90% of his ammunition, note that 10% of a Sea Fury's ammunition load is 58 rounds. You would fire that in about 1.5 seconds, an appreciable firing time, with each cannon delivering 14-15 shells. During the Second World War, the Luftwaffe determined that the average number of 20mm cannon hits required to destroy an Allied four-engined heavy bomber was 20. The number required to destroy a single-seat single-engined fighter like the MiG would be in single figures. (Ellis is the only source for the supposed 'gun-check run on a beach' and there is no reason to believe him.) Carmichael could have missed with most of those 58 rounds and still perfectly well killed a MiG, especially as in his view it was damaged already. And, again, running yourself out of ammunition with no more than one (shared) kill to show for it, as Ellis apparently did, does not make you a crack fighter pilot. On the whole it's best to draw a polite veil over Ellis's embarrassing and unsubstantiated late-in-the-day claims, which the Navy does not recognise, and address them with as little fuss and as few words as possible. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the reference that makes the claims for Ellis and I am unimpressed. It is certainly not a "scholarly article", it quotes no supporting evidence other than Ellis's recollection after 60 years, there is no peer review and the article reads like a popular press fluff piece.  There is no corroborative evidence for Ellis's claims, it's all his word and self interested ones at that.  I think the wording it was found that the kill may have been erroneously credited to Lieutenant Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael; The kill is now claimed by Brian 'Schmoo' Ellis, a sub-lieutenant flying in formation with Lieutenant Carmichael that day should be changed to the Royal Navy credited the kill to Lieutenant Peter "Hoagy" Carmichael although Carmichael always credited it to the whole flight. One of the other pilots in the flight Sub Lieutenant Brian 'Schmoo' Ellis has since claimed the kill for himself but there is no independent evidence to support his claim. - Nick Thorne talk  23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Stating that there is no evidence for Ellis’ claim is rather absurd, as there is no evidence for the kill claim whatsoever.

As Ellis said himself, the myth must be kept alive. MWFwiki (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Stating that there is no independent evidence for Ellis's claim is not the same as saying there is no evidence at all. If there is some independent, or corroborating evidence, please show it to us. - Nick Thorne talk  21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no independent evidence of the kill regardless. Wikipedia is not the place to defend a reputation or mythos. It's a claim that has been made, by a qualified RN pilot. As my first edit reflected, the RN still gives the claim to Carmicheal, and without gun-cam footage, the truth will never be known. But the claim should be recorded.MWFwiki (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The kill was reported by the four pilots involved at the time. The claim was accepted by the RN.  Now is not the time to prosecute the unsupported claims of the last man standing who obviously has an axe to grind.  We don't have a time machine to go back and see for ourselves so unless some extraordinary evidence to the contrary emerges (and that is not these claims) we have no option but to accept the officially recognised narrative.  It may not be the truth, but Wikipedia is not a place to argue the truth, we only report what the sources say. - Nick Thorne talk  07:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And the sources say that Ellis claims the kill. Unless you consider the Royal Aeronautical Society an unreliable source? This should be noted, along with his story. It’s no less valid than the story of any of the other pilots. Again; Wikipedia is not here to defend reputations or serve as a propaganda arm of the RN.

Why you believe Ellis has an ‘axe’ to grind is beyond me. Nothing he said came off as vitriolic. He’s an old man, trying to set the record straight for a young man in another lifetime. If we’re going to make assumptions, why was Carmichael always careful about what he said about the kill? He never once claimed it outright. That’s far more suspicious in my eyes than any perceived ‘axe grinding.’

If you want to get down to technicalities — which I don’t believe have a purpose in this discussion anyways — the RN assigning the kill to Carmichael is useless. We all know the issues with aerial kill assignments.

Ellis’ claim is just as valid as anyone else’s. It should absolutely be noted the kill can in no way be confirmed, but if Carmichael’s claim is noted, Ellis’ should be as well. MWFwiki (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the correct date? This article says the 8th. The article Peter_Carmichael says the 9th. A recent article in Flypast says the 2nd. AMCKen (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For God's sake. The Squadron's Intelligence Officer (IO) would have watched the Squadron's gun camera's footage after the flight and verified any 'kills'. As such, none would have been awarded if none had been scored. That's the whole point of having gun cameras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source of the gun camera review, then I'm sure we'd all appreciate it. Otherwise, this is pure speculation and proves nothing either way. That's not even considering the fact that 'gun cameras' were quite unreliable and often didn't show anything, even when they (rarely) worked. That's assuming they were even installed on the aircraft in-question the first place. MWFwiki (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker Sea Fury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604013334/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/seafurydogfight.html to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/seafurydogfight.html
 * Added tag to http://www.happyorange.org.uk/hawker-sea-fury/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Single engined vs single seat
With this edit completely changed the meaning of the second sentence of the lead. There have been several faster twin engined, single seat aircraft, the point was not that this aircraft was single seat, but that it was single engined. I have reverted the change which I mnissed because it was the first of a series of edits and thus whan I checked my watch list I did not see it at the time. - Nick Thorne talk 00:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Plural of "Fury"
Sorry, but the plural of Tony is Tonys, not Tonies. If Tony suffered fury (lower case f) often, he would be suffering furies. But, the plural of Fury (upper case) is Furys.

Sorry, but you’re wrong, and if the publication/source you’re using is wrong, then you’re both wrong.

Do a search on Proper Noun Plural :) Tony Lockhart (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Several prominent British sources use "Furies", such as BAE Systems and Encyclopedia Britannica. It may be a British English vs American English thing, but I'm not really sure. It may also be a difference between names of people and of objects. For now, per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, let's stick with "Furies", especially since the plural is used forty-four times (!) in the article, and you only changed the first usage. Note that it's also in the title of a book used as a source, Furies and Fireflies over Korea: The Story of the Men and Machines of the Fleet Air Arm, RAF and Commonwealth Who Defended South Korea 1950–1953 by Graham Thomas, published in London. We can revisit this if you or another editor can show that "Furys" is correct in current British English for objects. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm sorry, but your opinion of the correct plural for the Sea Fury is OR. We follow the sources and the overwhelming usage is "Furies". I am an ex-FAA officer with a lifetime interest in these aircraft (my father flew Sea Furies in the 50s) and I have never seen "Furys" as the plural, always "Furies". - Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  23:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the changes, as you're placing yourself at risk for being blocked for edit warrring. I won't revert you again, but will instead file a report at WP:AN/3RR. I understand that, your own name being "Tony", there is a personal connection for you. However, "Fury" isn't a person's name, and as such it's plural is formed differently, at least in British English. I've shown this usage in several British sources, including the title of a published book. It's OK that you disagree with them, but please stop changing this. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No connection to my name at all. I’ve been in aviation for over 40 years, and spent many years working on Tornados. Not Tornadoes. Tornadoes is the spelling when referring to the weather phenomenon, but Tornado, the aircraft, is a proper noun, and therefore only needs an s as the suffix. My wife, a former writer and editor, agrees with me, so I stand by my edits.

Please, do file that report! I really can’t stand such mistakes as they devalue Wikipedia and provide ammunition for the critics.

By the way, I hope the apostrophe in: “ and as such it's plural is formed differently” is a typo or autocorrect! Tony Lockhart (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, my autocorrect is complete crap! But TBH, I write it wrong myself sometimes, so I'm not sure which it was here. BilCat (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's look at some sources :


 * Mason, Francis K. Hawker Aircraft Since 1920 (3rd revised edition). London, UK: Putnam, 1991. ISBN 0-85177-839-9. - Furies
 * Mackay, Ron. Hawker Sea Fury in action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1991. ISBN 0-89747-267-5. - Furies
 * Darling,Kev. Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury. Ramsbury, UK: The Crowood Press, 2003. ISBN 1-86126-620-0 - Furies
 * Buttler, Tony. "The RAF Have No Fury ..." Air Enthusiast, No. 86, March/April 2000, pp. 46–53. . - Furies
 * Bowyer, Michael J. F. Interceptor Fighters for the Royal Air Force 1935–45. Wellingborough, UK: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1984. ISBN 0-85059-726-9 - Furies
 * This seems to indicate that "Furies" is the generally used plural for the aircraft (it also seems to be used for the earlier biplane Hawker Fury).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Tony, it's not so much a case of "wrong" but different rules in different situations. In the Wikipedia article on English plurals, the section English plurals, it states: "However, proper nouns (particularly names of people) of this type usually form their plurals by simply adding -s:[1][2] the two Kennedys, there are three Harrys in our office. With place names this rule is not always adhered to: Sicilies and Scillies are the standard plurals of Sicily and Scilly, while Germanys and Germanies are both used." (Emphases mine.) So the rule is more flexible when dealing with non-people. The mythical Erinyes are generally called the "Furies" in English, and I suspect that's where the aircraft's usage comes from. (And no, I don't mean "from where the aircraft's usage comes"! While I'm a prescriptivist on basic grammar rules, I'm a descriptivist on most everything else, including plurals and postpositional prepositions.) BilCat (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus for these changes, which go against regular usage for these aircraft?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is none, I have reverted the changes. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 01:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick! Sharp, I, for one, wouldn’t have even of noticed the change (although I’m sure others would have. Just finished my master’s in military history and I’ve also only ever seen “Furies,” for what it’s worth. MWFwiki (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Survivors
The Naval Museum of Alberta in Calgary has one. . AMCKen (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

New infobox image
The current infobox image is not the Hawker Fury in its original colors, and I believe if an image of it in its original color would better represent the Sea Fury Forevernewyes (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which images? As far as I can see, the image there now File:Sea Fury - Fly Navy 2017 (cropped).jpg has been there for over a year and it's also a representation of the original prototype and its colour scheme (note the P - Prototype roundel marking on it) Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see Forevernewyes (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)