Talk:Hawker Sea Fury/Archive 1

Cuba
As to the Sea Fury in Cuba, one could consider it part of "a hinge of fate" the Castro victory at the Bay of Pigs Invasion was not a without consequences such as the Cuba Missile Crisis and very nearly lead to nuclear war. El Jigüe 2-11-06

Power/mass ratio
The article gives a power to mass ratio of 190 hp/lb. Given that the dry weight of the aircraft was around 9,000 lbs and the power output of the later, more powerful, Centaurus engines "only" reached about 3,500 HP, I would have thought that the ratio would be about 0.3 HP/lb, a much lower figure. Indeed if the higher figure was correct the aeroplane would sureley have been capable of supersonic speed in a verticle climb! LOL. Please show me where I am in error here - have I misunderstood the quoted figures? Nick Thorne 3 May 2006


 * It does? The figure in the article is .198 hp/lb. ericg ✈ 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

'the fastest single piston-engined aircraft ever built'
Such claims are always likely to be hotly contested, and I don't pretend to be an expert; but other sources would claim that prize for the Grumman Bearcat I think, and not just the hot-rodded ones set up for post-war racing? Ndaisley 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Bearcat record relates to a highly modified (double the engine power, for example) racing aircraft. The claim in this topic relates to the maximum speed for a production single piston-engined aircraft.  In production form the bearcat's top speed was 421 MPH, whereas the Sea Fury's max speed was 460 MPH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Thorne (talk • contribs)


 * Nick is right; the fastest production single-piston-engine aircraft is the Sea Fury, but there are faster singles which were heavily modified. Dago Red, for example, reached 516 miles per hour at Reno, but it's a hugely modified cut-down P-51 with about three times the power of the stock aircraft. ericg ✈ 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have modified the statement to read "the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built", I think that claim cannot be seriously challenged. Nick Thorne 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put the statement back again to "the fastest production single piston engined aircraft ever built", it was not just "one of the fastest". If anyone wishes to dispute this fact, please provide some evidence, don't just edit the page. Nick Thorne 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The P-51 Mustang article claims a higher top speed than the Sea Fury article, which claims that the plane was the fastest mass produced single piston engine plane. Of of these two articles lies. 188.98.196.81 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC) SW

Nick- I am being generous, these are the acknowledged specifications for Second World War fighters :


 * Hawker Sea Fury FB11: Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)


 * Dornier Do 335: Maximum speed: 474 mph (765 km/h) at 21, 325 ft (6,500 m)
 * Focke-Wulf Ta-152 H-1: Maximum speed: 472 mph at 41,000 ft (759 km/h) at 41, 500 ft (12,500m) (using GM-1 boost)
 * North American F-82: Maximum speed: 461 mph at 21,000 ft (742 km/h at 6,400 m)
 * North American P-51H: Maximum speed: 487 mph (784 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
 * Supermarine Spiteful F 14: Maximum speed: 484 mph (777 km/h) with Spiteful F Mk 15 - one built - converted to Seafang prototype, Maximum speed: 483 mph Spiteful F Mk 16 - 2 built, Maximum speed:: 494 mph

As you can see, the Sea Fury is fast but not the fastest production single piston-engined aircraft ever built. Bzuk 04:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, only a handful of Do 335s were ever delivered, so I don't think that counts as a production aircraft, and didn't the F-82 (twin mustang) have two engines - one in each fuselage? Your figures for the Spiteful indicate a protype aircraft- NO, not a production one.  I don't have time to check out the rest, but I see no reason to assume the others are any different based on what I have had time to check up on.  Perhaps you might like to back up your claims for these aircraft too, remember we are talking about single engined production aircraft. Nick Thorne 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, I highlighted the aircraft that were in production and were single-engine and were faster-
 * North American P-51H: Maximum speed: 487 mph (784 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
 * Focke-Wulf Ta-152 H-1: Maximum speed: 472 mph at 41,000 ft (759 km/h) at 41, 500 ft (using GM-1 boost)
 * Supermarine Spiteful F 14: Maximum speed: 484 mph (777 km/h)(12,500m)

The Spiteful was in production, I only included twin-engined fighters to show you that a turn of speed was possible in other piston-engined fighters. Both the F7F Tigercat and F8F Bearcat as well as the Martin-Baker MB5 (only prototype) and Chance-Vought F2G-1/2 could match the Sea Fury in terms of sheer speed but I only wanted to show you the outright, faster, single-engine production types of the Second World War. Bzuk 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble seems to be that all the aircraft there have speeds quoted at different altitudes and its not easy to compare them. And having just read Airspeed it seems even more confusing as to what is measured where and how and who by. GraemeLeggett 14:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem. If they were all listed at sea level or 20,000 feet, it would be consistent; with varying altitudes we'll never get anywhere. This is all original research anyway; many sources mention the Sea Fury as the fastest, so provided we cite them, I think we'll be all right. ericg ✈ 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eric and Graeme- cite the sources that quote the Sea Fury as the fastest- the information I provided is not original research, each of the figures came directly from Wikipedia sites which have verified sources. I also provided a consistent source to research but I have not seen a source that cites the Sea Fury as the fastest merely one of the fastest single-engine aircraft. That's the reason to get out of the "he said" "she said" arguments and anyways, the Sea Fury was one of the fastest- why not leave it at that. IMHO Bzuk 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, and perhaps deserves an article to itself. Drutt 15:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember when talking about top speed prop planes of WW2 vintage that there is high altitude and low altitude speed. When talking about some of the carrier based planes it is important to remember that a couple of elements were important. Engine/Airframe design... For instance if interceptors were being sent up early to high altitude the engine needed to be all purpose, or able to climb quickly and be as maneuverable as the enemy at high altitude. Other navy planes were fast only at low altitude because they were designed to be so. Some would peak perform at a comfortable height above shipping, say 10,000 feet, where they would engage the diving enemy. The advanced Merlin/Centaurus engine comes to mind as a very powerful engine at lower altitudes, because of the supercharger arrangement. I am sure the other engines mentioned here that came after the Centaurus has similar configurations available, and ultimate speed was not just based on the latest mark of that engine. Then, of course, the engine design would be matched to an airframe design by the aircraft designer to hopefully meet the desired specs. As for world records and WW2 aircraft, it may all depend on what your definition of WW2 aircraft is. Is it an engine/airframe that was designed during the war but not put into production until after VE Day, or maybe WW2 airframes later fitted with engines designed and tweaked after the War?Deerlight (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely there is a WP page for the record breaking attempts at airspeed for piston engined planes? To add to the discussion, one of these planes must have the title for fastest 'operational' RAF/FAA single-engined piston-engine powered fighter? Or you could limit it to fastest RAF/RN s-e piston-power fighter of WW2? Fastest p-e fighter to shoot down an enemy? Last RAF/RN plane to shoot down an enemy fighter in a dogfight? The RAF has had miniscule dogfight success since Korea. RN FAA got some kills in the Falklands of course. I think one SHAR had a RAF pilot. Naff all otherwise discounting friendly fire. Royzee (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unofficial 547mph?? Who/which aircraft would this be? As we know, Rare Bear has the current official record at 528+. AMCKen (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Lead needs to summarise the whole article per the guidlines at WP:LEAD. The lead section of P-51 Mustang is a good guide to an appropriate size.

Abbreviations (eg: FAA, RAF) should be explained at the first use- -> Fleet Air Arm (FAA

Needs a copy edit - "Because" is not a good start to a sentence, there are some convoluted sentences and "A A-1 Skyraidier" should really be "An A-1 Skyraider"
 * 2. Factually accurate?: There are a number of places that need inline citations as they are making assertions that could be disputed. The "Survivors" section, "Later service" section and sentences like "Problems arose with damaged tailhooks during carrier landings; after modifications, the aircraft were approved for carrier landings in the spring of 1947." need citations
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: There needs to be more on what the other countries airforces did with the F.50

"Variants" section needs referencing and expanding. Casual readers will want to know things like what caused a model to be known as "Baghdad Fury" Should be something on the article on where/how it was manufactured, what pilots have said about flying it and more on what happenned to them when they left military service.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: good
 * 5. Article stability? good
 * 6. Images?: good

I do suggest that you wikilink the first instance of all words not known to a wider audience (eg: fuselage)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

References style
I note that reference 1 and 3 in the References section themselves refer to lines in the "Bibliography". None of the other references do this and it is incredibly clumsy IMHO to click on a reference in the document only to be further redirected to another line elsewhere. The style that has been used for these two references is that usually used inline in academic texts - that is in the text it might say "blah blah.(Smith, p100)" with a references section at the end of the document elucidsating what exactly the reference was from. In the Wikipedia, the commonly used style is to place an inline reference so that a hyperlinked reference number appears inline in the text, eg ":blah blah2", and clicking on the ref number takes you directly to the relevant reference.

Unless aomeone comes up with a good reason otherwise I am going to change these two refences to proper inline references in accord with standard Wikipedia practice for references and I will change the heading "Bibliography" to "See also", also in line with the Wiki recommended style for reference material not directly refered to in the text.
 * This is an example of the use of the "Harvard citation," in which the author date, and page number are quickly identified. There is ample reasoning for this use, see MOS and is another example of how to link citations. Rather than repeating the use of the entire bibliographic record which is listed in the full bibliography, it will be a complete listing of all reference sources in one location with all inline citations listed in another. The reasoning behind this is to have consistency in styles. If only a general, "found somewhere in the book" notation is made, then it would be appropriate to have a full bibliographic record written there. For a reader/viewer to associate a bibliography to both a Notes/Footnotes section and a Bibliography section makes it awkward (although it does happen). The reasoning behind a Notes section is to "point" to the information source. The standard Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide that is used throughout the article and forms the basis of the Bibliography section provides the following information: Author (last, first name). Title. Place of publication: Publisher, Date. Whenever additional "tracings" are made such as page number (and in the case of Wikipedia, often the publishing source through International Standard Book Number (ISBN) which is added as an optional entry after the main MLA record), the page number is often lost within the larger listing. The reason for the use of the Harvard Citation was to reduce the "clutter" and rather than being clumsy, it is the preferred style for nearly all published works, including the Aviation Project Group in Wikipedia. I can point you to over 5,000 aviation-related articles that I have created/edited and show you this style in place countless times. For additional information, I am willing to write you a more fulsome reply. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

The last ever propeller-driven fighter to shoot down a jet-powered fighter
The last propeller-driven fighter to shot down a jet was an A-1 Syraider in Vietnam. The first paragraph should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.100.148 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One could quibble on that, as the A-1 was an "attack" plane, not a "fighter". - BillCJ (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was a Sea Fury FB, so it was also kind of an attack plane... kind of like comparing tangerines and oranges. ericg ✈ 03:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the statement from the Lead, as it is mis-leading without proper qualifications. My readers may consider any realatively small single-seat, single-engine combat plane to be a fighter, and the A-1 fits this notion, as the user above gives evidence. Perhaps a suitable sentence or two could be added to the main text, with qualifications and sources. - BillCJ (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft
- 	I think the Blackburn Firebrand should be included in the list. Same era, carrier based, both in the FAA, both fighter bombers, same layout, same engine (although different marks) slightly different performance but largely the same... Any thoughts? JRdinosaurJR (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, however I don't think the Firbrand was in the same league as the Sea Fury, as the Sea Fury was at that time a first rate carrier fighter, which the Firebrand was most certainly not. The Firebrand's nearest equivalent by the time it entered service was probably the Westland Wyvern. The nearest US equivalent to these two would have been the Douglas Skyraider.


 * The only other comparable aircraft to the Sea Fury was probably the Bearcat, as they were both the last in a line of high performance piston-engined carrier fighter aircraft, which, if the war had continued, would have been very useful fighter aeroplanes. The Firebrand would have made a useful ground attack aircraft, but it would not have been able to survive against an meaningful fighter opposition with fighters having a performance similar to that of the Sea fury or Bearcat.


 * I've only included UK and US aircraft simply because they were the only nations with any meaningful aircraft carrier fleets or need for a carrier aircraft. The Japanese may have had comparable designs but they never got far with them due to the war's end in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

- Stop the bus! I see that the "Comparable Aircraft" section has become "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era"... Is this a policy change in Wikipedia that I am unaware of? If so, please excuse my ignorance... However; the CAC Kangaroo, the P-51, the P-47, the La-9 and the FW-190 have been included as comparable types. Even The prototype MB-5. These are clearly not comparable aircraft as none of the above are, and I quote, a "Naval Fighter Bomber". How can it be correct to remove the Blackburn Firebrand and then insert these aircraft instead? The Firebrand was a Naval Fighter Bomber. Additionally, it was not only a prototype - it was used operationally by the FAA.

Sorry, but I am of the opinion that the section is now messy and does not present comparable aircraft. The F8F Bearcat, the F4-U Corsair and the Seafang are perhaps the only comparable aircraft by Configuration, Role and Era... JRdinosaurJR (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lighter? Really?
The Fury was developed as a lightweight Tempest. Its closest relative, the Tempest II, was 20 lbs heavier than the Tempest V. The Fury is 10 lbs less than the V, so that means the development program only managed to shave 30 lbs off the aircraft?! I suspect there is more to the story than what is talked about in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any fond hopes for planned weights were probably overtaken by the engine-swapping. When comparing models and weights, it would be essential to do this across comparable, ie fitted with the same engines, aircraft. There's also the issue of navalising always adding weight. Even when not built as Sea Furies (and so re-gaining some weight budget from avoiding wing-fold hinges and similar ancillaries) the higher-stressed airframe for their attachment points would still have had a weight penalty. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the Tempest Light Fighter was so-called because it was intended for operations against the later Japanese types of fighter in the Far East. So it was originally a more nimble Tempest optimised for fighting Japanese aircraft, which were generally lighter and less heavily armed and armoured than the German opponents the Tempest had been fighting. Hence 'Light Fighter'.


 * BTW, IIARC, that was why the air-cooled Bristol Centaurus was eventually decided upon for the Fury/Sea Fury, as an air-cooled engine was preferred for use in tropical climates. The Tempest II had the Centaurus for the same reason, as it was also intended for the Far East.


 * In places such as India, Burma and Malaya the high ambient temperatures at some times of the year can cause a liquid-cooled engine to overheat with prolonged running on the ground, such as when taxiing or waiting to take-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This may well all be true, but unless you can provide reliable sources it is all just original research and cannot be included in the article. - Nick Thorne  talk  20:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sourcing for the problems of inline engines overheating is easy. It should already be in the Spitfire or Merlin article - they can only idle for a few minutes on the ground before overheating. Whether this was chosen as a specific reason for the radial is a little harder. There's also the issue of production capacity. Bristol, by this time, were under-used as the bomber fleet had gone over to Merlins as well as the single seaters and radials were hardly being used, other than for the Beaufighter. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tempest II referred-to as intended for use as a 'tropical fighter' in A&AEE report here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)