# Corsair VS Spitfire



## Razgriz1 (Aug 15, 2017)

So the best British warbird VS the (IMO) best American warbird of the war. How do they compare.

F4U-1 series vs the Merlin engined Spits
F4U-4 vs Griffon engined Spits


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 15, 2017)

No time to elaborate right now. But in my quick without much thought opinion,
I'd go with the Corsair all the way... If the battle was over water and 400 mls.
from base.
If you are talking a quick one on one mix it up dogfight, and the Spitfire has
the standard wing, the Spitfire has the immediate advantage.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 15, 2017)

Why are you looking at 2 types that are so vastly different in requirements and production schedules? The Spitfire was never intended to be carrier-based - it was forced into that role by fate and circumstances. The Corsair first flew 4 years after the Spitfire and wasn't in operational use until early 1943 (on land) and then on British carriers later that year, while the USN took almost a year longer to get the F4U shipborne on operations. The Corsair arrives on the scene 5-6 after the Spitfire started in front-line service. It should be no big surprise that an aircraft introduced later and with the luxury of uninterrupted design and development activities, will inevitably be better than one that's 4+ years older and which had most of its key improvements designed and implemented under harsh wartime conditions (including bombing of the design shop and factory that built them). The time difference is a lifetime in terms of the rate of advance of aircraft technology in the late-1930s and early 1940s. You might as well compare the F4U to the F-86, which is pretty comparable in terms of introduction schedules, and both served in the same conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 15, 2017)

^^^ What he said.

Besides, although your mileage may vary, I'd take the P-51B/C D or H any day over the F4U, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2017)

What are the criteria for determining best?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 15, 2017)

From 1939 to 42 the Spitfire wins hands down just for being there, this may seem like a churlish or childish point but you cannot design the Corsair for service in 1939, there was no engine to power it. For almost all activities after 1942 then the Corsair has more utility except that a Corsair pilot may prefer to be faced with other aircraft than a griffon Spitfire.


----------



## davebender (Aug 15, 2017)

F4U is a newer aircraft with a newer and more powerful engine. You would expect it to be superior and it is.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2017)

The Griffon powered Spitfire series was hands down the best dogfighter, and had superior armament, over every wartime F4U-1C. The F4U (all) had a much larger load capability and longer range - 

If the Mission was ETO/MTO landscape, the F4U-1D and F4U-4 had less, to much less, Combat Radius than a P-47D with only 305 gallons internal fuel. Spit XIV had even less combat range and lower bomb carrying capability so the Mission options were fewer. If you wanted an air superiority fighter up to 200 miles, there is no comparison between the Mark XII and Mark XIV vs any F4U fighting in WWII.

The P-51B/C/D/K was generally faster depending on Boost but it didn't match maneuverability of the Griffon Spits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 15, 2017)

And if we are talking multi-use fighter capable of carrying 2,000-4,000 lb.
of offensive explosives, the F4U-1D / F4U-4 are the only ones in the running.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2017)

You not only have the relative age of the two aircraft, you are trying to compare a 7-8,000lb fighter with a 12,000lb fighter. 
Obviously the big fighter is going to have different strengths and weaknesses than the smaller fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 15, 2017)

Which Spitfire, which engine and which wing.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Aug 15, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> And if we are talking multi-use fighter capable of carrying 2,000-4,000 lb.
> of offensive explosives, the F4U-1D / F4U-4 are the only ones in the running.



And if we say it has to be a multi-use fighter with cranked wings, then it really is only the Corsair. But if you're going to widen the comparison to include things that the Spitfire patently wasn't designed to do, then it's only fair to offer other options. Tempest, anybody?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 16, 2017)

drgondog said:


> If you wanted an air superiority fighter up to 200 miles, there is no comparison between the Mark XII and Mark XIV vs any F4U fighting in WWII.



The only thing I would add is that the XII may struggle for performance against the F4U at altitudes above ~10-15,000ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 16, 2017)

BPF operated Corsairs and Seafire IIIs with XV on delivery by the time of the surrender. Corsair had a theoretical advantage in range, but in actual service its operational range was 220 miles to the Seafires 180. The Mk XV was slightly superior to the corsair in terms of operational range.

the other issue that affects "superiority has nothing to do with combat performance. the big issue was the accident rates . this is one of the least understood aspects of the seafire service, and in comparison to the decks over which the RN was forced to operate it is beyond the pale to try and make valid comparisons. 

the first thing is that the seafire II, rushed into service in 1942 and 43 suffered an undeniably high accident rate, due to a number of factors including

forced to operate from small slow carriers
poor training and familiarity for the aircrews flying the type
rushed development leading to weaknesses in the LG
weather states 9calm air, no headwinds) made worse by the 15 knot carriers they were operating from....no air under the wings on a plane that needs lots of lift to get airborne

Results were predictably poor. in comparison,F4Us were never asked to operate under the same conditions. It was 1944 before the corsair was operated on a large scale basis from any carrier, and those carriers were always large with good turn of speed and large deck areas. this greatly reduces non combat losses.

The seafire IIIs and XVs (post war) had a significantly better accident rate than the corsair in the BPF. at last, in 1945 the two types operating side by side off the same platforms under the same conditions the loss rates to accidents were at last comparable, and the Seafire III was a better aircraft from the point of view of accidents. It had a redesigned undercart, better trained pilots that had been allowed to work up properly, the inherent weaknesses of the type were known and allowed for in terms of procedures. The seafire was not ideal for carrier operations at any stage, but it was far closer to parity in 1945-49 than is often assumed 

The seafire was better at point defence and was the preferred aircraft in the BPF for fleet defence against hard to stop kamikazes. The Seafire, with its 20mm cannon had the firepower to blow apart a kamikaze that the Corsair lacked. American belief in their 50 cals is way way overblown, and not enough to bring down a kamikaze in near quick enough times.....

The corsair did have superior ground attack capability and was always more rugged than the seafire, but the seafire, in the form of the XV and 47 remained in service after the corsair had been retired from service

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 16, 2017)

The F4U-4 would out run most Spitfires, with both at WER, at least for a short while. The Spitfire SHOULD out climb the Corsair. I'd think the Corsair should roll better, but that might prove untrue. I haven't checked in detail. The Corsair is the only one of the two suited for carriers, but that wasn't a condition.

So, I go with some of the above folks when I say the choice would come down to the location and the mission. If the Spitfire could GET there and do the mission, it would be a great choice. If it couldn't, then the Corsair would be another great choice. Spitfires are fragile and easily damaged. If it was going to live on a coral atoll or in a jungle, I'd take a Corsair all day long. If the mission involves hauling a load, Corsair all the way.

As far as engines, the R-2800 was VERY reliable and damage-tolerant. The Merlin was likewise a reliable unit, if less damage-tolerant. Great engines, both. In forward areas, the propeller on the Corsair was a LOT more rugged and would probably last a LOT longer, as would the landing gear, being of Naval design.

As said above by me and others, it depends on what you want to do. The two are generally unlikely to overlap in assigned missions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> The F4U-4 would out run most Spitfires, with both at WER, at least for a short while. The Spitfire SHOULD out climb the Corsair. I'd think the Corsair should roll better, but that might prove untrue. I haven't checked in detail.



Well, yes, the F4U-4 will outrun most Spitfires. 

But not contemporary Griffon Spitfires - the XIV, XVIII and 21/22. These will keep pace with the F4U-4.

In terms of roll rate, not all Spitfires are the same. Later Spitfires had stronger wings which enabled faster roll rates, the 20-series especially.

The late Griffon Spitfires will out climb the F4U-4. As will the later 2 stage Merlin Spitfires - VII, VIII and IX. But earlier versions won't. The XII will keep up - for a while

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Razgriz1 (Aug 16, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are the criteria for determining best?



In a dogfight, both turning & BnZ.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 16, 2017)

I apologize once more. Me and the Mrs. have taken three days off from work to
enjoy ourselves. So I don't have a lot of time to post right now. We just came off
the shooting range where the Mrs. promptly did in four silhouette bad guys. Any-
way we are now on our way up to the ritzy shops for the Mrs. to buy, buy & buy$.
But I have time to leave you with this for now.
The Spitfire 14 was capable of 359 mph. at sea level using +18 lb. boosting in
operational service, January 1944. Later in June 1944 to the end of the war was
capable of 370 mph. at sea level using +21 lb. boost with the higher grade of fuel.
The standard F4U-1D became operational in January 1945 and could manage
366 mph. at sea level. The F4U-4 became operational in May 1945 and could
manage 389 mph. at sea level according to the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy
Department. The Spitfire XIV's speed did eclipse the F4U-4 at about 8.700 m. and
up.
As far as roll rates are concerned. The maximum roll rate of the clipped wing
Spit XII would be about 150 degrees a second at 200 mph. The Spit XIV to the
best of my knowledge is 105 degrees a second at 200 mph. Both versions of the
the Spitfire's roll rate fall off continually as speed is gained. The F4U-4 could roll
to the right at 89 degrees a second at 235 mph. However the roll rate of the
Corsair increased continually with speed.


----------



## davebender (Aug 16, 2017)

only 305 gallons internal fuel
About three times as much as a Spitfire or Me-109. Thus the newer F4U had a loiter capability a Spitfire could never hope to match.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2017)

UH, 305 gallons was the capacity of the early P-47. 
Early F4Us could hold 361 gallons of fuel but 114 gallons were in unprotected wing tanks, Fuselage tank held 237 gallons. As drop tanks came into use the F4Us stopped using the wing tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 16, 2017)

Shortround is pretty much dead on right. The 57 gallon (215 litre) wing tanks in
the early F4U-1s were not self sealing but they did have a carbon dioxide dilution
system with the supply cylinder in the fuselage. The early F4U-1 up through the
F4U-1C had the 261 gallon (998-litre) fuselage tank with the ability to carry 175
gallon (662+litre) externally. The F4U-1D only had 237 gallon (897 litre) fuselage
tank but had the capability to carry 300 gallon (1,135+litre) externally just like the
F4U-4. The F4U-4's internal capacity was 234 gallon (886-litre).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Aug 16, 2017)

davebender said:


> only 305 gallons internal fuel
> About three times as much as a Spitfire or Me-109. Thus the newer F4U had a loiter capability a Spitfire could never hope to match.



Spit Mk VII and VIII carried 122 IMPgal (146.5 USgal) internally. Mk XIVE also carried 109,5 IMPgal (131,5 USgal) internally and could have a 31 IMP gal (37 USgal) rear fuselage tank.

Checked the fuel figures from Morgan & Shacklady Spitfire book. Even if Mk XIV was in essence a re-engined Mk VIII with some structural strenghtening, its main lower fuel tank was smaller and it seems that when the rear fuselage tankage was used they only installed the lower tank. So I corrected the figures.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2017)

Perhaps fuel capacity discussion should be in litres so that we know we are all talking about the same thing?


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

Mr. Wuzak has a valid point. I modified my post #21.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

I have been looking over my files on these two aircraft. I have all the
performance figures, but they just don't tell the whole story. You can't
put a figure on all the well placed armor of the Corsair or its life saving
extra fuel capacity. It does not have the silk scarf fluttering around the
neck flamboyancy of the Spitfire. It was just a 6-ton in your face piece
of hardware that could get the job done type of vehicle. With that said
I will attempt to put some numbers in place for the numerically minded
(like myself).
From 1 August 1938 when No.19 became operational with their Mk.I
Spitfires until 28 December 1942 when VMF-124 became operational
with their F4U-1s the Spitfire was uncontested in this matchup. Sooo,
the Spitfire takes it hands down for the first four years. 

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> I have been looking over my files on these two aircraft. I have all the
> performance figures, but they just don't tell the whole story. You can't
> put a figure on all the well placed armor of the Corsair or its life saving
> extra fuel capacity.



How much extra fuel capacity?

How much fuel does the R-2800 burn compared to the Griffon?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2017)

wuzak said:


> How much extra fuel capacity?
> 
> How much fuel does the R-2800 burn compared to the Griffon?



At high power outputs probably more. it burned up to 240imp gallons an hour at worst (water injection actually lowered fuel consumption) 
but throttled way back at low altitude (aux supercharger in neutral) it burned between 35 and 42 imp gallons an hour (570-800hp) 

Max lean cruise was 69-77 imp gallons an hour depending on altitude and supercharger gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

wuzak said:


> How much extra fuel capacity?
> 
> How much fuel does the R-2800 burn compared to the Griffon?



Thank you shortround. I do not have the exact figures of fuel usage at normal,
military and combat power for these engines. All I do have is that the normal
ranges were:
Spitfire XII: 329 ml./263 mph. & 493 ml./maximum external.
Spitfire XIV: 460 ml./245 mph. & 850 ml./maximum external.
F4U-1D: 1,015 ml./normal cruise, 1,562 ml./179 mph., 2,215 ml./1,135 L external.
F4U-4: 840 ml./172 mph., 1,100+ml./568- L. external 1,560 ml./1,135 L external.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Thank you shortround. I do not have the exact figures of fuel usage at normal,
> military and combat power for these engines. All I do have is that the normal
> ranges were:
> Spitfire XII: 329 ml./263 mph. & 493 ml./maximum external.
> ...



What's normal cruise?

The other speeds you have are 179mph and 172mph for the F4U. A touch slow for a fighter in the ETO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

28 December 1942:
F4U-1 (Spitfire IX of 28 July 1942)

Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
S.L.........348 / 3160 (311 / 3655)
1,000...347 / 2660 (326 / 3710)
2,000...345 / 2490 (341 / 3760)
3,000...358 / 2455 (356 / 3820)
4,000...370 / 2410 (371 / 3775)
5,000...384 / 2215 (380 / 3245)
6,000...386 / 1825 (380 / 2625)
7,000...395 / 1635 (377 / 2980)
8,000...387 / 1290 (398 / 2845)
9,000...371 /...985 (402 / 2355)

Maximums: 395 mph./6,949 m., 3160 fpm./S.L. (403 mph./8,354 m., 3860 fpm./
3,841 m.)

Service Ceiling: 38,500 ft. (43,400 ft.)

Wing Loading: 35.65 lb./sq. ft. (30.90 lb./sq. ft.)
Power Loading: 5.600 lb./hp. (4.780 lb./hp.)

Engine: P&W R-2800-8 (RR Merlin 61)
Engine power: 2,000 hp./54"Hg.[+12 lb.] ( (1,565 hp./+15 lb. boost [60"Hg.)


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

wuzak said:


> What's normal cruise?
> 
> The other speeds you have are 179mph and 172mph for the F4U. A touch slow for a fighter in the ETO.


*I totally agree wuzak. At this moment I do not have any more information than that. You see, I am still on 
holidays with the Mrs. and am having somewhat of a time of it finding time to do proper research.
My bad, but having soo much fun at this time. My apologies sir.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 17, 2017)

Part of the agreement joining this forum was that you forgo a "normal" life!  You have to agree to spend 90% of your time at the bench or in research. The other 10% you can freely use for sleep, drinking, eating, etc. But strictly no vacations allowed unless you take your bench with you!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

Boy ain't that the truth!

And now the truth really comes out. Robert, I am currently doing the research on
the F4F/FM timeline. I have just finished the F2A timeline and have posted it
on the warbirds forum. I have also read through several books gathering handling
& performance for the various F2A / 39 series of aircraft from a pilots point of view.
So, you are right. I may be on a vacation for three days in the eyes of the Mrs. but
we all know where my mind and thoughts are.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 17, 2017)

We're a sad bunch!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2017)

Yep, and loving it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 17, 2017)

Can anyone point me to rigorous Cruise Tests for the F4U-1 and -4? Particularly any that touch on 25,000 feet.

I have never seen a Combat Radius prepared for F4U by USN with similar flight profiles to AAF P-38, P-47 and P-51. Anybody?


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 17, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> So, you are right. I may be on a vacation for three days in the eyes of the Mrs. but
> we all know where my mind and thoughts are.



And we all know where that can lead. Tread carefully my friend!


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Can anyone point me to rigorous Cruise Tests for the F4U-1 and -4? Particularly any that touch on 25,000 feet.
> 
> I have never seen a Combat Radius prepared for F4U by USN with similar flight profiles to AAF P-38, P-47 and P-51. Anybody?



Here's a comparison of the Corsair 1A / Spitfire VIII LF Trop / P-51B all at MECS @ 20K ft:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1a-ads.jpg
= 645/1100 miles with 192/325ig @[265mph-my mistake]248mph

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_LF_VIII_Trop_Aircraft_Data_Performance.jpg
= 740/940/1265 miles with 120/150/210ig @ 220mph.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
=950/1710/2210 miles with 150/275ig/400ig @ 253mph

all aircraft have allowances for TO and climb.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Can anyone point me to rigorous Cruise Tests for the F4U-1 and -4? Particularly any that touch on 25,000 feet.
> 
> I have never seen a Combat Radius prepared for F4U by USN with similar flight profiles to AAF P-38, P-47 and P-51. Anybody?



I haven't seen one although we can work out fuel to altitude and combat (20 minute) consumptions.

I doubt very highly it is going to match the P-47 as the P-47 gets a bit of help from the turbo charger at high cruise speeds. F4U-1s had lousy exhaust thrust and would need to clutch in the Aux supercharger for high speed cruising in the mid 20,000ft neighborhood. 

20 minute combat allowance is going to be about 80-90 US gallons (275-290 gallons an hour for military power Goes down a bit with water injection for WER but there is only 10 gallons of water injection fluid). 

a 20 minute reserve an lowest fuel burn is about 13-14 gallons. 98-99 gallons so far?

Warm up and take off to 5000ft? a P-47 used 45 US gallons? For an F4U-1D with one 170 gallon drop tank you needed to warm up 24 1/4 gallons of oil before take-off, without drop tank they only put in 16 gallons of oil.

At what point in the take-off do you switch to drop tank/s? call it 32 gallons to help the figuring. 130 gallons allotted from the main 237 gallon tank. You have 107 gallons to get home with regardless of the size/number of drop tanks. perhaps an hour and 10/15 minutes?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I haven't seen one although we can work out fuel to altitude and combat (20 minute) consumptions.
> 
> I doubt very highly it is going to match the P-47 as the P-47 gets a bit of help from the turbo charger at high cruise speeds. F4U-1s had lousy exhaust thrust and would need to clutch in the Aux supercharger for high speed cruising in the mid 20,000ft neighborhood.
> 
> ...


This data card shows the allowance for TO, climb to 20k ft, 15min combat at 20k ft and 20 min cruise at 2000ft as 101-128ig, depending on fuel loading:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-II-III-ads-b.jpg

The Pilot's Notes Corsair I-IV state 192ig/hr at 5000ft @2700rpm with 52.5in boost. MECS at 5000ft = 69ig.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2017)

Thanks to you both. SR - I have a need to publish documented tests forming documented Range parameters for a new book. RCAFson - I need the rest of the report to parse the test runs,..

I am writing a book that may be titled "Mustang - The Bastard Stepchild that saved the 8th AF".

The body of the book will start with Casablanca and POINTBLANK directives and move forward through the growth of the 8th AF into the Crisis of October 14, 1943. In the background will be the frenzy initiated by Arnold, Eaker and Spaatz searching for long range escort solution leading to Arnold to tell Barney Giles "Go fix this and have a solution by December, 1943". The development of Ferry tanks, combat tanks, tank pressurization, internal fuel increase and (briefly) the birth of the P-51B. the introduction of the P-38J and development progress to increase internal fuel - are part of the story. I am not going to devote much time to the politics of Echols/Material Command obstruction re: the P-51 acceptance.

Part of the book will be a technical section highlighting documented performance for P-38, P-47, P-51, Bf 109G-6, FW 190A7 at SL, 5,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 25,000 feet and 30,000 feet (dash and climb) bridging Summer/Fall 1943 through D-Day.

An often asked question is "If the AAF had the F4U-1A (with max internal fuel of all versions) could it have been a major contributor in the 8th AF escort role". The answer is partially yes, to the extent that projected Combat Radius with boundary conditions same as AAF metrics, would permit about the same as the P-47D-25 with 370 gallons but at lower escort altitude and cruise airspeed. What remains unanswered for comparison purposes is the Cruise and Combat performance at 25,000 and 30,000 feet where the P-47D really stood out in comparison.

What is clear (to me, at least) is that from F4U-4 series and beyond, stripping the unprotected wing tanks (361 to 237 gallons) and reducing internal fuel well below the early P-47D 305 gallon, would render the F4U to Penetration and Withdrawal escort role. Still Greater than Spit IX but maybe not as good a performer at 25000+ feet. I suspect without hard facts that the key question would have been "F4U-1 vs P-38H" not F4U-1 vs P-47.

Thanks to you both.

Bill

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 18, 2017)

Not sure these are of any help but the detail specification sheets do have some data regarding endurance for long and short range as well as fuel carried.

For the F4U-1
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-detail-specification.pdf "Endurance" around Pg. 6

For the F4U-4

F4U Performance Trials which appears to be a cleaned up HTML version of the two below and does give both an endurance figure and a combat radius number about 2/3rds the way down.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-80765.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf "Endurance" around Pg. 8

I realize you need data similar to what the AAF would have needed for a mission profile and this may not help but hope you'll take it in the spirit it's intended.

And I want a first edition of this book, I can't tell you how much interest there is in that subject for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2017)

I have no tests but it seems the F4U-1 might be a bit lacking in high speed cruise. 
The British data sheet provided showing 297mph at 20,000ft at max lean cruise. 

Unfortunately the endurance figures here.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-detail-specification.pdf

make no sense. 1.15 hours at max continuous power (rich) 1550hp calls for 250 gallons an hour on the 
specific engine flight chart





Impossible on the 237 gallons listed in the detail specification chart. and the lower power cruises don't make sense either. 

Even at 60% speed (386mph at 21,500=237mph) and assuming the Corsair can fly at 237mph using about 600hp at 21,500ft that means 53 gallons an hour (best case?) and 4.82 hours means 255 gallons???

I can well understand your need for actual tests as the published charts don't add up unless I am missing something? 
Pilots manual is no help as the only range chart shows variations for weight and fuel while giving an altitude of 5500ft. I am assuming the speed is the 150 knots mentioned earlier in the manual for best range at 42 gallons an hour.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I can well understand your need for actual tests as the published charts don't add up unless I am missing something?
> Pilots manual is no help as the only range chart shows variations for weight and fuel while giving an altitude of 5500ft. I am assuming the speed is the 150 knots mentioned earlier in the manual for best range at 42 gallons an hour.



Cruising at 5,500ft and 150knots over Europe turns you into a dead pilot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 20, 2017)

Razgriz1 said:


> So the best British warbird VS the (IMO) best American warbird of the war. How do they compare.
> 
> F4U-1 series vs the Merlin engined Spits
> F4U-4 vs Griffon engined Spits


I go with Corsening: If I'm the government procurement officer, send me Corsairs for their range, ruggedness, and versatility, and I'll make sure the pilots get top-notch training; if I'm the pilot whose ass is on the line and I'm defending my base, give me a Griffon Spit.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2017)

SR - you highlighted the precise reason that I want to see the documented test runs including the cruise speeds and fuel consumption at specific altitudes.


----------



## eagledad (Aug 21, 2017)

[



Drgondog

Don't know if you can use these to calculate/determine the range of the F4U at 25,000 feet, but I am sending them to you for your inspection. Pages 2 and 3 of the -1, and 4-7 of the 1D contain range data and the mission profile.
Note that the ranges for the -1 are based on a flight test.

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Aug 22, 2017)

Fly both planes to their strong points and both are good for what they were designed to do.

Would you try to dive away from a F4U in a Spit? Would you try turning with a Spit when your in a F4U?

Use performance based on 100% power and not any kind of emergency power. Brief spurts of extreme power doesn't make for a better aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 22, 2017)

mad_max said:


> Use performance based on 100% power and not any kind of emergency power. Brief spurts of extreme power doesn't make for a better aircraft.


(Spoken like a true groundling!)

NO!, it makes for survivors and an improved kill-to-loss ratio!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2017)

If brief spurts of extreme power didn't make for better aircraft an awful lot of air forces and companies spent an awful lot of time and money on better fuel, water injection systems and nitrous -oxide systems. 

I would also note that most engines were only allowed to use 100% power for 5 - 15 minutes. 100% was NOT max continuous or even climb power.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2017)

I think most pilots would be looking hard at the fuel gauge if doing significantly more than 15 minutes of 100% power.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2017)

Quite possibly but that was the standard for US escort fighters over Europe. 5 minutes at WER and 15 minutes at military power (100%) for a 20 minute total. The other problem was overheating the engine or running it at higher than "normal" temperatures for more than the rated time. 

and just so we are on the same page the Corsair used 275-290 gallons an hour at 100% power (2000-1650hp) depending on altitude and supercharger gear selected and 220-250 gallons an hour for 1675-1550hp depending on altitude and supercharger gear selected so backing off just a little bit didn't do a whole lot. max lean cruise (1070-950hp) used 82-93 gallons an hour depending on altitude and supercharger gear selected so unless the fighter pilot can cruise at Max lean or below he is sucking a lot of fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2017)

mad_max said:


> Fly both planes to their strong points and both are good for what they were designed to do.
> 
> Would you try to dive away from a F4U in a Spit? Would you try turning with a Spit when your in a F4U?
> 
> Use performance based on 100% power and not any kind of emergency power. Brief spurts of extreme power doesn't make for a better aircraft.


The Placard Limit Dive 1G dive speed for F4U-1 was 3mph higher(443mph IAS) than P-38J/L (440IAS).. if the Spit had any kind of lead it could dive away. The dive Acceleration of the F4U-1D was nearly the same as the P-51D, slightly faster than Spit IX.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 23, 2017)

drgondog said:


> The Placard Limit Dive 1G dive speed for F4U-1 was 3mph higher(443mph IAS) than P-38J/L (440IAS).. if the Spit had any kind of lead it could dive away. The dive Acceleration of the F4U-1D was nearly the same as the P-51D, slightly faster than Spit IX.



So with that in mind, the P-51D is able to out dive the F4U-1 then? As I recall (wrongly probably) the 51D was limited to 505mph IAS?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 23, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Quite possibly but that was the standard for US escort fighters over Europe. 5 minutes at WER and 15 minutes at military power (100%) for a 20 minute total. The other problem was overheating the engine or running it at higher than "normal" temperatures for more than the rated time.
> .


It is easy in the course of a discussion to consider 15 minutes as a short period of time. In terms of motor sport it is a very very long time to have a high performance engine on full power. I presume there was a compromise with power boosting methods. It may be desirable to have longer with water methanol or nitrous injection but it also means carrying more water methanol or nitrous oxide apart from the problems of overheating and engine damage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 24, 2017)

Nevermind the delays for service use, the F4U flew 29 May 1940. The P-51 flew 26 Oct 1940.

But, the first production F4U-1 reached the Marine Corps on 30 Jul 1942 and was cleared for carriers from Feb 1943. The F4U-4 reached combat in late 1944.

The P-51B/C reached Europe in Dec 1943. The bubble-canopy P-51D reached Europe in the spring of 1944.

Seems fair to compare the P-51D to the F4U-4 and the P-51A to the F4U-1.

Either way, one is a Naval fighter and one is an Air Force fighter, with different mission requirements to fulfill. While I understand comparing the performances, I'm not too sure why one would use one for the mission of the other to start with.

But, you COULD launch P-51Ds from a carrier and recover on land, and you COULD use the Corsair for land-based duties ... if the need were to be extreme. I don't believe anyone at the time thought the need was extreme, and I don't believe anyone actually exchanged the two for one another on actual missions to any extent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> So with that in mind, the P-51D is able to out dive the F4U-1 then? As I recall (wrongly probably) the 51D was limited to 505mph IAS?


P-51B/D could easily out dive the P-38 and F4U-1 and F6F and P-40, it could marginally out dive the F4U-4 and yes placard dive speed was 505 IAS for P-51B/D/H

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 26, 2017)

GregP said:


> Nevermind the delays for service use, the F4U flew 29 May 1940. The P-51 flew 26 Oct 1940.
> Seems fair to compare the P-51D to the F4U-4 and the P-51A to the F4U-1.
> *The P-51D-5 became operational in May 1944 using 67"Hg boosting to the engine as W.E.P. This
> boosting level and the low/medium altitude performance of the P-51D were all increased on
> ...


*Agreed.*


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 27, 2017)

GregP said:


> Nevermind the delays for service use, the F4U flew 29 May 1940. The P-51 flew 26 Oct 1940.
> 
> But, the first production F4U-1 reached the Marine Corps on 30 Jul 1942 and was cleared for carriers from Feb 1943. The F4U-4 reached combat in late 1944.



Unless delivered via teleport, the F4U-4 could not reach combat area from Connecticut to, say, Okinawa, before couple of months? 1st F4U-4 was delivered in December 1944.
The XF4U-1 1st flew in 1940, but it needed redesign in order to meet new firepower and protection criteria. The 1st Corsair with 6 HMGs and self sealing tanks was delivered in October 1942, ie. whooping 30 months after the XF4U-1, by what time Mustang units made numerous combat sorties.
USN and USMC pilots very much minded the delays for service use of the Corsair.



> The P-51B/C reached Europe in Dec 1943. The bubble-canopy P-51D reached Europe in the spring of 1944.
> 
> Seems fair to compare the P-51D to the F4U-4 and the P-51A to the F4U-1.



Comparing 1st delivery dates, the F4U-4 was just 2 months earlier vs. P-51H, and 11 months later than P-51D. 
Ergo - F4U-4 vs P-51H.



> Either way, one is a Naval fighter and one is an Air Force fighter, with different mission requirements to fulfill. While I understand comparing the performances, I'm not too sure why one would use one for the mission of the other to start with.
> 
> But, you COULD launch P-51Ds from a carrier and recover on land, and you COULD use the Corsair for land-based duties ... if the need were to be extreme. I don't believe anyone at the time thought the need was extreme, and I don't believe anyone actually exchanged the two for one another on actual missions to any extent.



Agreed.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 27, 2017)

Carrier service for the Corsair was cleared in the RN well before the USN. But it was a type the RN had its share of problems with, though the high performance of the type trumped these problems.

In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hangar deck height that existed in their closed hangars, Corsairs had to have their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in (200 mm) to clear the deckhead. The change in span brought about an improved “sink” rate., This reduced the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy aviators found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been to U.S. Navy aviators, who struggled for many months with the type. This was due mainly to the curved approach the RN used: British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view over the left wing anhedral. Not great, but good enough to keep accident rates tolerable. After many monthgs of resistance within the US forces, this technique was finally adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair.

The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical aboard their carriers. Among these was a bulged canopy, raising the pilot's seat 180 mm and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting the oil and hydraulic fluid around the sides of the fuselage.

The RN Navy initially received 95 “bird-cage” F4U-1s from Vought which were designated Corsair Mk I in Fleet Air Arm service. They were followed by 510 “blown-canopy” F4U-1A/-1Ds, which were designated Corsair Mk II (the final 150 equivalent to the F4U-1D, but not separately designated in British use).

430 Brewster Corsairs (334 F3A-1 and 96 F3A-1D), more than half of Brewster’s total production, were delivered to Britain as the Corsair Mk III. 857 Goodyear Corsairs (400 FG-1/-1A and 457 FG-1D) were delivered and designated Corsair Mk IV. The Mk IIs and Mk IVs were the only versions to be used in combat. The earlier versions had insurmountable issues for use aboard carriers that made the type virtually non-operational.

However, the RN cleared the F4U for carrier operations well before the U.S. Navy and showed that the Corsair Mk II could be operated with reasonable success. They did manage to operate the type from small CVE decks, but mostly in the aircraft ferry role.

However the type was not without problems; one was excessive wear of the arrester wires, due both to the weight of the Corsair and the understandable tendency of the pilots to stay well above the stalling speed. A total of 2,012 Corsairs were supplied to the United Kingdom.

FAA units were created and equipped in the US, and then shipped to war theaters aboard CVEs. The first FAA Corsair unit was 1830 sqn, created on the first of June 1943, and soon began training operating from HMS ILLUSTRIOUS. This unit was declared operational for operations aboard from the following November, the first such unit in the world. By the end of the war, 18 FAA squadrons were operating the Corsair. British Corsairs served both in Europe and in the Pacific. The first, and also most important, European operations were the series of attacks in April, July and August 1944 on the DKM TIRPITZ, for which Corsairs from CVs VICTORIOUS and FORMIDABLE providing fighter cover.No aerial opposition was encountered on these raids.

From April 1944, Corsairs from the BPF took part in a several attacks in SE Asia, beginning with Operation Cockpit an attack on Japanese targets at Sabang island, in the NEI

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 27, 2017)

Was the Mk.IV the main type used by the BPF vs. Japan?


----------



## GregP (Aug 28, 2017)

The delay in delivery is up to the USAAF / USN. They first flew when they first flew and were first delivered to the services on a certain date, without argument. The dates are known. Any other delays are all service-related, not when the planes were available for use.

Combat dates were variable, but service delivery dates were pretty close to when I said above. The rest is arguable as well as interesting, but not too important to me personally. Not that I would ignore the data, but I only track a few dates; first flight and service delivery being primary. Overall war record is interesting, including broken out losses and victories in the air and on the ground. You can't always find all of these, but they make for some decent data when you have them for a large cross-section of aircraft on all sides.

I'd LOVE to have combat dates for all the planes, but that is another many-year task when I have already been collecting data for 25+ years. My interest in another long-term data search is less than it once was, unless the dates are relatively easy to find.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> The delay in delivery is up to the USAAF / USN. They first flew when they first flew and were first delivered to the services on a certain date, without argument. The dates are known. Any other delays are all service-related, not when the planes were available for use.



There is the whole production thing.

The date of first flight could be a prototype, and then there is the first flight of the first production version.

In the case Tomo was highlighting, The XF4U-1 first flew in 1940, but required further development. The first delivery was in late 1942. 

The delay was because of development and the start up of production.

After delivery, the service had to move the aircraft to where it was to be based. And this could take time.

There was also the need for pilots and ground crew to work up on a new type. All this took time.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Was the Mk.IV the main type used by the BPF vs. Japan?


Not sure, but F4U (II) (in the RN vernacular) were still equipping some of the larger RN carriers as late as December 1945.

Some of the identifiers used for US service types cannot be applied to the RN birds. some types accepted as F4U-1s should have been birdcage canopies, but have clear bubble hoods .

At a guess I think there was a mix of older and newer types, because Ive also seen what are clearly F4U-4s with captions that say they are operating with the BPF in 1945.

good question, not easy to answer......


----------



## GregP (Aug 28, 2017)

Hi Wayne,

If you go back and read my post, I covered that! I know what the delays were, and clearly stated when the models got into combat and even cleared for carrier operation. Since I so posted, I don't really understand why an explanation using basically the same dates as my post was thought necessary, several times. 

I just feel the P-51D is better-compared with the F4U-4 than with the F4U-1 (or -1a, -1d). It doesn't mean everyone has to agree.

But none of this is a big deal. Probably just a normal response for a forum. No worries, whichever models you want compare. The war stats won't change and the real-world performance won't change. We'll probably just continue the enthusiast discussions for years, or until interest in WW2 dies out and the people left don't care anymore which plane was better at some particular task. So, at least WE'LL be happy discussing it. 

Cheers!


----------



## wuzak (Aug 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> If you go back and read my post, I covered that! I know what the delays were, and clearly stated when the models got into combat and even cleared for carrier operation. Since I so posted, I don't really understand why an explanation using basically the same dates as my post was thought necessary, several times.



Fair enough.




GregP said:


> I just feel the P-51D is better-compared with the F4U-4 than with the F4U-1 (or -1a, -1d). It doesn't mean everyone has to agree.



I had seen it as you comparing the F4U-4 with the P-51D. 

Saying it the other way around, it does seem like the P-51D was a closer contemporary to the F4U-4 than the F4U-1. It is sort of somewhere in between the two.

But I think Tomo is correct - the P-51H is the closest contemporary to the F4U-4 in the Mustang family.




tomo pauk said:


> Comparing 1st delivery dates, the F4U-4 was just 2 months earlier vs. P-51H, and 11 months later than P-51D.
> Ergo - F4U-4 vs P-51H.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> The delay in delivery is up to the USAAF / USN. They first flew when they first flew and were first delivered to the services on a certain date, without argument. The dates are known. Any other delays are all service-related, not when the planes were available for use.
> 
> Combat dates were variable, but service delivery dates were pretty close to when I said above. The rest is arguable as well as interesting, but not too important to me personally. Not that I would ignore the data, but I only track a few dates; first flight and service delivery being primary. Overall war record is interesting, including broken out losses and victories in the air and on the ground. You can't always find all of these, but they make for some decent data when you have them for a large cross-section of aircraft on all sides.



Hi Greg,

I know there's already been some back-and-forth on this one but it's a misrepresentation to state that delivery equates to availability, even excluding all the time taken for work-ups and operational certification on the type. 

Service acceptance is a crucial part of ensuring that the delivered artifact is "fit for purpose". Delivery by a manufacturer does not mean the type is available, or even suitable, for operational use. Just look at types like the Blackburn Botha, AW Albermarle, Me210, Brewster Bermuda/Buccaneer etc. The Service test pilot of the Blackburn Botha is reported to have said "access to this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible" because it was plainly not fit for purpose despite being delivered in accordance with requirements. Other aircraft had to go through numerous modifications before they were deemed operationally viable, as was the case with the F4U. 

The problem continues to this day. I've seen a number of examples where a delivery meets the letter of the requirement but does not meet the operational need, with resultant demand that changes be made. Thus, from an operational capability perspective, we really should factor in all aspects of acceptance and not just delivery dates.

Just my two penn'orth.

Cheers,
Mark

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2017)

Some aircraft can go from prototype to production fairly quickly. Service use is another story.
Some aircraft require hundreds of modifications, some small, some large before going into production.
Some aircraft are put into production in the *hope *that they can be modified later into serviceable aircraft. 
Obviously in this case the time between production and service use can stretch out months longer than normal. 
I believe the Curtiss SB2C _may_ hold the WW II record for longest "development". Initial request made in Aug 1938, first flight Dec 1940. 
First use in combat Nov 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 28, 2017)

[QUOTE="parsifal, post: 1350244, member: 17674
The RN Navy initially received 95 “bird-cage” F4U-1s from Vought which were designated Corsair Mk I in Fleet Air Arm service. They were followed by 510 “blown-canopy” F4U-1A/-1Ds, which were designated Corsair Mk II (the final 150 equivalent to the F4U-1D, but not separately designated in British use).

430 Brewster Corsairs (334 F3A-1 and 96 F3A-1D), more than half of Brewster’s total production, were delivered to Britain as the Corsair Mk III. 857 Goodyear Corsairs (400 FG-1/-1A and 457 FG-1D) were delivered and designated Corsair Mk IV. The Mk IIs and Mk IVs were the only versions to be used in combat. The earlier versions had insurmountable issues for use aboard carriers that made the type virtually non-operational.

*Great information. My main source is Americas Hundred Thousand and it is not completely clear in
this area. What is/are the reference(s) you use for this information?*


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> parsifal said:
> 
> 
> > F4u Corsairs in RN service - Google Search[/URL]
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 29, 2017)

Hi Buffnut,

It's sort of up to the beholder. 

The first delivery date tells me what other aircraft to compare it with, and the combat date tells me how badly the owner nation perceived it was needed in the forward areas. If they were getting beaten badly and the new type promised a change, I bet it got there FAST. If not, maybe a lot slower.

For instance, had they produced the P-40Q model, it could have been deployed rapidly as it had a lot in common with nthe P-40 but with a complete step up in performance.

The P-47, on the other hand, with its complicated turbo and other systems required a complete new aircraft mechanic class and freshly-trained people to make it go in the field. A former P-35 guy would not be able to cope very well without specialized training.

So, it all depends on who is looking at it and what they are trying to find out. You can get different answers from the same data, depending on the questions that get asked.

I really have no agenda, and look at it from the point of view of, "what airframes were available for fighting in certain areas; what was their likely opposition; and what was the outcome?" 

I don't really try to ask "Why?" because the real reasons are buried in reports I can't seem to find.


----------



## mad_max (Aug 29, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> (Spoken like a true groundling!)
> 
> NO!, it makes for survivors and an improved kill-to-loss ratio!





Shortround6 said:


> If brief spurts of extreme power didn't make for better aircraft an awful lot of air forces and companies spent an awful lot of time and money on better fuel, water injection systems and nitrous -oxide systems.
> 
> I would also note that most engines were only allowed to use 100% power for 5 - 15 minutes. 100% was NOT max continuous or even climb power.



Brief spurts of max power can/maybe make a survivor you're correct. It can/maybe let you close with an enemy also. It really does nothing else to ACM though. As for a "groundling"; well having a Father that was a WW2 Navy Pilot instructor (8 years) taught me a few things about aircraft. I've never flown a ww2 fighter, but started flying at 8 years old in a Cessna 180 Dad had. On top of that I've conversed with quite a number of pilots (Airforce and Navy) and all have told me they only used "WEP" when absolutely a dire necessity.

I suppose if your over friendly territory or not over water you might be inclined to use WEP without a dire necessity as when your engine went up in smoke you could bail out and live most times.

They seemed to agree that a good strong point of a fighter aircraft is cruising speed. The reason? Your on cruise until you see bandits. A cruise of 325-330 is preferred and your almost at combat speed. A cruise of 280 makes for quite a bit of speed to gain. You just don't run around at 100 power the whole flight.

Once a WW2 fighter gets to around mach .72-.75 they all start to suffer from mach effects and flying is not fun. Get closer to .8 and your just along for the ride.

But that's alright. You can believe what you want. As the gamers never fly like real life anyways.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2017)

mad_max said:


> Brief spurts of max power can/maybe make a survivor you're correct. It can/maybe let you close with an enemy also. It really does nothing else to ACM though. As for a "groundling"; well having a Father that was a WW2 Navy Pilot instructor (8 years) taught me a few things about aircraft. I've never flown a ww2 fighter, but started flying at 8 years old in a Cessna 180 Dad had. On top of that I've conversed with quite a number of pilots (Airforce and Navy) and all have told me they only used "WEP" when absolutely a dire necessity.
> 
> I suppose if your over friendly territory or not over water you might be inclined to use WEP without a dire necessity as when your engine went up in smoke you could bail out and live most times.
> 
> ...



I am not a gamer but I tend to read a lot about equipment.
You are quite correct about a high cruising speed but an interesting number of facts point to more than a few people being interested in high "peak" power. Since this thread is about the Corsair and Spitfire lets stick with them
Corsair, as we all know, started with a 2000hp peak, 1625 max continuous, 1070hp (max lean cruise) engine. this is in neutral, aux blower not engaged.
FIRST modification was to fit water injection which did nothing for cruise but raised peak power to 2250 at sea level-2500ft. It did boost power a higher percentage at higher altitudes, at least until around 25,000ft.
2ND modification was with the F4U-4 when the -18W engine was fitted. peak non-water injection power went to 2100hp, with water injection it went to 2380hp. max continuous went 1700hp. I have no figure for max lean cruise but the max continuous was being achieved at 2600rpm in comparison to the 255rpm allowed for max continuous on the earlier engines.
3rd mod was the F4U-5 with the sidewinder engine. Went to 2300hp at low level without water and 1900hp at max continuous.
4th mod.On the last American Corsairs built (the AU-1 ground attack plane) they got 2100hp take-off/Military without water injection and 2800hp with water injection at sea level. 1800hp max continuous, First flew in 1949.
Max lean for the later engines might be 10-15% higher at best than early engines due to better cooling but even 15% of 1070 is only 1230hp.

For the Spitfire the Merlin soon went from a limit of 2600rpm and 4 1/2 lbs boost for cruising to 2650rpm and 7lbs boost. the climb (30 minute rating) went from 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost to 2850rpm and 9lbs (later 12lbs boost) for almost ALL merlins even as the peak rating went from 3000rpm/6 1/4 lbs to 18-21lbs (some went to 25lbs)
Some of the late 2 stage engines were allowed to cruise at 2850rpm and 9lbs at high altitudes in high supercharger gear.

Sorry, but evidence shows that a lot of effort was put into raising the peak power of both engines and any increases in cruising power were something of a by product.

Peak power is useful for much more than zipping around at mach .72-.75. It is useful for out climbing you opponent. It is also VERY useful for helping maintain speed and altitude in hard turns. Speed bleeds off very fast in hard/high "G" maneuvers and the plane that can better keep up it's speed/altitude while pulling the same "G"s has an advantage. Or for quickly getting back up to speed after bleeding speed off in maneuvers.

The difference in effectiveness between a P-51A and a P-51B wasn't so much the 20-30mph difference in speed but the 50% or higher increase in climb rate/excess power for maneuvering.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 29, 2017)

mad_max said:


> As for a "groundling"; well having a Father that was a WW2 Navy Pilot instructor (8 years) taught me a few things about aircraft. I've never flown a ww2 fighter, but started flying at 8 years old in a Cessna 180 Dad had.


My apologies Sir! You do have the background to back up that judgement after all. However, my own experience and observations as a SIM operator/instructor supporting a Navy ACM training squadron back in the days of F-4s vs MiG 21s leaves me more sympathetic to Shortround6's analysis of the utility of emergency power.
Still, if you're over hostile territory and a long way from home, I agree you'd want to be judicious about "breaking the wire" unless it's a do or die situation.
Flying at age 8! You lucky dog! I had to wait til I was 22 and could keep my flight training secret from my parents. Our Navy flying club, located on an ACM training base had a Cessna Acrobat and a T-34, and you can bet a certain amount of unauthorized "civilian ACM" took place. (Gutless wonders, both of them!) That and a few acro lessons in a Citabria, then a big-engine Pitts S-2 have left me with an appreciation of the value of all the power you can get in high-G maneuvering. It's so nice to live near a Pitts/Christen/Sukhoi dealer!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Aug 29, 2017)

At 8 YO I wasn't doing any T/O or Landings, but it sure was fun putting it on it's wing and looking at the ground out the side of the cockpit!

Oh for sure I'm no aeronautical engineer by a long shot.  I'm just repeating what the guys in the seat of F4U's, Jug's and Ponies flying missions have told me. Yes it was 30+ years after they were in them, but I'd think they'd remember about those times they pushed their engines to the max. Not one of them said they used WEP for anything but escape from a bad position, trying to get closer to a bandit or using it for T/O at max weight in a Jug all bombed up.

About the only time you'd be at or over .72 or .75 mach is in a dive and from what I've read/studied every airframe of that time period started to have problems with compressibility at those numbers. Even the Me 262 had the nose tuck problem. The only airframe that was said not to have that problem so much was the Mustang because of the "laminar" wing (it wasn't laminar at all really), but because the thickest part of the wing was farther back than all other profiles at that time.

I was lucky as heck to be in the 352nd Tent at the Gathering of the Mustang and Legends the last roundup at Rickenbacker Airport in Columbus a few years back. I got to talk with quite a few Aces and non Aces in those 2-3 days. It's something I will never forget as a number of them are now flying in the Blue Skies.

Jet engine planes are a whole different ballgame than piston engine aircraft. As I stated above yes it would help in certain situations (I'm not refuting that fact), but it's not as big of a trump card as some think.

Sorry to have derailed this discussion on said airframes.

Have a Great Day!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 29, 2017)

The Corsair started with more power (1070) on max lean cruise than the Spitfire had as a absolute maximum when introduced (1050) which shows how much things changed in a short time.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 29, 2017)

Four years (millennia) was a long time in the evolving technology of those days! It's nothing short of phenomenal how both of these airframes managed to absorb double their original horsepower over their service lives and still remain viable combat aircraft. Few others could match that.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 29, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Buffnut,
> 
> It's sort of up to the beholder.
> 
> ...



I agree...but only up to a point. Let's say 2 aircraft are delivered to the customer around the same time and one is ready for operations straight away but the other requires modifications. Do we compare the operationally-ready first type with the non-operational second type...or do wait until the second type has been made ready for combat and then do the comparison? In the case of WWII, this could result in considerable change in both airframes during the intervening period which, of course, impacts the assessment.


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 29, 2017)

This is probably my ignorance speaking, and if so I apologize upfront. But are these types of comparison even possible? I don't know of a single fighter aircraft during WW2 that remained static in design for long. All airframes were under constant upgrade and modification cycles. Most official, but some were field mods that were never really documented. Engines changed, wingspan and shape changed, length of fuselage changed, fuel capacity, location, and type changed. Weight and armament changed etc. 

It just seems to me like comparing apples and oranges? Just from this thread alone I can't develop a clear picture in my mind how to go about comparing a Corsair to a Spitfire. I mean as you have all stated it is murky at best to decide which 2 versions to use for comparison to even begin with. 

I love to read, and consequently read an awful lot, and I am sure you can all say the same. But for example reading books that contain statements by pilots that flew both, admittedly rare, depending on whose account you read and what their frame of reference was you will get as many different opinions as there are pilots. Not to mention the skill of a pilot has to be taken into account as well as their familiarity with the aircraft. After all name any two aircraft that actually faced each others types in combat and you will find instances of each emerging victorious over the other. 

Not knocking the discussion at all but would it not be more educational to focus on the differences and how they added to or took away from the strengths of each type? Pilots tend to love the aircraft they flew regardless of the type. Especially if they survived the war. I remember a fellow waxing poetic about C-47's in a book somewhere. To hear him speak that aircraft all by itself won the war!


----------



## mad_max (Aug 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The difference in effectiveness between a P-51A and a P-51B wasn't so much the 20-30mph difference in speed but the 50% or higher increase in climb rate/excess power for maneuvering.



No doubt increases in power would do those points justice. Of course more power=more speed= better climb= turning and the increase in HP usable in slower turning combat is a plus. The problem is slow, high power for any length of time and you'll run into cooling issues. I don't believe any one Air Arm developed a cooling system (oil and radiator) for extreme powers that WEP developed. Weight/size would be problematic.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Good discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2017)

you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with all the companies and air forces that developed ever higher peak power ratings while doing little to increase cruise power settings. 
Fuel consumption usually prohibited long periods of time at high power settings in any case. Military power (15 minute rating) on the Corsair burning fuel over 3 times faster per minute than max lean cruise and 4-5 times faster than most economic/best range cruise settings. 
Even max continuous (unlimited time) burned fuel around 4 times faster than most economic/best range. 

And *any *use of WER required notations in the log book and serious discussions about decreasing the time between overhauls of the engine. So yes, there were serious consequences to using it. But for the Americans the P & W R-2800 in combat planes, the Allison V-1710 and the Packard Built Merlins all had WER ratings as did a few Wright engines (some Wright engines had cooling issues to begin with) British R-R Merlins, Griffons, Some Bristol Hercules (and even some Mercury engines) had WER power levels (some Sabres?). R-R experimented with both water injection and nitrous oxide but settled for using higher PN fuel and higher boost. Germans used water injection on DB 605 engines and some 9 cylinder radials. They used nitrous oxide on other engines. (sometimes on the same engine?) , Japanese used water injection. 
Russians traded increased boost/higher RPM for shorter overhaul life. 

A lot of activity for a not very useful result?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of activity for a not very useful result?


Not at all in my view. Most conflicts were short in duration, they would be shorter and detrimental to your side if your enemy has access to a few hundred extra horse power and you don't. If the enemy has it you must get it or an answer to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 29, 2017)

Wow guys, I don't know where to start and I apologize ahead of time because
my time is very limited tonight. I do "feel the need for speed" in answering a
couple items at this time (I'll answer the rest later, if this old brain can remember
them.)
1. I am not a gamer. However some gaming site members have done some
pretty extensive research.

2. I have been researching for years the history of WW2 fighter aircraft and
have tried to put together an applicable timeline for each. Delivery date
of each aircraft is somewhat important and I have decided to go back thru
the timelines I have put together on the warbirds forum and add them.
However, as many have stated here, just because it has been delivered
doesn't mean it is ready. The P-36A and the P-40 are the first US aircraft
that come to mind here. Also the distance from the delivery point to the
actual point of combat has to be taken into consideration. When the
FW-190A-3 was delivered it was able to go directly into combat. Its
predecessor was the Fw-190A-1/2 that was very similar so neither
the pilots nor the maintenance crew had a big revelation to deal with.
In a sense the same was true for each new Spitfire variant. Not so with
the F4U-1 or any other US fighter aircraft. First of all they had an ocean
to cross in either direction. Then imagine transitioning from an F2A or
F4F to an F4U-1. Yea, wow, there is no sweat there. Imagine the crew
chiefs reaction to seeing this completely foreign big bird for the first time.
I probably shouldn't even start on the system of parts flow to the area of
combat (mostly because I am not well versed in all the particulars in
setting up a link from manufacturer to the military and then to the war
zone). I'm done from this angle, there are so many more members that
are way more versed in this area than I.

3. Robert, I would like to have been there when that fellow was waxing that
poem about the C-47. I would have informed him that the Douglas
Skytrain did not win the war all by itself. However it was without a doubt
THE most important aircraft of WW2. Think supplies and personnel where
they needed to be. No other aircraft even came close.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## mad_max (Aug 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with all the companies and air forces that developed ever higher peak power ratings while doing little to increase cruise power settings.
> Fuel consumption usually prohibited long periods of time at high power settings in any case. Military power (15 minute rating) on the Corsair burning fuel over 3 times faster per minute than max lean cruise and 4-5 times faster than most economic/best range cruise settings.
> Even max continuous (unlimited time) burned fuel around 4 times faster than most economic/best range.
> 
> ...



Not much more than to either get you out of trouble, get you into the fight at a fighting speed or to run someone down. No use in typing anything else as these reports say all that needs to be said. I'll believe the pilots themselves and how and when they used WEP. Atleast when it comes to P51 Drivers.

For an example link below.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Carson-pg66.jpg

Over on that website you can read (I'm sure you have) a few reports on using 70+" boost. I doubt if Mike would've left out reports stating; "I used 72" in a tight turning circle", if he would've found any. I suppose some might be sitting in a box somewhere waiting to be discovered though.
Mustang Encounter Reports

I'll believe the pilots themselves and how and when they used WEP. Atleast when it comes to P51 Drivers.

Have a great Day!


----------



## mad_max (Aug 31, 2017)

Back on topic. If those were the airframes I had to choose from and I was the man in charge of a CV Group these would be my choices.

Off a carrier I'd have the Spits as Cap Patrol/point intercept for the CV group. For long distance fighter-escort/FB role you couldn't beat the F4U Series.

If for use aboard a Jeep Carrier then it would be Spits all around.


----------



## Robert Porter (Aug 31, 2017)

What were the primary differences between Seafires and land based Spitfires? I assume beefed up landing gear and a tailhook of some kind, but what other major changes?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 31, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> For the Spitfire the Merlin soon went from a limit of 2600rpm and 4 1/2 lbs boost for cruising to 2650rpm and 7lbs boost. the climb (30 minute rating) went from 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs boost to 2850rpm and 9lbs (later 12lbs boost) for almost ALL merlins even as the peak rating went from 3000rpm/6 1/4 lbs to 18-21lbs (some went to 25lbs)
> Some of the late 2 stage engines were allowed to cruise at 2850rpm and 9lbs at high altitudes in high supercharger gear.
> .


I just read yesterday that the Spitfire had 13 different propellers while in production. Can we assume that all of the increase in horsepower became a proportional increase in thrust?


----------



## GregP (Aug 31, 2017)

When we have former WW2 pilots speak at the Planes of Fame, they downplay max power and max speed a LOT. It was little-used except if YOU or a friend were about to be killed. Instead, they planned ahead and tried to intercept with a higher altitude, and would push up to whatever power was needed, but they left the last WER stuff for emergency escapes unless there was a REALLY GOOD reason to use it, and then they did.

When you did, you knew your crew chief was NOT going to be a happy camper, so you used that sparingly when required only after a few choice verbal fights with the crew chief.

My take is they would use WER sparingly when needed and when they did, there was a reasonable explanation of why it was needed. It wasn't there for having fun at high speeds and making crew chiefs do useless work.

The watch word seemed to me to have been: "use it if you need it. Otherwise, don't."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 31, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> What were the primary differences between Seafires and land based Spitfires? I assume beefed up landing gear and a tailhook of some kind, but what other major changes?



Depends on the Seafire mark of course, but generally:
- a-frame arrestor hook
- slinging points
- strengthening in the fuselage, camera hatch and tail
- strengthened and raked-forward undercarriage
- catapult spools
- lower altitude engines
- folding wings (at Mk.III)​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 31, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Depends on the Seafire mark of course, but generally:
> - a-frame arrestor hook
> - slinging points
> - strengthening in the fuselage, camera hatch and tail
> ...


Although both had contra rotating props later I believe it was more of a plus on the Seafire


----------



## drgondog (Aug 31, 2017)

mad_max said:


> Back on topic. If those were the airframes I had to choose from and I was the man in charge of a CV Group these would be my choices.
> 
> Off a carrier I'd have the Spits as Cap Patrol/point intercept for the CV group. For long distance fighter-escort/FB role you couldn't beat the F4U Series.
> 
> If for use aboard a Jeep Carrier then it would be Spits all around.


By definition, long range for F4U is intermediate for P-51, P47N and P-38J/L

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Razgriz1 (Sep 1, 2017)

Anyone have any figures on the Corsair's cruise speed & how it compares to the Griffon engined Spits?


----------



## Greyman (Sep 1, 2017)

Corsair II & III at 20,000 feet (card A)
248 mph - most economical cruise
216 mph - loiter
252 mph - maximum weak mix

Corsair II & III at 20,000 feet (card B)
256 mph - most economical cruise
222 mph - loiter
297 mph - maximum weak mix

Corsair IV at 20,000 feet
261 mph - most economical cruise
227 mph - loiter
300 mph - maximum weak mix

Spitfire XII (Grif II) at 20,000 feet
263 mph - most economical cruise
347 mph - maximum weak mix

Spitfire XIV (Grif 65) at 20,000 feet
245 mph - most economical cruise
362 mph - maximum weak mix

Spitfire XIV (Grif 85) at 20,000 feet
260 mph - most economical cruise
372 mph - maximum weak mix

Data cards at WWII Aircraft Performance

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 1, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Corsair II & III at 20,000 feet (card A)
> 248 mph - most economical cruise
> 216 mph - loiter
> 252 mph - maximum weak mix
> ...



So, roughly the same on most economical cruise settings, but advantage Spitfire, by some margin, on max weak mixture cruise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2017)

This might not be too surprising at it seems that the R-2800 didn't go above 34in (2lbs?) boost in lean (weak mixture) cruise, regardless of what manifold pressure it could use when running rich.
This is for the A & B engines. The "C" series *may* do a bit better. 
However the Manual for the F8F seems to indicate 32in max for "normal" operation for the -34W engine and 33.5in for the -30W. 
The air-cooled engines won't run at high (relatively) power outputs in lean condition. 
Corsair is running about 57% of max (war emergency) manifold pressure at max lean. 
I don't know about the Griffon but it looks like the Merlin could run at about 66% of max pressure (44in vs 66-67in or 7lbs vs 18lbs boost) 

There is also a difference in allowed RPM. The R-2800 in an F4U-1 has a max lean cruise of 2150rpm out of 2700rpm at max power. 

For the Merlin 2650rpm was allowed out of 3000rpm or about 80% rpm for the corsair vs 88.3% for the Merlin. 
Griffons could cruise at 2400rpm out of 2750rpm for about 87.3%. 

Obviously the R-2800 was making a* lot *less power at max lean (weak mixture) in comparison to the full power rating.


----------



## mad_max (Sep 5, 2017)

drgondog said:


> By definition, long range for F4U is intermediate for P-51, P47N and P-38J/L



Well I thought this topic was about CV Ops and I stand by my answer for that.

As for land based of course those 3 airframes you mentioned would be the go to airframes for long distance from non-floating Ops.

Have a Great Day.


----------



## mad_max (Sep 5, 2017)

A good read about the use and development of high performance fuels during WW2. Inline water cooled engines are deemed mild engines and all air-cooled radial engines are named critical engines without re-engineering them with many more parts having to be used.

Development of Aircraft Engines

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2017)

mad_max said:


> Well I thought this topic was about CV Ops and I stand by my answer for that.
> 
> As for land based of course those 3 airframes you mentioned would be the go to airframes for long distance from non-floating Ops.
> 
> ...



The 'topic' stated on the first post.

"So the best British warbird VS the (IMO) best American warbird of the war. How do they compare.

F4U-1 vs the Merlin engined Spits
F4U-4 vs Griffon engined Spits"

Additionally, in the F4U-1 vs Merlin powered Spit category, the F4U-1 had by far the greatest Combat Radius of any Corsair - and very few flew combat ops from carriers - mostly dirt runways on the islands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 5, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 5, 2017)

I note that the USA used Spitfires on land while the UK operated Corsairs from carriers.


----------



## GregP (Sep 5, 2017)

The Corsair has a lot of diehard fans, for good reason. It is rugged, suitable for harsh conditions, was designed for carrier use from the start. and has a LOT of good characteristics combined with a few bad ones, like visibility over the nose.

The Spitfire has a lot of diehard fans and has a lot of great characteristics combined with a few bad ones, like fragility and short range.

As I said earlier, they are two greats that would seem to NOT be considered generally as substitutes for one another, as Navies rarely "got along" with "Air Forces." They were, after all, competing for the same funding. It's fun to think about, but I bet these two would very rarely be in the same sky.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 6, 2017)

Except in the FAA. (RN, not US!)


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2017)

What taildragger had good visibility over the nose?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2017)

There were a few









very few

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2017)

I noticed you be in Florida S6, stay safe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2017)

Thank you


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 6, 2017)

drgondog said:


> By definition, long range for F4U is intermediate for P-51, P47N and P-38J/L



Was there ever going to be a Corsair model that could have done long range escort? Also wouldn't it have to have a redesign for the altitudes the 8th AF operated at? To me it's a great performer low down and close to home, but the bombers, and by extension, the Luftwaffe had to play right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, so I have never seen how the F4U was ever going to do the P-51s job.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 6, 2017)

Milosh said:


> I noticed you be in Florida S6, stay safe.



Indeed. Both you, Peter and other folks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Was there ever going to be a Corsair model that could have done long range escort? Also wouldn't it have to have a redesign for the altitudes the 8th AF operated at? To me it's a great performer low down and close to home, but the bombers, and by extension, the Luftwaffe had to play right in the Mustangs wheelhouse, so I have never seen how the F4U was ever going to do the P-51s job.


IMO - Not as well as P-47D. The Peak internal Fuel of 361 gallons with unprotected wing cells would have delivered more range than the P-47D until D-25. That said, the high altitude performance was well short of the earlier D-11 through D-23 with Paddle Blade and WI for WEP combined with turbo supercharger at 20K + feet, and decreased in comparison to the P-47D as altitude increased.

The Power available for the F4U-1 R2800-8W for MP maxed at [email protected], down to [email protected];
WEP 1975HP at 17K and downhill from there. At 25K WEP HP~1400HP and at 30K ~ 1300HP

The Power available for the P-47D-11 R2800-63 for MP at 2000HP up to 25K; MP= 1890 at 30K;
WEP 2300HP at 27K down to 2100HP at 30K.

The difference in HP available in both MP between the F4U-1 and P-47D-11 in January 1944 at 21K was 350HP, 25K was 600HP at MP and 900HP at 30K. Greater difference at WEP/Combat Power.

HUGE difference for air combat maneuvering at 8th AF escort altitudes..

Short answer - No.

if F4U-4 added 130 gallons of internal fuel to restore F-4U-1 capability, range increases to that of the P-47D-25 operational in June 1944, but 25K and above performance still not on par with a P-47D-25 at escort altitudes - and far shorter Combat Radius than P-51B/D and P-38J/L.. with increased internal fuel available to them in January, 1944.. But first combat for F4U-4 was April 1945.


The F4U-4 was probably superior under 28K vs all the late P-47D but a.) Combat radius greatly diminished below even the P-47C which had 305 gallons internal fuel vs 234 internal for the F4U-4, and b.) far too late to even serve medium range escort legs that P-47D-1 through -23 were capable of.

If I could get actual flight test validation for Combat Radius development for F4U above 20K I would probably insert the comparison in my new book.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 6, 2017)

drgondog said:


> IMO - Not as well as P-47D. The Peak internal Fuel of 361 gallons with unprotected wing cells would have delivered more range than the P-47D until D-25. That said, the high altitude performance was well short of the earlier D-11 through D-23 with Paddle Blade and WI for WEP combined with turbo supercharger at 20K + feet and decreased as altitude increased.
> 
> The Power available for the F4U-1 R2800-8W for MP maxed at [email protected], down to [email protected];
> WEP 1975HP at 17K and downhill from there. At 25K WEP HP~1400HP and at 30K ~ 1300HP
> ...



Bill - at least two questions if you don't mind. 1st - what equivalent of horsepower was available to the F4U-1 in form of the exhaust thrust at, say, 25000 ft? Then - perhaps it will be better if we compare US fighter vs. German opposition, not vs. other US fighters?

Granted, extra internal fuel is needed for the Corsair if we want to make a real LR fighter out of it.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Bill - at least two questions if you don't mind. 1st - what equivalent of horsepower was available to the F4U-1 in form of the exhaust thrust at, say, 25000 ft? Then - perhaps it will be better if we compare US fighter vs. German opposition, not vs. other US fighters?
> 
> Granted, extra internal fuel is needed for the Corsair if we want to make a real LR fighter out of it.


Tomo - exhaust thrust as a %HP was typically in the 10-13% range of THP by calculation as f(HP), prop efficiency and Velocity - for ESTIMATES.

The approach to compare against Bf 109G-5, G-6, G-6/AS and FW 190A7/8 is certainly useful for better comparison values.

That said, the question "How would it have performed as 8th AF BC escort draws the comparisons to altitudes between 20K and 30K for most initial clashes.

The P-47D-11 out rolled the F4U-1 at medium high speed, out dived it, and was faster at altitude. I suspect that with the Delta Power Available advantage, the P-47D had (even considering the lower W/L of the F4U-1), would enable better climb and turn at those altitudes also.

It follows that the P-47D-11 was a superior platform vs the LW fighters as it was superior to the F4U-1 as a bomber escort in the ETO.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 6, 2017)

drgondog - So from an aerodynamic standpoint, if the F4U-1 was outfitted with the P-47D-11's R2800-63 engine and not the R2800-8W, would performance (not range) be up to 8th AF operational standards? Basically able to meet Luftwaffe day fighters on even or better terms? Or would serious modification be needed for the install.

I know it's only speculation and I'm not asking you to have to run calculations or anything, just a general what if to satisfy my uninformed (read dumb) question. Thanks.

As an aside, I have always favored the P-47 as the better overall aircraft, but curiosity gets the better of me sometimes.

And personally, I have never thought the F4U-XXX was ever going to do the Mustangs job. Even in Korea, as I recall, JoeB once posted loss rates for both and the surprise was that the "rugged" Corsair suffered almost as much as the "delicate" Mustang in the CAS role.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 6, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Indeed. Both you, Peter and other folks.



Thank you Tomo, we'll do our best.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Thank you Tomo, we'll do our best.


You will be comforted to hear Richard Branson is hunkering down in his wine cellar. Good luck.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 6, 2017)

pbehn said:


> You will be comforted to hear Richard Branson is hunkering down in his wine cellar. Good luck.



Well THAT makes me feel better.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> drgondog - So from an aerodynamic standpoint, if the F4U-1 was outfitted with the P-47D-11's R2800-63 engine and not the R2800-8W, would performance (not range) be up to 8th AF operational standards? Basically able to meet Luftwaffe day fighters on even or better terms? Or would serious modification be needed for the install.
> 
> I know it's only speculation and I'm not asking you to have to run calculations or anything, just a general what if to satisfy my uninformed (read dumb) question. Thanks.
> 
> ...



First the Parasite Drag of the P-47 was lower than the F4U, which at high speed would trump the lower Induced drag of the F4U wing. So, between 20 and 30K, the P-47 has an aerodynamic advantage which translates to an advantage, combined with greater Power Available Delta, in range and acceleration and climb.

Second, the F4U optimum cruising speed in miles/gallon should be lower than for the P-47D at 20 to 30K. I Have NOT seen proof of the comparison, however. Pure speculation on my part based on published 15,000 values for the F4U vs P-47C-2.


You have to jam the ducting under the cockpit, and insert the Turbo supercharger aft of the cockpit to make the -63 work better than the -21 (or 8W). So yes, serious mods required.

Yes, the loss per sortie between the P-51D and the F4U were within a 1/10 %.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 6, 2017)

SR & Pete,
My older sister of 66 yrs is down there in Arcadia. I am counting
on you boys to help keep her safe. May God be with you all.

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 6, 2017)

Corsair vs Spitfire and now Thunderbolt?
You say tomato, I say tomato, passion fruit and watermelon!
What?, Jeff

PS: Apples to apples my @$$.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Well THAT makes me feel better.


I don't wish ill on anyone and hope damage is minimal, although the news at the moment looks bad. However if Mr Branson s private island was made uninhabitable and cut off from the world with him on it for a decade I would re assess my belief in God.

Back on topic if the Spitfire is in conflict with the Corsair does the Corsair have to give up the Malcolm hood?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2017)

Exhaust thrust on the F4U is going to be on the low side.

Picture of model but gives the idea.




real plane





some of those cylinders had a looong way to go to reach the outlet. And outlets are not only angled but cut away.

as opposed to the exhausts on a B-25




short, individual and directing the exhaust thrust in the right direction. Added to the frontal areas though.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2017)

I guess the arrangement used by teh Sea Fury, Tempest II and others would provide more exhaust thrust.







Were there any differences in exhaust outlets between F4U-1 and F4U-4?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2017)

ALL F4U s used a system were 3 cylinders went into one outlet (total 6 outlets) but the later ones brought 4 of the outlets up higher to exhaust over the wing. the outlets were more circular and were oriented in more rearward direction.





While not the equal of most V-12 exhaust systems one can guess that this system provided more thrust than the F4U-1 System.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 7, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Corsair vs Spitfire and now Thunderbolt?
> You say tomato, I say tomato, passion fruit and watermelon!
> What?, Jeff
> 
> PS: Apples to apples my @$$.



It might be apparent by now that I'll use (almost) any thread to find out more about the Mustang...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 7, 2017)




----------



## GregP (Sep 7, 2017)

Thew F4U Corsair had probably the worst visibility over the nose of any WWII fighter (mass produced), but also was the first single-engine fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight, so the streamlining was very good for the day.

About adding the turbocharger, the F4U's fuselage has a LOT of empty space, and it MIGHT just fit. But the main fuel tank covers the entire fuselage height and width behind the firewall, so you'd lose some fuel IF you added turbo ducting ... bad news for the Corsair's range. I think wing tanks were practical, but you'd also not have the same airframe, for sure.

Not too sure why we're redesigning the Corsair's main mission, but it could be done. The real question in my mind is "why would we do that?" It was so good at what it was designed to do: fleet defense and CAP.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 7, 2017)

GregP said:


> About adding the turbocharger, the F4U's fuselage has a LOT of empty space, and it MIGHT just fit. But the main fuel tank covers the entire fuselage height and width behind the firewall, so you'd lose some fuel IF you added turbo ducting ... bad news for the Corsair's range. I think wing tanks were practical, but you'd also not have the same airframe, for sure.



Not sure that the Corsair fuselage has a lot of empty space. 

The XF4U-3 prototype was a turbocharged version, but using an experimental Birmann turbo rather than the normal GE turbo. The project didn't go far, mainly because the turbo had poor reliability.






Not sure that you would need to copy the P-47's system in any case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm sure since I've looked inside. They probably put it there for CG purposes. Like I said, major airframe changes. Might have to move the wing.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 8, 2017)

The primary difference between the two airframes, independent of turbo, was that the F4U had a 5% greater area wing plus the 23015 airfoil was higher drag and CL, than the Republic S-3 wing. The Empty weight of the F4U-1 was 8900 and P-47D 9900.. so the WL of the F4-U for same basic load out was lower. Thus the F4U with *same HP available* as the P-47 should be slightly more maneuverable..

With 361 gallons of internal fuel of the F4U-1 compared to 305 gallons of P-47D-1 through -23, the WL margin is reduced by approximately 25-30%.

This advantage of F4U-1 reduces as a function of altitude due to the turbo supercharged P-47D maintaining its 2000 (or 2300) HP through 24-25K as the F4U-1 loses comparative HP as function of altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 9, 2017)

GregP said:


> Thew F4U Corsair had probably the worst visibility over the nose of any WWII fighter (mass produced), but also was the first single-engine fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight, so the streamlining was very good for the day.



It was October 1942 when F4U-1 was capable for 400 mph, ie. there was several other fighters that beat the 400 mph mark. XF4U-1 was under 380 mph, at lightest military load:








> About adding the turbocharger, the F4U's fuselage has a LOT of empty space, and it MIGHT just fit. But the main fuel tank covers the entire fuselage height and width behind the firewall, so you'd lose some fuel IF you added turbo ducting ... bad news for the Corsair's range. I think wing tanks were practical, but you'd also not have the same airframe, for sure.



The lower half of the fuselage was also pretty much empty space. There was a proposed 2-seat variant that featured two fuel tanks under the cockpit (link), shaped somewhat like at the Fw 190.



> Not too sure why we're redesigning the Corsair's main mission, but it could be done. The real question in my mind is "why would we do that?" It was so good at what it was designed to do: fleet defense and CAP.



It was also an excellent fighter bomber, both from CV and land bases.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 9, 2017)

drgondog said:


> The primary difference between the two airframes, independent of turbo, was that the F4U had a 5% greater area wing plus the 23015 airfoil was higher drag and CL, than the Republic S-3 wing.
> ....



It was even thicker, the Corsair's wing - 23018 at root. Looks like the P-47C/D was at only 14%.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 9, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> It was October 1942 when F4U-1 was capable for 400 mph, ie. there was several other fighters that beat the 400 mph mark. XF4U-1 was under 380 mph, at lightest military load



So about the same time as Spitfire IX exceeded 400mph?

Which, I assume, is after the Fw 190A did.

Edit: The speed graph of the XF4U-1 shows the speed increasing beyond the critical altitude, but the graph stops shortly after. Could it have gone over 400mph above that altitude?

Edit 2: According to Wiki the XF4U-1 exceeded 400mph on 1 October 1940

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 10, 2017)

wuzak said:


> So about the same time as Spitfire IX exceeded 400mph?
> 
> Which, I assume, is after the Fw 190A did.



And after the Bf 109F-4 and after 109G-1/G-2.



> Edit: The speed graph of the XF4U-1 shows the speed increasing beyond the critical altitude, but the graph stops shortly after. Could it have gone over 400mph above that altitude?



Not with the existing 2-stage A-series (X)R-2800-4 - it made less power and at lower RPM than the B-series R-2800-8



> Edit 2: According to Wiki the XF4U-1 exceeded 400mph on 1 October 1940



Unfortuantely - Wikipedia quotes tertiary (at best) 'source'. Not just for the Corsair, but also for the P-38 saying it did 400 mph in 1940, even though we read 375 mph on any pre-G version; even the P-39G required deletion of cannon and 2 HMGs and uprated engines to beat 400 mph.
The XP-39 is credited even by the 'America's hundred tousand' for 400 mph, that never achieved.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 10, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> And after the Bf 109F-4 and after 109G-1/G-2.
> 
> *Tomo, where, when & under what conditions did a production Bf 109F-4 reach 400 mph?*


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 10, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The XP-39 is credited even by the 'America's hundred tousand' for 400 mph, that never achieved.




To the best of my knowledge at this time the P-39N was the first production P-39
to exceed 400 mph in military service. Yes I know its military listed maximum
speed is 397-399 mph. A little special polishing by the crew could take care of
that.
On a fresh out of the box model maybe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 10, 2017)

Don't know where and under what conditions, however this graph (link) shows the 'flown values' ('Erflogene werte') for the Fw 190 with BMW 801C engine and Bf 109F-4, plus calculated values for the future 109G (widly optimistic in this case, at least for the speed) and Fw 190 with 801D engine. Then there is a comparison test between the 109F-4 and Fw 190A-2 (2 cannons + 2 MGs, BMW 801C) showing up to 20 km/h speed advantage for the F-4 (link, on German) above 4500 m.

The 1st P-39 that went above 400 mph was the stripped-down P-39C (just 2 guns IIRC) and experimental V-1710. 1st combat-worthy P-39 above 400 mph was the P-39Q without gun pods.


----------



## GregP (Sep 11, 2017)

The Corsair was the first single engine fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight. The only fighter aircraft to do it before the Corsair was the P-38, but it had two engines. Others surely followed, no question, but first is first.

The XF4U-1 did it on 1 Oct 1940. The P-38 was earlier in 1939, but was a twin.

I've never seen any claim that the Bf 109F could exceed 400 mph (643.9 kph) in level flight until now. The F-model 109 could certainly climb well, and several ace pilots thought it the best of the breed (no argument from me), but it never shows up as quite that fast in anything I have read to date.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 11, 2017)

Post your data, Greg. Not hear-say, data.


----------



## dedalos (Sep 11, 2017)

Kurfust at his site, provides datas and sources that show the Bf109F4 well over 644km/h

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The 1st P-39 that went above 400 mph was the stripped-down P-39C (just 2 guns IIRC) and experimental V-1710. 1st combat-worthy P-39 above 400 mph was the P-39Q without gun pods.


*Thank you Tomo for the information. However my statement said first production P-39. So in a
sense I am to blame. What I meant to say was, "first combat worthy operational P-39".*


dedalos said:


> Kurfust at his site, provides datas and sources that show the Bf109F4 well over 644km/h


*Please post such data dedalos. I am not aware of said data*.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2017)

I only use official military or (second choice) factory performance
test figures when I post. The Bf.109F-4 was cleared for 1.3 ata
when it was introduced into service. It was later cleared for 1.42
ata in January 1942. From all the sources I have read to date,
they generally point to the maximum speed of 390 mph. at
6,700 m. (21,982 ft.)
I do however know of one testing on 11 July 1942 that recorded
394 mph./6,000 m. using 1.42 ata boosting.

I have not seen any evidence to date that would support the
fact that any fully operational Bf.109F-4 could reach 400 mph
(643.9 km/h) at any altitude.


----------



## GregP (Sep 11, 2017)

It isn't hearsay data, Tomo. I've simply never seen any data showing the Bf 109F capable of 400 mph in level flight, aside from a vague description in Wiki (the worst source except for no source), until you posted it, and I don't know where your chart came from. I don't know whether it is calculated, or what the conditions of the test were. Could be a prototype engine, for all I know. I see you don't know, either. Until I DO see data indicating otherwise, all data I have seen show less than 400 mph, so go find it anywhere you find data about the Bf 109F models. I have not seen data for the Bf 109F at WWIIaircraftperformance, but will go check again, to be sure.

Personally, I don't believe the graph as I have seen zero data on Bf 109Fs going that fast other than that graph.

Here is the website for the Canadian Bf 109F:

Messerschmitt Bf 109F-4 - Canada Aviation and Space Museum

It says 388 mph. Some have said it could get to 400 mph and even slightly higher (410 mph) when the Bf 109F-4 was cleared for 1,350 PS, but I have never seen the data showing it, especially data from testing of a Bf 109F taken from a line unit.

Almost nobody claims the Bf 109G was a 400 mph aircraft in-service.

The only Bf 109 variant widely acclaimed to be 400 mph+ in level flight was the K-series, of which some 1,593 were delivered before the war's end. They weren't 450 mph in combat, but could get there in a straight line, at the right altitude, if required. If they were going that fast, it wasn't in combat unless diving for escape or attack because, at that speed, they were completely unmaneuverable. So, while it was capable of it, it wasn't useful to the type except for extreme situations.

Last, I have no agenda here and no dog in the hunt. I'm a fan of the Bf 109, but don't want to blow up its capabilities beyond what it could really do, either. It was one of immortal planes of the war, for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> It isn't hearsay data, Tomo. I've simply never seen any data showing the Bf 109F capable of 400 mph in level flight



I believe that he is saying that the XF4U-1 exceeding 400mph is hearsay.

_America's Hundred Thousand_ says the XF4U-1 attained 404mph on 1 October, 1940, and that it was claimed that it was the first US fighter to exceed 400mph.

Does anybody have a more detailed account of that flight?

There may be some other contenders for first a/c to get to 400mph.

The Spitfire III was certainly flying before October 1940, its top speed was 400mph with Merlin X, according to Morgan and Shacklady.

As was the Hawker Tornado. Speed may have been just shy of 400mph, at around 396-398mph. Certainly the first production Tornado exceeded 400mph, but that was in early 1941, using the Vulture V rather than the Vulture II.

The Spitfire IV/XX prototype had a top speed of 409mph, but that was later in 1941.


----------



## dedalos (Sep 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> It isn't hearsay data, Tomo. I've simply never seen any data showing the Bf 109F capable of 400 mph in level flight, aside from a vague description in Wiki (the worst source except for no source), until you posted it, and I don't know where your chart came from. I don't know whether it is calculated, or what the conditions of the test were. Could be a prototype engine, for all I know. I see you don't know, either. Until I DO see data indicating otherwise, all data I have seen show less than 400 mph, so go find it anywhere you find data about the Bf 109F models. I have not seen data for the Bf 109F at WWIIaircraftperformance, but will go check again, to be sure.
> 
> Personally, I don't believe the graph as I have seen zero data on Bf 109Fs going that fast other than that graph.
> 
> ...


----------



## GregP (Sep 12, 2017)

Hi Dedalos,

Source for the Bf 109F data? I want to see it and save it to have some objective evidence of same. I don't maintain the Bf 109F wasn't that fast; I said I've never seen data that show it except for Tomo's post above, and it isn't very helpful.

When I say not very helpful. I mean the conditions of the test and aircraft are not known, etc., not that it is wrong. We usually have a flight report number, with date, aircraft serial, weight, temperature, condition of the airframe (clean, with racks, etc.). The Luftwaffe was as fastidious about data and test conditions as the Allies were, and their reports are usually very complete. A different nationality doesn't usually mean different flight tests; it usually only means a different language and different units of measure. Almost everyone tests very strictly and accurately. They might want to fool the enemy, but they don't want to fool themselves.


----------



## GregP (Sep 12, 2017)

Hi Corsning,

The Corsair breaking 400 mph was big news at the time and widely circulated. If Tomo wants to contend 87 years later that the Corsair hitting 400 mph was hearsay (and I don't claim that to be true), the burden of proof is on him only. I'm quite comfortable with knowing the history that has been written about it. People have been trying to belittle air records since flight began, and the end results always depend on the data presented. I have no desire to go prove something that is established, nor have I any reason to do so.

Anyone wanting to shoot down existing aviation facts better have a good load of factual ammo, or they'd best let it go. The 400 mph Corsair fact has been recorded in MANY books / references and has been accepted since around 1940. Good luck proving otherwise today. But, hey, if he has the data, then he should go for it.

I have no axe to grind with Tomo and, as I said already, no agenda in here.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2017)

wuzak said:


> _America's Hundred Thousand_ says the XF4U-1 attained 404mph on 1 October, 1940, and that it was claimed that it was the first US fighter to exceed 400mph.
> 
> *I have not researched when the Spitfire prototypes first reached 400 mph. but I do know that on
> 24 May 1940 one of the MiG-3 prototypes hit 644 - 650 km/h (402.6 - 403.9 mph.). I know,
> I know, it is not a definite answer, but you have to think USSR in 1940.*


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> When I say not very helpful. I mean the conditions of the test and aircraft are not known, etc., not that it is wrong. We usually have a flight report number, with date, aircraft serial, weight, temperature, condition of the airframe (clean, with racks, etc.). The Luftwaffe was as fastidious about data and test conditions as the Allies were, and their reports are usually very complete. A different nationality doesn't usually mean different flight tests; it usually only means a different language and different units of measure. Almost everyone tests very strictly and accurately. They might want to fool the enemy, but they don't want to fool themselves.



Tomo,
I believe I am going to agree with Greg here. While I would love to dissect the graph down
to raw numbers, there just isn't enough information given. I know I have done that in the
past with such aircraft as the Bf.110 & Do.335 but that is only because there is no other
evidence out there. The Bf.109 has some good raw information out there thanks to
Kurfurst and Mike Williams.


----------



## GregP (Sep 12, 2017)

Hi Corsning,

I assume you have a source for that, with flight test data? I realize the MiG-3 was fast, but it also had several flight characteristic issues making it not a first choice for the VVS. Nevertheless, the date it managed to make 400 mph, if it did, would be of import. I have seen books that said it was done, but not flight test data.

Wiki (bad source) doesn't claim it was a 400 mph (643 kph) aircraft, but says 640! So, we think it was at least close. Unfortunately, it was fast up high and seldom ever got there in combat. Still, flight test data would be very nice if some information is recorded on it about test conditions.

For me, finding Soviet WWII data has always been very difficult, but getting it right is what's important, and despite what anyone thinks, their planes were pretty good after about 1942 or so. If you think back on aviation "firsts," the Soviet Union was always right there, in the fray, and many times at the leading edge of performance. I'm one U.S. citizen who does not equate "Soviet" with "inferior."

In fact, I have spent the last 2 weeks working on a Yak-3 to race at Reno this year. If you want to follow it, the owner is Graeme Frew and the Yak-3 is race number 35 in the Unlimited class. Good, solid airframe. Good guys, too. I wish them very well and think they may surprise a few people, assuming they overcome a few issues. At this time, it is looking good.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Corsning,
> 
> I have no axe to grind with Tomo and, as I said already, no agenda in here.



Greg,
That's a good thing buddy. You and Tomo have added a great deal of information
and add geat conversation to this site. I so very much enjoy reading both your posts.
I think it is time to slow down now and put our collective knowledge together. We
all have to remember that the final goal here is to find the truth. We can kick around
our opinions all day long 75 or more years after the actual facts, but nothing will
change the actual truth. If we want to find the real truth we have to be open to new
ideas that conflict with our dead set opinions.

I personally love finding out the truth. I believed all my sentient WW2 aircraft
life that the P-51D could outmaneuver the Bf.109G anywhere, anytime. At
30,000 ft. that was true. It wasn't until about 15 years ago when I really started
to dig for the truth that I learned that the P-51D was in big trouble at 5,000 ft.
doing 275 mph. against a Bf.109G.

You guys are great, but don't forget the reason we are all here. Let's find the
truth together.

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Sep 12, 2017)

Greg, Tomo, and Greg,

Please see the following links at Kurfurst’s website on the Bf-109F-4.

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung

Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung

If I read those reports correctly, there was at least 1 F that did 400mph +.



Eagledad


----------



## GregP (Sep 12, 2017)

I don't use Kurfurst as a reference, but thanks for the links.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> I don't use Kurfurst as a reference, but thanks for the links.



Why?

There have been some questionable things with him in the past, but he does present plenty of factual Luftwaffe documents and performance figures that are verified.

It really is a shame, because if you only get your information from sources that tell you what your preconceived notions want you to believe, you are not actually fact checking. 

If I recall correctly (this is from memory) from Luftwaffe Datenblatt's the F-4 was listed at 397 mph at 19,800 ft. I see no reason why it could not have reached 400 mph as well, especially since the Datenblatt's list it at 660 km/h (410 mph) at 1350 PS from 1942 onwards.

The British tested a captured F-4 at 390 mph, and they did not fly it to its capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2017)

most sources do say the me 109f-4 subtype has a top speed of 388 mph at 21K ft. However as adler points out these published figures are based on captured examples that were not in peak condition and not tested to full capacity.......


----------



## Greyman (Sep 12, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If I recall correctly (this is from memory) from Luftwaffe Datenblatt's the F-4 was listed at 397 mph at 19,800 ft. I see no reason why it could not have reached 400 mph as well, especially since the Datenblatt's list it at 660 km/h (410 mph) at 1350 PS from 1942 onwards.
> 
> The British tested a captured F-4 at 390 mph, and they did not fly it to its capabilities.



394.5 mph for the Datenblatt I believe.
The British 390 figure was calculated I think, not 100% sure though. Another British figure was 385 mph.
Russian figure for the F-4 was 387.5 mph.

One of the main reasons I don't really go with the high-end German figures I've seen (410 mph, 416 mph) is that I would think if the 109F-4 was truly 50-60 mph faster in service than the Spitfire V, we would see constant mention of that by the Allied pilots.

That said I'm sure a fast example of an F-4 which was keenly attended to could probably surprise many - it just doesn't appear to be representative of a standard F-4 seen by the Allies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2017)

Greyman said:


> 394.5 mph for the Datenblatt I believe.
> The British 390 figure was calculated I think, not 100% sure though. Another British figure was 385 mph.
> Russian figure for the F-4 was 387.5 mph.
> 
> ...



I am sure that most combat available and used F-4s never could obtain that speed. Not with armament, fuel loads, and field maintenance being conducted. The high-end figures I only believe for best case flown in test configurations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Sep 12, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The high-end figures I only believe for best case flown in test configurations.



Indeed, if we're going to do that, then the Spitfire V has a speed of 407 mph.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Indeed, if we're going to do that, then the Spitfire V has a speed of 407 mph.



I have no arguments with that either.

Point being: They are capable of it.


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 13, 2017)

That to me is the real challenge in determining actual performance. I knew of a Ford Pinto that had been made into a Funny Car back in the late 70's. It turned in times that no actual Ford Pinto even dreamed of. However it seems that every time we get one of these discussions going the end result is we get bogged down in theoretical or test case performance figures which are after all about the only truly accurate figures really available.

Actual combat usage figures are hard to come by and vary all over the place in terms of how they were acquired etc. After all in combat one really does not often get a chance to setup true repeatable test figures and methods. And even then they are often done on an aircraft just out of maintenance and not with a full combat load out. 

Combat needs outweigh pretty much anything else and should. I guess the point I am making is that the very edge of a performance envelope is often meaningless as the conditions necessary are either not met in combat or not of importance. The difference between 390MPH and 405MPH is insufficient in most cases to make a great deal of difference in combat. Most air to air combat takes place at well below top speeds once engaged. Most aircraft don't maneuver well at their top end speeds which were more often used to close/climb/evade than anything else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2017)

Comparing published performance values is silly absent the stated conditions of the test - most importantly gross weight compared to speed run weight; engine RPM/MP; external configuration (racks/no); Combat load versus reduced fuel/ammo; surface prep (taped gun ports, surface finish); etc.

E.G. The first official flight tests for the P-51B-1-NA at Eglin was for a full variety, including a prototype 85 gallon internal fuse tank (empty/full), external racks/no racks, 75 gallon combat tanks/no tanks - at MP (61" at 3000RPM) and MCP and different altitudes. The max average speed recorded and reduced was 453mp 'clean', 180 gallons fuel and full ammo, no external prep. 441mph with combat racks.

The only speeds worth comparing were the equivalent fully loaded configurations as expected to engage in combat for averages derived at MP or WEP MP settings as approved by respective authorities (AAF Material Command, for example). Anything else is not presenting anywhere near complete information. Further, climb data is Very much subject to these comparisons at different altitudes to get a fair perspective. The HP output for a BMW801D and DB605A, for example, have very different HP output as a function of altitude when compared to Merlin 1650-3 and -7. What may be true at SL, is often not true at 5,000 and 15,000 and 20,000 feet, much less at 30,000 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 13, 2017)

The 'burden of proof' is prety light on my side, since I've posted two contemporary docs, one of them putting the Bf 109F-4 above the 400 mph mark, another one putting the XF4U-1 under 400 mph mark (even under 380 mph).
At any rate, here is what Germans thought about the 109F-4 and Fw 190A-2:

_a) Geschwindigkeit:

Die FW 190 A 2 ist nicht ganz so schnell wie die Bf 109 F 4. Sie ist
aber einsätzmässig betrachtet, praktisch als gleich schnell zu werten.
Die Unterlegenheit der FW ist in grosser Höhe merkbarer und beträgt etwa
15 bis 20 km/h, während sie zwischen 4000 und 4500 praktisch gleich
schnell ist. Am Boden ist sie gleich schnell, oder sogar etwa 10 km 
schneller.
(table)
Bei Notleistung ergibt sich dasselbe Bild.
_
Or:

a) Speed:
The Fw 190 A 2 is not as fast as the Bf 109 F 4. It is, however, service-capable (machine), in aggregate almost as fast. Lack of speed of the Fw is notable at higher altitudes, where it amounts to 15 to 20 km/h, while between 4000 and 4500 [m] is practically as fast. At sea level it is as fast, if not 10 km/h faster.
(table)
When using Emergency power setting, the same thing happens.

(quick & dirty translation by yours truly; German transcript from here, facsimile of the original doc here; the Fw was outfitted with 2 MGs + 2 cannons during the test)

We can take a look on how fast the Fw 190A-2 was by looking here. The non-polished A-2, also no outer cannons, doing 630-640 km/h already on Kampfleistung, and 660 km/h on Notleistung.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

Hi Adler,

I don't use Kurfurst because when I first found the site, I started checking his data and found that he presented only the fastest data he could find. That is, if there were 3 flight tests out there for some variant of the Bf 109, he presented only the fastest, at the time. The time was some 10 years ago. I concluded he had an agenda to enhance the perceived flight performance of the type and removed his site from my list of references to check.

If that has changed, perhaps it is time to add him back in, but only if he presents the facts and not just "selected" facts that show the fastest speeds, climbs, etc. .

In no way does this say his claims are false, just that I think they are incomplete, at a minimum. I have no opinion on it otherwise. All types have their fans.

As an engineer, if I see 3 data points, the reasonable assumption is either the average or perhaps the median, not the slowest or the fastest.

So, I'll say that I have read the Bf 109F was the favorite mount of Erich Hartmann and several other top aces. That says a lot for the aircraft and I like it as a fighter. But I am under the distinct impression that it was out of its element when fast (above 330 mph), was about a 385 - 390 mph aircraft at best altitude, and had a very good climb rate since it was also one of the lighter Bf 109 variants. I'd go so far as to say they could have stopped development with the F and the front-line pilots might have been happy.

But I'd still like to see real flight test data of a combat-ready aircraft selected from a front-line unit, like we see with U.S. and UK fighters. To date, I have not seen it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist and, if it does, it will surface sometime, and we can all have a much-anticipated look at it. I'm looking forward to that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

IN the case of the Corsair I believe the speed was recorded or "set" on a flight from the Vought factory in Stratford CT and the P & W plant in East Hartford CT. 
However the conditions are not recorded, as in what throttle settings, what altitude, prevailing winds ( the direction of the flight was to the Northeast and the prevailing winds in area are out of the west) and so on. The plane may have been "timed" at 400 + mph between the two airfields ( a distance of about 48 miles) but without any data the 400mph title is pretty meaning less. 

Please remember that the Hawker Hurricane set a "record" of 400mph on a flight in Great Britain to the announcement in headlines . 
It was "true" but the amount of assist from tailwinds was not reveled and the Hurricane was in no way a 400 mph aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> I don't use Kurfurst as a reference, but thanks for the links.


Greg,
I personally have found no fault with Kurfurst's site to date.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2017)

drgondog said:


> Comparing published performance values is silly absent the stated conditions of the test - most importantly gross weight compared to speed run weight; engine RPM/MP; external configuration (racks/no); Combat load versus reduced fuel/ammo; surface prep (taped gun ports, surface finish); etc.
> 
> The only speeds worth comparing were the equivalent fully loaded configurations as expected to engage in combat for averages derived at MP or WEP MP settings as approved by respective authorities (AAF Material Command, for example). Anything else is not presenting anywhere near complete information
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> I don't use Kurfurst because when I first found the site, I started checking his data and found that he presented only the fastest data he could find. That is, if there were 3 flight tests out there for some variant of the Bf 109, he presented only the fastest, at the time. The time was some 10 years ago. I concluded he had an agenda to enhance the perceived flight performance of the type and removed his site from my list of references to check.
> 
> ...



So if he presents Luftwaffe Datenblatts, those too are wrong?


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 13, 2017)

No, I have heard elsewhere that Kurfurst cherry picks what data he posts. I think that is the issue with him. His data is not incorrect or fraudulent it is incomplete and therefor does not show the whole story.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 13, 2017)

eagledad said:


> Please see the following links at Kurfurst’s website on the Bf-109F-4.
> Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
> Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung
> If I read those reports correctly, there was at least 1 F that did 400mph +.
> Eagledad



*A direct quote from Kurfurst concerning the 660 km/h of the Bf.109F-4:*
" It is notic(e)able that while the associated horsepower and level speed
results at Sea Level are practically identical, the two data sets show increasing
separation as altitude increases, considering the aformentioned characteristics
sheets and graphs repetedly claim the 635 km/h (@ 1.30 ata) value at the
same power setting in agreement with the IV/78/42 calculated data sheet,
*it seems likely that the flight tested data sheet IV/43/42 is without
compressability correction.* The lack of such correction would characteristically
result in increasingly higher instrument reading error with the increase of altitude,
the read error levels peaking out at maximum speed at the rated altitude."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

Hi Alder,

I have not found wrong data, as I stated on Kursurst. Only the fastest tests out of the bunch. It's not a knock on his website for anyone else in here.

I simply look for the data myself when it comes to the Bf 109. Not suggesting anyone else do the same. It's not significant to the members in here what source I use when looking at the Bf 109, I certainly hope. Mostly, I try to use wwiiaircraftperformance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> No, I have heard elsewhere that Kurfurst cherry picks what data he posts. I think that is the issue with him. His data is not incorrect or fraudulent it is incomplete and therefor does not show the whole story.



There is not a site out there that does not do that, whether it be Kurfurst or a Spitfire or P-51 site.

My point is this, throughtout the site actuall documents are presented. Those documents are not cherry picked, as they are factual documents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Alder,
> 
> I have not found wrong data, as I stated on Kursurst. Only the fastest tests out of the bunch. It's not a knock on his website for anyone else in here.
> 
> I simply look for the data myself when it comes to the Bf 109. Not suggesting anyone else do the same. It's not significant to the members in here what source I use when looking at the Bf 109, I certainly hope. Mostly, I try to use wwiiaircraftperformance.



And my point is still this, in order to obtain factual data one must either use actual documents, or compare sources. Only getting data by cherry picking your sources in the end achieves nothing. Usually the truth lies in between because every site cherry pics its data in one form or another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

That's why it is good to get official government tests when possible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2017)

should point out that at least one source ive read, concerning the F6Fs used at Phil sea and nominally rated as 371mph top speed were unable to exceed 359mph they were that clapped out during the actual battle.

Actual combat performance were routinely a lot less than the published figures for all combatants. Same applied for ships. Italian ships often had quoted flank speeds exceeding those of their RN counterparts (generally around 33 knots) , in fact after a couple of years of high wear and tear, and under normal wartime conditions, few Italian ships (DDs in particular) could exceed 28 knots best sea speed. sustained sea speeds were even less.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> That's why it is good to get official government tests when possible.



And those are readily available all over the place (including his site).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

The performance in a Pilot's Operating Handbook for something like a Cessna 182 is the performance attained by a factory test pilot, familiar with the aircraft, using a brand new aircraft, on a hard-surface runway (you can bet it is smooth), with a brand new engine making rated power through a brand new, unworn propeller, using best pilot techniques as indicated by prior flight tests.

Fighter manufacturers also employed specialized test pilots to do the same thing. Factory numbers will ALWAYS degrade with time and wear and environmental exposure, even if the plane is kept in a hangar at all time when not flying.

No surprises there.

The surprise is the number of people, usually non-pilots who think combat flight sims on a PC are realistic, who assume older planes, kept outside, will still meet factory-fresh numbers. All service pilots know that is not the case. Many civil aircraft do not degrade nearly as quickly as they don't have much performance to start with, and never get up into higher speed regimes where the finish and dirt/mud combined with worn turbine blades can create a LOT of minor issues adding up to considerable performance degradation. You might not even notice it since most fast military planes hardly ever get up to top speed in peacetime.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

parsifal said:


> should point out that at least one source ive read, concerning the F6Fs used at Phil sea and nominally rated as 371mph top speed were unable to exceed 359mph they were that clapped out during the actual battle.
> 
> Actual combat performance were routinely a lot less than the published figures for all combatants. Same applied for ships. Italian ships often had quoted flank speeds exceeding those of their RN counterparts (generally around 33 knots) , in fact after a couple of years of high wear and tear, and under normal wartime conditions, few Italian ships (DDs in particular) could exceed 28 knots best sea speed. sustained sea speeds were even less.



I believe in some cases the Italian ships ran trials without all the armament installed (missing turrets or gun mounts) let alone leaving the magazines empty and fuel tanks holding only enough fuel to complete the trials. Partial crews and other "tricks". 

Other Navies may have used 2/3s full magazines and/or fuel tanks (and feed water) or 1/2 load. 

While the Italian figures made good headlines in the News papers I doubt _any _Italian ship of the period could meet it's trial speed when actually fitted out for service and I am note even talking about full load or wear and tear. 

Italian builders were often paid large bonuses for exceeding design speed figures so a lot skulduggery went on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> The performance in a Pilot's Operating Handbook for something like a Cessna 182 is the performance attained by a factory test pilot, familiar with the aircraft, using a brand new aircraft, on a hard-surface runway (you can bet it is smooth), with a brand new engine making rated power through a brand new, unworn propeller, using best pilot techniques as indicated by prior flight tests.
> 
> Fighter manufacturers also employed specialized test pilots to do the same thing. Factory numbers will ALWAYS degrade with time and wear and environmental exposure, even if the plane is kept in a hangar at all time when not flying.
> 
> ...



I am well aware of all that Greg...

I've been in aviation (both military and civilian) for 17 years...Maintenance, crewing and pilot.

Edit: My apologies. I think your post was directed at someone else.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2017)

There was quite a bit of that performance chicanery in the Italian and French navies, but even so, at the beginning of the war, the performance of Italian ships was generally higher than their British counterparts by about 2-3 knots. but with wartime use and abuse, the Italian ships could not sustain that performance advantage. their ships engines wore out quickly in other words.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

Went with the chicanery, Power plants were probably lighter per hp than British or American power plants. And thus a bit low on durability. 
Destroyer machinery is lighter than cruiser machinery, Cruiser machinery is lighter than Capital Ship machinery on a per HP basis. Machinery also includes condensers and "auxiliaries" generators, pumps, and ventilation equipment. 
British ships were designed for the long haul, and being able to operate world wide for months on end without dockyard support which means heavier machinery for reliability.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2017)

Pretty much agree. British ships happened to be fairly durable, not so much as a deliberate design choice, but then again maybe. It was simply that they were never designed or used really to force the machinery. Performance of British ships was always intended to be fairly modest. There simply was not seen as essential that RN ships be able to outrun their opponents. A british TF would prefer to sit there and fight it out rather than hightail outta there. If, as was shown in the war, they did need to bug out, they would do it on a controlled basis more often than a headlong rush. that kind of philosophy does not demand exceptional performance.

Later as the numbers of ships exploded, both the RN and the USN could afford the time to put ships through proper maintenance periods. If you properly maintain your engines, be they marine, aero or land based, you will retain most of your design performance for longer. for various reasons, the Italians were not able to do that and this surely had an effect on the performance of their ships as they got further into the war.

I would not be surpised to find the germans in a similar predicament for their aircraft. the germans were always less well supplied with engines compared to the allies. One could reasonably expect that the performance n the field of their actual aircraft would fall short of the published figures of that type. and then of course there is their fuel quality issues, a whole other world for discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2017)

The British had gotten over the "forcing" of machinery in trials in the 1890s or at least before WWI. At least some old editions of "Janes" make note of certain ships that were "forced" on their trials and had a long and troublesome career there after. Rarely able to make full speed on annual trials and/or spending more time in dock than sister ships that were not "forced".

Now this could vary from class to class and a certain amount of overload was common. Original design HP for the WW I C & D class cruisers was 30,000hp but they were often run at up to 40,000hp and later were pretty much rated at 40,000hp. However these power plants were considerably heavier than the 40,000hp power plants used in the large destroyer leaders of WW I. 

with the Treaties the British never had the number of ships they wanted and needed a higher percentage in service rather than in dockyard hands. A bit less "paper" performance for a bit more reliability at sea was probably seen as a good trade-off. 

I am not saying the British were perfect but what running the escorted convoys in WW I they probably had a better idea of "real world" performance than most other navies. The need for high freeboard for one thing. More hull weight in a treaty limited ship.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

General response, Adler, not directed at anyone. No agenda and no statement.

Most of the older Cessnas I've flown met book values, but they are cruise values, not absolute maximum with overpowered engines. I think I would expect a group of twenty wartime P-51D's to have a normally-distributed top speed centered around 435 mph or so, with a standard deviation of something like 4 knots.

The would mean we might expect as low as 421 mph and as high as 449 mph in a batch of 50+ units, using ±3-Sigma. Not sure 6-Sigma applies here, because if it did, then some would not get delivered until they were "fixed" and met minimum specs. 

Some are "good planes," some are "average," and some are "dogs." Even the dogs are fun to fly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> General response, Adler, not directed at anyone. No agenda and no statement.
> 
> .



Yeap, I got that after I posted. As I said my apologies. My dinner was not agreeing with me, and I was battling a bout of heart burn that made me grumpy. Not your fault.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Most of the older Cessnas I've flown met book values


I've instructed a couple thousand hours (at least) in elderly 150s, 152s, 172s, and 182s, and not a one of them could match POH numbers in takeoff over an obstacle, climb rate at specified power settings, fuel burn to altitude or at specified cruise speed, full fuel range or endurance, or (who cares) top speed. These were almost all well-maintained planes in good condition. AGE MATTERS!
We used to teach students to calculate ideal performance "by the book" and then give themselves a 10 to 25 percent margin for error depending on the age of the plane and proficiency level of the pilot. Private=25, Commercial/Instrument=15,
ATP=10,(except engine-out multi work where you've got to be spot on). I've never seen a Piper Seneca (even a brand new one) match its POH single engine climb rate.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GregP (Sep 13, 2017)

Hey Adler,

Feel better. I HATE heartburn. Try Zantac 150! Works for me about 3 hours before bed, after a spicy lunch. Nothing much helps with a spicy supper.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 14, 2017)

As a non German reader I can only assume the Bf109 performance figures are factory spec?

I ask this as I note many of the aircraft the RAF test are service models drawn from squadrons, did the Luftwaffe also do this for their tests?

I heard a comment on Bf Factory specs being "best attainable" due to the political competition with Kurt Tanks designs at the time, I also wonder if this discrepancy explains the often much lower figures obtained whilst testing captured aircraft?


----------



## Razgriz1 (Sep 14, 2017)

Guys? Can we get back onto Corsair VS Spitfire & not onto BF-109s?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2017)

Would like to ... but how much Corsair (Navy Fleet Defence Fighter) versus Spitfire (Air Force point defense fighter) is left to discuss?

Their roles will not overlap, they were never, in real life, chosen to perform the other one's tasks, and they were almost never in the same area of sky. Either one would do as a short - medium range fighter, but the Spitfire wasn't suitable for carrier operations. The Spitfire was a bit better over land or near land but was completely unsuitable for open-ocean use. Neither one was ever envisioned as a long-range escort, and so no provisions were made for it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2017)

Well, the 109 talk can still be left for 109 threads.

Just because a thread is open, does not mean it has to be posted in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 14, 2017)

GregP said:


> Would like to ... but how much Corsair (Navy Fleet Defence Fighter) versus Spitfire (Air Force point defense fighter) is left to discuss?
> 
> Their roles will not overlap, they were never, in real life, _*chosen to perform the other one's tasks, and they were almost never in the same area of sky.*_ Either one would do as a short - medium range fighter, _*but the Spitfire wasn't suitable for carrier operations*_. The Spitfire was a bit better over land or near land but was completely unsuitable for open-ocean use. Neither one was ever envisioned as a long-range escort, and so no provisions were made for it.



Greg - I'm not sure I'd go that far, reading a bit on the BPF that operated both, it seems the naval Spitfire (Fine, Seafire) was fairly well thought of. I see some pilots notes that they liked the Corsair, especially the cockpit layout but in reading some here: Home during Operation Iceberg I and II. It makes for some good reading, they operated side by side so I'll let you peruse that and make your own conclusions.


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2017)

Thanks for the link! I'll do some reading.

The Seafire was never completely invented and was quite fragile for carrier operations. That from many sources over many years. Yes, it got used, but no, it wasn't really suitable. The Spitfire airframe is MUCH lighter than a comparable Naval fighter airframe in all-metal and, while it COULD be operated from carriers, the structural repairs would take a toll since it was never stressed for carrier operations that require "dropping" it onto the deck to snag a landing wire from full stall above tailhook heights.

Radials have good performance at high power (and corresponding high fuel consumption) but low cruising speeds (decent economy). Inlines generally cruise much faster. So, I would not expect Corsairs and Spitfires to operate alongside each other much and, if they did, one or both would be out of their normal flight operations.

I'll bow out and watch with some interest since I cannot see how this makes much sense under any circumstances other than extreme need. If it gets to making any operational sense, I'll rejoin. Cheers.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 14, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> IN the case of the Corsair I believe the speed was recorded or "set" on a flight from the Vought factory in Stratford CT and the P & W plant in East Hartford CT.
> However the conditions are not recorded, as in what throttle settings, what altitude, prevailing winds ( the direction of the flight was to the Northeast and the prevailing winds in area are out of the west) and so on. The plane may have been "timed" at 400 + mph between the two airfields ( a distance of about 48 miles) but without any data the 400mph title is pretty meaning less.
> 
> Please remember that the Hawker Hurricane set a "record" of 400mph on a flight in Great Britain to the announcement in headlines .
> It was "true" but the amount of assist from tailwinds was not reveled and the Hurricane was in no way a 400 mph aircraft.



I've read the newspaper accounts regarding the Hurricane's 400mph flight across the UK and it was clearly stated that the aircraft had a tailwind assist.


----------



## Robert Porter (Sep 14, 2017)

I had no idea they factored pilot flatulance into airspeed records?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 14, 2017)

RCAFson said:


> I've read the newspaper accounts regarding the Hurricane's 400mph flight across the UK and it was clearly stated that the aircraft had a tailwind assist.


The pilot John Gillan spent the rest of his career with the title "downwind Gillan"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2017)

_The Seafire was never completely invented and was quite fragile for carrier operations._

I don’t understand the first part of the comment. On that basis should we discount all corsair land based operations? I can accept the argument that the Seafire was not a spitfire. As time went by it became less and less a Spitfire, and more and more a new design. The post war development of the seafire bore only passing resemblance to the land based versions of the spitfire. To be fair, the early versions of the Seafire, introduced in 1942 are consistent with everything you are saying. I don’t consider them true versions of the seafire, really they were spitfires with a hook. They suffered from weak landing gear, endurance of just over an hour, no folding wings, outdated gunsights, limited drop tank capability. Operated mainly from escort carriers in still air conditions, operational techniques not worked out properly, inexperienced crews, results were predictably poor

Seafire III was virtually a different aircraft. Redesigned wing, revised armament, three point wing folding, moved CG, strengthened landing gear, strengthened hook, onboard comms, revised and improved armouring. Revised armament, far superior to the corsairs, low blown for performance where it mattered. Increased fuel capacity, which increased endurance to well over 3.5hrs. still short of the corsair but not by much.

Seafire went from probably the worst accident rate in 1942, with the I and II subtypes to easily the best, in both navies in 1945. They were universally recognized within the BPF as the best type with sufficient performance and firepower to deal with Kamikazes

What part of the seafires development do you consider as “never completely invented”

_That from many sources over many years. Yes, it got used, but no, it wasn't really suitable._

True for the desperate days of 1942-3, but not true for the sdubtypes fielded from 1945 and after the war.

_The Spitfire airframe is MUCH lighter than a comparable Naval fighter airframe in all-metal and, while it COULD be operated from carriers, the structural repairs would take a toll since it was never stressed for carrier operations that require "dropping" it onto the deck to snag a landing wire from full stall above tailhook heights._

Seafire I and II were basically spitfires with hooks, and suffered some catastrophic structural failures in those early days, especially when operated in conditions of low wind and from small slow CVEs in the med. As a direct result of those experiences, and following extensive further testing, the redesigned LF MkIII incorporated a strengthened landing gear (also redesigned) arrester hook and “A” frame assembly from the production line, beginning in April 1944. Further testing revealed this to be a vast improvement in the structural adequacy, but it was still considered necessary for further modifications. Extra strengthening was added to counter the sideways load induced by the rolling of an aircraft carrier’s flight deck while at sea. The resulting aircraft deployed to the BPF bore little or no resemblance to the earlier lash up conversions. Sure, it still had land based legacies, but to say it was never stressed to undertake carrier operations is just plain wrong.

changes to the CG in the Seafire III improved its landing characteristics.

From the redesign resulting in the LF II , there were significant changes to performance, mostly at the critical low altitude. Spitfire/Seafire differences ended up concentrating the latters peak performance at low altitude compared to the emphasis of the spitfire being at higher altitudes. . The Merlin 32 was capable of putting out 1645hp at 1759ft, and 1640hp at 3000ft. At full emergency boost, the L Mk IIC could climb at 4600ft per minute to a height of 6000ft. This was 1500ft per minute better than the Hellcat and Corsair. The 'low-rated' LF IIC could even reach 20,000ft some two minutes ahead of the earlier F IIC, though its performance at height was lacking.

Seafires fitted with the Merlin 32 produced a maximum sea-level speed of 316mph (506km/h, rising to 335mph (536km/h) at 6000ft (l850m). On the surface this may look worse than the F-IIC, but the heights quoted are not direct comparisons. What the data represents was a significant boost in low-level speed, acceleration and responsiveness.

Such was the turnaround in performance experienced by the LF IIC that the decision was made in late 1942 to convert all Merlin 46 F Mk IIC's to the LF standard.

Captain Brown was very impressed with this Seafire:

“_With this engine change, the fighter became the Seafire L Mk IIC… the most exciting aircraft that I had flown to that time.

Its initial climb rate and acceleration were little short of magnificent and at maximum boost it could maintain 4600ft/min up to 6000ft.

Another result of the installation of the Merlin 32 was a quite dramatic reduction in take-off distance and, in fact, the L Mk IIC without flap could get airborne in a shorter distance than the standard Mk IIC using full flap!

Later, some Seafire L IICs were to have their wingtips clipped to boost roll rate and incidentally, add another four knots to maximum speed, although these changes were to be obtained at some cost in take-off run and service ceiling.

My enthusiasm for this new Seafire variant was such that, one afternoon, in sheer exhilaration, I looped it around both spans of the Forth Bridge in succession – court-martial stuff nowadays, but during a war nobody has the time to bother with such formalities._”


_Radials have good performance at high power (and corresponding high fuel consumption) but low cruising speeds (decent economy). Inlines generally cruise much faster. So, I would not expect Corsairs and Spitfires to operate alongside each other much and, if they did, one or both would be out of their normal flight operations.
_

The BPF used the corsair Hellcats and Seafire LF Mk IIIs simultaneously. They found ways to extract the best from each type. The relatively light armament of the corsair, combined with its relatively low performance (in areas like acceleration and rate of climb) made it more suitable for deep cover operations, whilst its extra range and better bomb carrying capabilities made it more suitable for offensive operations. But the two types actually worked well together, covering for each others weaknesses quite well.

Seafire IIs had undergone various redesign changes such that the CG had moved considerably and the type's landing characteristics vastly improved. Whether it was this 'beneficial' drag or simply better trained and less fatigued pilots, Implacabe's Seafire accident rate was the best of any carrier in either navy.

Principal source;

Supermarine Seafire: Variants

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Sep 14, 2017)

Perhaps' the Seafire's lasting epitaph comes not from a British pilot, such as Captain Eric 'Winkle" Brown, but instead an American one.

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

In his own words:

_Without argument, the Seafire configuration was probably the most beautiful fighter ever to emerge from a drawing board. Its elliptical wing and long, slim fuselage were visually most delightful, and its flight characteristics equalled its aerodynamic beauty. The Seafire had such delightful upright flying qualities that, knowing it had an inverted fuel and oil system, I decided to try inverted 'figure-8s'. They were as easy as pie, even when hanging by the complicated, but comfortable, British pilot restraint harness.I was surprised to hear myself laughing as if I were crazy. I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since, or felt so comfortable in an aeroplane at any flight attitude. It was clear to see how so few exhausted, hastily trained, Battle of Britain pilots were able to fight off Hitler's hordes for so long, and so successfully, with it. The Lend-Lease Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsair fighters were workhorses but not comparable. The Seafire III was a dashing stallion!_

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Sep 14, 2017)

Hi Parsifal,

I say that because it was widely reported in books written from the 1940s through the 1960s, including William Greene's Famous Fighters of WWII series and others as well. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Spitfire was never designed for carrier landings, and that when fitted for carriers, the vast majority of the "fitting" was fitting a tail hook with minor restressing for other items. Their entire career can be described as "fragile," if you talk with the former pilots of Seafires and "hooked Spitfires."

I've seen first-hand how easily they can get damaged. MUCH easier than a comparable U.S. plane, but that also weighs more. So, it's a tradeoff. The Spitfire, performing in its design task, more than compensates for being a less than ideal carrier aircraft. Just fine for normal grass-field operations, but not for very "rough field" operations. "Very rough" describes carrier ops and helps account for their universal greater weight than land-bound planes.

I'm going by opinions of the day, not by any modern books, which almost always leave a heck of a lot out by virtue of being written without access to the guys who designed, built, and flew the planes in service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 15, 2017)

Parsifal, not sure you saw it but here is a link to a pretty good site that talks a lot about Seafires and the American counterparts working together in the BPF.

Home

Lots of stuff to read there if you haven't seen it give it a look, it's quite good.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Sep 16, 2017)

An excerpt of an old article [End of a Long Line: Seafires Mark F.45, F.46 and FR.47] from Air International magazine by Dr Alfred Price:

In January 1950 Lieutenant Tommy Handley joined 800 Squadron as a senior pilot (deputy commander).

"Seafires were not easy to deck land. The Mark 47 was a much heavier aircraft than the previous Marks, and heavy landings often resulted in damaged oleo legs. Also the fuselage aft of the cockpit was not sufficiently strengthened to withstand anything but a near perfect deck landing. The long sting hook made catching a wire reasonably easy, but if the landing was much off-centre or made with any skid or slip on, then the wire would shake the aircraft rather like a terrier shakes a rat. The result could be a wrinkling of the after fuselage section."

Aircraft found to have wrinkled after fuselages were sent below and kept in the hangar until they could be off-loaded for repair at a shore base.

Once it began operational flying [in Korea], 800 Squadron needed every aircraft it could lay its hands on. The problem of the wrinkled fuselages was now quietly forgotten, as Handley explained: "The wrinkling was not really visible to the human eye, but if you ran a hand over the skin you could detect the trouble spots. The worry was that the structure was less strong than it should have been. The engineer officer said they were outside limits for peace-time flying - but he let them fly on operational sorties !"

When she left the war zone HMS Triumph possessed nine flyable FR.47s, but then the peacetime operating rules were restored and six of them were declared unserviceable with wrinkled rear fuselages. At the end of 11 weeks of operations, out of total of 26 FR.47s originally on strength or received as replacements, only three remained flyable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 16, 2017)

Timppa said:


> ...When she left the war zone HMS Triumph possessed nine flyable FR.47s...



HMS Triumph, during her Seafire Korean tour, had a damaged prop shaft [she had twin prop shafts] and could not make full speed. Consequently aircraft were subjected to far more landing stress than would normally be encountered. This rather salient point is usually ignored but it is doubtful that any carrier fighter could have operated without suffering stress damage during the low speed arrested landings.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 16, 2017)

How did the Firefly compare to the FR47 for landing accidents.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 16, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> How did the Firefly compare to the FR47 for landing accidents.



The Firefly FR1 stalled at 63 knots [showing the advantages of it's F-Y flaps] versus 71 for the Seafire 47 and this would have been advantageous on a slow carrier. However, I don't have sortie loss and damage rates for the two types whilst they operated from HMS Triumph off Korea. I do know, from one source, that the Seafire squadron flew 360 sorties.

I don't know the maximum speed of Triumph off Korea but it was likely less than 20 knots. HMS Theseus which replaced Triumph was only capable of 22 knots, which declined during her period of operations.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 17, 2017)

RCAFson said:


> The Firefly FR1 stalled at 63 knots [showing the advantages of it's F-Y flaps] versus 71 for the Seafire 47 and this would have been advantageous on a slow carrier. However, I don't have sortie loss and damage rates for the two types whilst they operated from HMS Triumph off Korea. I do know, from one source, that the Seafire squadron flew 360 sorties.
> 
> I don't know the maximum speed of Triumph off Korea but it was likely less than 20 knots. HMS Theseus which replaced Triumph was only capable of 22 knots, which declined during her period of operations.



Corsair I-IV stalling speed was 76 knots (per Pilot's Notes). AFAIK they did operate from escort carriers (max. speed 15 to 20 knots).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2017)

Timppa said:


> Corsair I-IV stalling speed was 76 knots (per Pilot's Notes). AFAIK they did operate from escort carriers (max. speed 15 to 20 knots).


Hey, wait a minute! Corsairs on jeep carriers? That could get ugly real quick. I'd like to see sources on that one. In all my years of looking at WWII photos I've never seen one of Corsairs on a jeep. It was tight enough for FM2s and TBMs, and their approach speed handling was much less tricky than the F4U. My uncle flew TBMs ("Turkeys" he called them) off jeeps sub hunting in the Atlantic. He said the Turkey had the best handling at the slowest speed of any plane in the fleet. He carrier qualed in a TBM on a converted paddle wheel steamboat on Lake Michigan. The jeep carrier seemed like a step up to a "real" ship.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 17, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, wait a minute! Corsairs on jeep carriers? That could get ugly real quick. I'd like to see sources on that one. In all my years of looking at WWII photos I've never seen one of Corsairs on a jeep. It was tight enough for FM2s and TBMs, and their approach speed handling was much less tricky than the F4U. My uncle flew TBMs ("Turkeys" he called them) off jeeps sub hunting in the Atlantic. He said the Turkey had the best handling at the slowest speed of any plane in the fleet. He carrier qualed in a TBM on a converted paddle wheel steamboat on Lake Michigan. The jeep carrier seemed like a step up to a "real" ship.
> Cheers,
> Wes





Timppa said:


> Corsair I-IV stalling speed was 76 knots (per Pilot's Notes). AFAIK they did operate from escort carriers (max. speed 15 to 20 knots).



Corsairs did operate from escort carriers and when they did they had the same problem as Seafires, namely wrinkling of airframes from the stress of low carrier speed landings:

During the following four days of carrier refresher
landings, 46 pilots were qualified with a total of 260 landings.,
Considerable trouble was experienced with wrinkling of fuselage
and stub wings of the FG-1D aircreft. While it is believed that
several landings were hard due to the planes being brought in
somewhat high and to the pitching of the vessel, no abnormally hard
landings were observed, and a basic design weakness is indicated.
Complete R.U.D.M.'s on this condition have been prepared with the
assistance of manufacturers' representatives and Naval technical
Officers who were aboard as observers.
USS Vella Gulf War Diary May 1945
​But by 1945 the US was cranking out F4U and variants by the hundreds every month and writing off aircraft was just accepted as par for the course.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2017)

RCAFson said:


> Corsairs did operate from escort carriers and when they did they had the same problem as Seafires, namely wrinkling of airframes from the stress of low carrier speed landings:


I stand corrected, and thanks for the info. And who do we have to thank for this foolishness? Wouldn't you know; Marines! Go for broke, and to hell with the casualties.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Sep 17, 2017)

Which plane was easier to control at stall speeds?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 17, 2017)

Here is a list I found on corsair accidents in USN service

F4U Corsair USN Accident Reports

There are a lot of accidents from aircraft based on USN CVEs. American CVEs could have up to 6 F4Us attached, which is a small percentage of the numbers afloat, but just glancing at the list there seem to be an awful lot based on CVEs and aircraft transports (which is what the majority of CVEs were used for).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Which plane was easier to control at stall speeds?


It surely wasn't the Corsair!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Razgriz1 (Oct 29, 2017)

Got two reports to show you all. One on the Corsair, other on the Spitfire. 

(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-detail-specification.pdf)

When this report said high speed, did it mean indicated airspeed or true airspeed? 

(Spitfire Mk VB W.3134 Report)

What power setting did the mkv spitfire use to achieve a climb of 3250ft/min (normal, military etc...)?

Also, what the main difference between Military & WEP?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 29, 2017)

Razgriz1 said:


> Got two reports to show you all. One on the Corsair, other on the Spitfire.
> 
> (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-detail-specification.pdf)
> 
> When this report said high speed, did it mean indicated airspeed or true airspeed?



True Air Speed




Razgriz1 said:


> (Spitfire Mk VB W.3134 Report)
> 
> What power setting did the mkv spitfire use to achieve a climb of 3250ft/min (normal, military etc...)?



+9psi boost. 

At that time that was the 1/2 hour emergency rating. There was also a 3 minute emergency (and take-off) rating of +12psi boost.




Razgriz1 said:


> Also, what the main difference between Military & WEP?



Boost.

The boost was controlled by the throttle, either manually or automatically. 

A supercharger designed to operate at a certain altitude could provide more boost than the engine could cope with. To compensate for this, the throttle was closed to the point where the desired boost level is obtained. Then, as altitude increased the throttle was opened to maintain the boost pressure. The altitude where the throttle is fully open is termed the critical altitude or full throttle altitude (FTH). Above this altitude the boost, and power, fell off.

With WEP the throttle was opened more, and the critical/full throttle altitude was lower for WEP than military.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2017)

Razgriz1 said:


> What power setting did the mkv spitfire use to achieve a climb of 3250ft/min (normal, military etc...)?
> 
> Also, what the main difference between Military & WEP?



The Spitfire was using "continuous climb" rating, Usually a 30 min to 1 hour rating, For the Merlin 45 this was 1200hp at 16,000ft and a bit less below that as the throttle had to be partially shut at lower altitudes to keep from over boosting. 

Military rating is an American rating and was usually comparable to take-off power. For a good part of the war it was a 5 minute rating but _some _engines had it raised to 15 minutes part way through the war. 
Military power was also the power the engine made at it's best altitude with the throttle wide open. Any higher and the thinner air caused the power to drop. Any lower and the throttle had to be closed to prevent over boosting and damage to the engine. 
The US of Military power did not require any extra maintenance procedures. WEP came into use (American) in late 1942 and 43 (depending on engine) and was achieved by opening the throttle below the best altitude (or Full Throttle Height /FTL ) or critical altitude. However the throttles were often fitted with tell tales (wires) which when broken signaled ground crew to perform extra maintenance checks. ALL use of WEP was to be noted in long books to determine adjustments to the engines overhaul life. 

The Spitfire V was allowed to use 3000rpm and 12lbs boost in combat _normal. _at some point after this test. as a 5 minute rating and was finally allowed to use 3000rpm and 16lbs of boost (for 3 minutes) as the British equivalent of WEP. However the engine could only hold 16lbs to 11,000ft. 
horsepower was 1515 though. 

You might want to look at this test:

Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report

and please note it was done about 2 months before the Corsair first saw combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Oct 31, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> ^^^ What he said.
> 
> Besides, although your mileage may vary, I'd take the P-51B/C D or H any day over the F4U, but that's just my opinion.



Me too!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 31, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The Spitfire was using "continuous climb" rating, Usually a 30 min to 1 hour rating, For the Merlin 45 this was 1200hp at 16,000ft and a bit less below that as the throttle had to be partially shut at lower altitudes to keep from over boosting.
> 
> Military rating is an American rating and was usually comparable to take-off power. For a good part of the war it was a 5 minute rating but _some _engines had it raised to 15 minutes part way through the war.
> Military power was also the power the engine made at it's best altitude with the throttle wide open. Any higher and the thinner air caused the power to drop. Any lower and the throttle had to be closed to prevent over boosting and damage to the engine.
> ...




This is interesting stuff but by the time the Corsair first saw combat, the Spit MkV had largely been replaced by the MkIX fitted with the Merlin 61 or 63. I'd be interested to know how those engines compared with your figures for the earlier Merlin 45 fitted to the Spit MkV.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2017)

Actually the fairest comparison in terms of the timeline is the spitfire XIV and the corsair, since continual references are being made to the later marks of the corsair.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Actually the fairest comparison in terms of the timeline is the spitfire XIV and the corsair, since continual references are being made to the later marks of the corsair.



I agree that trying to find comparable models of both types time wise is a bit difficult and the MK V is certainly not it. The MK IX is much closer but still roughly 6 months ahead of the F4U-1. The MK XIV being about a year late. 

Confusing things is the different dates that both planes were allowed to use higher power settings than they were first used with. The Corsairs may have been in service for a year before water injection being fitted?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Nov 1, 2017)

FYI, to the best of my knowledge (at this time).
A/C - engine - operational date.
Spit 9 - Merlin 61/+15 - July 42
F4U-1 - R-2000-8/54" - Sept. 42
Spit F.9 - Merlin 63/+18 - Feb. 43
Spit LF 9 - Merlin 66/+18 - Mar. 43
Spit 12 - Griffon III/+15 - Apr. 43
Spit 8 - Merlin 61&63/+16 - Jun. 43
Spit 12 - Griffon IV/+15 - Jul. 43
F4U-1A - R-2800 - 8/54"? - Oct. 43
Spit 14 - Griffon 65/+18 - Jan. 44
F4U-1A - R-2800-8w/60" - Jan. 44
Spit LF 9 - Merlin 66/+25 - May 44 (100/150 fuel)
Spit HF 9 - Merlin 70/+25 - May 44 (100/150 fuel)
Spit 14 - Griffon 65/+21 - Jun/Jul. 44? (100/150 fuel)
F4U-1D - R-2800-8w/60" - Jan. 45
Spit 21 - Griffon 61/+21 - Apr. 45 (100/150 fuel)
F4U-1C - R-2800-8w/60" - Apr. 45
F4U-4 - R-2800-18w/60"? - May 45

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 1, 2017)

It looks like the Spitfire XIV was operation from February or March 1944. July 1944 saw the introduction of 150 grade fuel and +21psi boost, engine modifications for operational aircraft starting that month.

Edit: Oops, missed the boost entries in your list and the Spitfire XIV listed as operational in January 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> FYI, to the best of my knowledge (at this time).
> A/C - engine - operational date.
> F4U-1 - R-2000-8/54" - Sept. 42



a minor quibble and also points to the problem the US had, While F4U-1s may have been issued to a squadron on Sept of 1942, the 1st squadron into "service" was not actually declared "operational" until Dec? and that was somewhat hurriedly so they could be shipped to the South Pacific. They arrived at the end of Jan 1943 and first combat operation was 14th Feb 1943. 

The Navy also had a single squadron during the fall of 1942 but that squadron was working out the problems with carrier landings and was not actually an "operational squadron". Remember that if any of these two squadrons had experienced pilots their last aircraft was very likely to be an F4F, unlike most Spitfire IX squadrons were at least some of the pilots had flown Spitfire Vs. Some for mechanics/riggers/fitters. A good ground crewman can work on anything but he is going to faster doing something for the 5 or 6 time than doing the same "job" on a new airplane the 1st or 2nd time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 2, 2017)

Bah! What's all this Corsair/Spitfire... Firefly nonsense? Apparently I have been remiss in my duties hijacking threads like this to talk of the Mustang instead. Well, I'll let this one slide... Carry on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 2, 2017)

Well if it's not you chuntering about P-51s it's Terry prattling about F4Fs!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Nov 2, 2017)

Late September 1942: U.S. Marine Squadron VMF-124 begin receiving F4U-1s.

28 December 1942: VMF-124 was* hastily declared OPERATIONAL.*

Early January 1943: VMF-124 left San Diego heading to Guadalcanal

14 January 1943: The first ten F4U-1s of USN Squadron VF-12 are operational,
and eight days later the squadron has 22 aircraft.

12 February 1943: VMF-124 land on Guadalcanal with 24 F4U-1 fighters.
One hour later 12 F4U-1s of VMF-124 take off on a
covering mission.

Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 2, 2017)

The second word is "Off" !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 3, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Well if it's not you chuntering about P-51s it's Terry prattling about F4Fs!



Or someone perhaps inserting the Buffalo into the mix at times?


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 3, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Or someone perhaps inserting the Buffalo into the mix at times?



Now which plonker would do something like that?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 4, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Now which plonker would do something like that?



I'd wager that Biff guy...


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 4, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> I'd wager that Biff guy...



That guy is a total a-hole, just ask anyone who knows him!


Cheers,
That Guy

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 4, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> That guy is a total a-hole, just ask anyone who knows him!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> That Guy



I resemble that comment!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 6, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> That guy is a total a-hole, just ask anyone who knows him!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> That Guy



Well, I'm not sure I'd go THAT far, perhaps just stop blathering on about the Buffalo...


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 6, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> Well, I'm not sure I'd go THAT far, perhaps just stop blathering on about the Buffalo...


 In fairness to Biff, I'm not entirely sure he does blather on about the Buffalo. You could level that accusation on me...providing you accept a new definition of "to blather' as "offering well-researched, cogent, impartial, operationally sound information in an erudite, insightful and edifying manner." 

Yeah...I know. I'll get my coat!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 7, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> *SNIP*
> You could level that accusation on me...providing you accept a new definition of "to blather' as "_*offering well-researched, cogent, impartial, operationally sound information in an erudite, insightful and edifying manner*_."
> 
> Yeah...I know. I'll get my coat!



I didn't realize were in a fiction forum... 

Actually, I find it amusing that I've always been drawn to long sleek aircraft, on *looks* for me it's:

*U.S.*
P-51 (especially the B/C with tail fillet)
P-39
P-40

*U.K.*
Spitfire - the later marques (Mark IX and above)

*German:*
Bf-109 (any marque, to me, as visually beautiful as the Mustang)

*Japan:*
Ki-61 or "Tony"

*U.S.S.R.*
Don't care

But the one fly in the ointment has always been the Buff. Don't know why but visually there's something about the Buffalo that I really like, looks wise for me it's way better than the F4F or even the F6F.

Yeah, no one's perfect...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 7, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> In fairness to Biff, I'm not entirely sure he does blather on about the Buffalo. You could level that accusation on me...providing you accept a new definition of "to blather' as "offering well-researched, cogent, impartial, operationally sound information in an erudite, insightful and edifying manner."
> 
> Yeah...I know. I'll get my coat!



Never fear, I can blather with the best of them just get a couple of Capt's and cokes down my gullet!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 7, 2017)

Peter Gunn said:


> I didn't realize were in a fiction forum...



Not a fiction forum but frequently a nonsense forum...as a spouter of said nonsense, I speak from experience.




Peter Gunn said:


> But the one fly in the ointment has always been the Buff. Don't know why but visually there's something about the Buffalo that I really like, looks wise for me it's way better than the F4F or even the F6F.
> 
> Yeah, no one's perfect...



Therapy is available...and pills. Lots and lots of pills.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 7, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Never fear, I can blather with the best of them just get a couple of Capt's and cokes down my gullet!



I'm beginning to doubt your qualifications as a pilot. Most I've met were more than capable of blathering without being under the affluence of incohol. 

What's the old joke? "How do you know there's a pilot in the bar? Don't worry, he'll tell you."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 7, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm beginning to doubt your qualifications as a pilot. Most I've met were more than capable of blathering without being under the affluence of incohol.
> 
> What's the old joke? "How do you know there's a pilot in the bar? Don't worry, he'll tell you."



I love that joke, or a slightly different version of it...

Q: How do you know you have a fighter pilot at your party?

A: He will tell you!

As for my blathering I have done some long posts on a Fw-190 vs Spit vs P-51 vs Me-109, as well a few others!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 7, 2017)

Which reminds me, are there any ex-fighter pilots in this forum...?



Also if this is the Corsair v Spitfire thread why aren't we talking about the Mustang?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 8, 2018)

drgondog said:


> P-51B/D could easily out dive the P-38 and F4U-1 and F6F and P-40, it could marginally out dive the F4U-4 and yes placard dive speed was 505 IAS for P-51B/D/H



At what altitude was the max safe dive speed of 505 mph IAS for this placard determined? I'm asking this because at 10,000 feet this would equate to a TAS of 575mph @ Mach 0.78 but as altitude increased so would these figures (with the same 505 IAS). By 15,000 feet the P-51 would have a TAS of 615 mph and hitting Mach 0.85.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 8, 2018)

British Pilot's Notes have:

Mustang III
SL to 10k - 505 mph
10k to 20k - 420 mph
20k to 25k - 380 mph
25k to 30k - 340 mph
30k to 35k - 305 mph

Mustang IV
SL to 10k - 505 mph
10k to 20k - 400 mph
20k to 25k - 360 mph
25k to 30k - 325 mph
30k to 35k - 290 mph

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 8, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> A: He will tell you!










Shameless theft of an image previously making fun of vegans.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 8, 2018)

Greyman said:


> British Pilot's Notes have:
> 
> Mustang III
> SL to 10k - 505 mph
> ...



Thanks that's exactly what I was looking for!


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 10, 2018)

Greyman said:


> View attachment 485414
> 
> 
> Shameless theft of an image previously making fun of vegans.



Hey nice watch...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 15, 2018)

I'll add this topic related view lifted from a Kiwi Corsair pilot's memoir, 'Too Young to Die'.

It concerns military flying in Nippon, by occupation forces, soon after cessation of hostilies,
when 'British Empire' units 'did their bit' alongside US forces.

"Our flying duties consisted of daily patrols of the various prefectures in the British area by flights of two aircraft,
including RAF & Indian Spitfires, & Australian Mustangs from their respective bases...

...the Spitfires used by both the RAF & Indian squadrons were Mk 14, clipped wing, 2,000hp Griffon models,
fitted with 5-bladed props, & mostly with bubble canopies...

...During these patrols we would sometimes engage in in friendly dogfights with the Mustangs, but never
with the Spitfires, which were mostly forbidden to perform aerobatics at lower altitudes, due to the limited
experience of their pilots, & the frightening performance of their aircraft,
which were capable of climbing at 5,000ft per minute...

...The 5-bladed 2,000hp Griffon-engined Spitfires which frequently visited our base had however,
considerably higher performance than either Mustang or Corsair - I did one day formate on two
Spitfires approaching Iwakuni, & instead of my usual 30" boost I had to open up to 45" to stay with them.

When pilots of the Indian Spitifire Squadron performed aerobatics overhead, the incredible performance,
& deafening screech of the Griffon - was almost frightening."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## David Fred (Apr 21, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> No time to elaborate right now. But in my quick without much thought opinion,
> I'd go with the Corsair all the way... If the battle was over water and 400 mls.
> from base.
> If you are talking a quick one on one mix it up dogfight, and the Spitfire has
> the standard wing, the Spitfire has the immediate advantage.



My Dad served with the 4th Division, USMC, at Roi-Namur, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima, a forward observer for Naval fire support, and Marine Corps Pilots. (As usual, the Navy couldn’t figure out how to land such a long nosed beast on a carrier (which you would have thought might be important in a plane designed fo carrier operations. The British figured it out, a long sweeping turn before lining up at the last instant, but it took a skilled pilot)

Nothing to do with which is best, which is like comparing Apples and oranges. But he LOVED the Corsair, because it was flown by Marine Pilots, whose first duty was to support the grunts on the ground.
Unlike any other aviators, they came in *so low* that grunts had to duck as Corsairs fired perfectly horizontally against firing slits in Japanese pill boxes, using the rudder to in effect traverse their guns.

And with the 13’4” prop, and the double Wasp, gull wings, she was, and is, my favorite WW2 bird.

The Seafire, the carrier based Spitfire variant, was a disaster. They took a brilliant land based fighter, made it heavier with landing gear capable of absorbing carrier landings, added a a tail hook, and just ruined a beautiful, high speed aircraft and destroyed it. Initial rate of climb reduced from 1150 meters per minute to 850. Maximum speed was reduced from 639 knots @5400 meters to 565. Empty weight increased by nearly 100 kg.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

David Fred said:


> My Dad served with the 4th Division, USMC, at Roi-Namur, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima, a forward observer for Naval fire support, and Marine Corps Pilots. (As usual, the Navy couldn’t figure out how to land such a long nosed beast on a carrier (which you would have thought might be important in a plane designed fo carrier operations. The British figured it out, a long sweeping turn before lining up at the last instant, but it took a skilled pilot)
> .


As a British national I would love this to be true but it is one of many myths that will not lay down and die. From the dawn of military aviation the pilot actually sat behind the observer, this changed when a rear gunner was introduced, same in dual controlled WW1 aircraft. Landing on a curved approach was absolutely normal in the UK and USA just not absolutely normal on carriers. The problems were not just with the method of landing but also detailed problems of putting a carrier plane into service, like float and stall characteristics on the wings and rebound performance of the landing gear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Apr 21, 2018)

David Fred said:


> ...The Seafire, the carrier based Spitfire variant, was a disaster. They took a brilliant land based fighter, made it heavier with landing gear capable of absorbing carrier landings, added a a tail hook, and just ruined a beautiful, high speed aircraft and destroyed it. Initial rate of climb reduced from 1150 meters per minute to 850. Maximum speed was reduced from 639 knots @5400 meters to 565. Empty weight increased by nearly 100 kg.



Hello David
you probably mixed knots and km/h in the speed part. Was Seafire a disaster, I don't know. At least it was short legged and at least the initial version was a bit fragile for carrier, at least CVE, use. But e.g. Corky Meyer, the chief test pilot of Grumman, loved it as a flying machine when he had an opportunity to fly Mk III at Fighter Conference in 1944, noting "I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since or felt so comfortable in a plane at any flight attitude." Neither have he anything untowards to say its low level rate of climb.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Hello David
> you probably mixed knots and km/h in the speed part. Was Seafire a disaster, I don't know. At least it was short legged and at least the initial version was a bit fragile for carrier, at least CVE, use. But e.g. Corky Meyer, the chief test pilot of Grumman, loved it as a flying machine when he had an opportunity to fly Mk III at Fighter Conference in 1944, noting "I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since or felt so comfortable in a plane at any flight attitude." Neither have he anything untowards to say its low level rate of climb.


I could also point out that no comparison could take place until June 1943 for carrier operations and February 1943 for land operations, this is five years after the Spitfire was operational and two years after the first seafires.


----------



## grampi (May 8, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> I'll add this topic related view lifted from a Kiwi Corsair pilot's memoir, 'Too Young to Die'.
> 
> It concerns military flying in Nippon, by occupation forces, soon after cessation of hostilies,
> when 'British Empire' units 'did their bit' alongside US forces.
> ...



I assume when you say the Spit had considerably higher performance than the Mustang, you're talking about the "D" model Mustang? An "H" model Mustang would've been a different story...


----------



## BlackSheep (May 31, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> We're a sad bunch!



Lol, laying in bed, next to a 5'1" 105lb 36D-22-34 sleeping beauty, at 2 in the morning, I have to agree! So much, so, I had to join the forum to say so! As a lover of WW2 aviation, I love the information,mopinions, and spirit of the discussions in this forum, thanks all!

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (May 31, 2018)

J.A.W. ~
Yeah, I've got a signed copy of Bryan Cox's "Too Young to Die" also, it's a really great read - He's also written another book too, and is still active on the NZ Aviation website occasionally - Anyway he is very qualified on Corsairs & P-40's from the WW2 Pacific - 

The thing with the Spit Mk. XIV is they used to call it "the engine with wings'' because of their hairy-assed performance envelope, but this variant was also much heavier than the 'usual' Spitfires, so doing aerobatics in them required one to do them at greater heights -
I remember this from "Ginger Lacey - Fighter Pilot", written by Richard Townsend Vickers in 1962. (He was also a WW2 pilot) - It's also an exceptionally great read if you can get it -

Late in the War, the famous Sqn.Ldr James "Ginger" Lacey was by then commanding RAF 17 Sqn.in the India / Burma area. 
He wasn't really 'well known' for his WW2 contribution, as he was an NCO - He joined RAF 601 Sqn. on 3rd Sept. 1939, a Yorkshireman Sgt.Pilot flying Hurricanes, who had gained the distinction of shooting down more enemy aircraft than any other pilot in Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain. His total considerable score was 28 destroyed, 4 probable & 10 damaged - He was also famous for shooting down the German Heinkel that bombed Buckingham Palace - He was eventually promoted to Pilot Officer on the 15th Jan.1941, already with the 'Croix de Guerre' & a 'Mention in Despatches' from the Battle of France, then a DFM & Bar, and was the current RAF top-scorer with 23 victories, 4 probs & 6 damaged. -

After the fall of Rangoon, Lacey's was told to move his Sqn. to Madura, in S.India and were being re-equipped with Spitfire XIV's for the coming Battle of Malaya. On the 16th July 1945 they arrived and Lacey took his off to try it out. -He had a theory now that the most dangerous periods in a man's life are when he has just assumed the new responsibility such as a wife & child: -super caution overrules his instincts and acquired skills. - The new Spitfire was, to his touch, like a Stradivarius to a violinist. Out of sight of the airfield, he found such joy in handling the machine and when he came back in a long shallow dive across the airfield he had the intention of doing a loop over base before landing. - " Halfway through the loop, I realized that I had gone into it much too slowly and wasn't going to make it. As she approached the top of the loop, on her back, I was frantically trying to roll her out because I knew she was going to stall. And of course with full aileron on, not only did she stall inverted but she spun inverted. I was only at 2500 ft -. I knew what to do, but it took some doing. I forced her nose down, still upside down, and let her pick up speed. When she had enough speed, I rolled her out. By that time, I didn't have very much height left. I've never been closer to being killed" - So much for the extra caution of the newly married fighter pilot !

Later, on the 30th April 1946, RAF 17 Sqn. put the first "Spitfire over Japan", arriving at their new base at Iwakuni.

I personally love both aircraft, all 46 variants of Spitfires & Seafires had their good points, and of course the Corsair went on to operationally outlive them all, it is a really unique aircraft in all respects & the roles it was applied to, and perhaps the hardier of the two types also.- It was also capable of delivering so much more ordinance too ~

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 2, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I only use official military or (second choice) factory performance
> test figures when I post. The Bf.109F-4 was cleared for 1.3 ata
> when it was introduced into service. It was later cleared for 1.42
> ata in January 1942. From all the sources I have read to date,
> ...


I think you can make any WW2 fighter 20 mph faster in combat, simply by removing useful bits, like armour glass windscreen, pilot armour, rear view mirror etc. etc., perhaps even going as far as removing most if not all its guns. I think you need to look at the Kurfust data in that light. A good example is the Bf 109F-1/2. RAE tested one at 362 mph; Soviet tested one at 342 mph; Wikipedia says 382 mph. I know who I'd believe, the RAE and the Soviets as their speeds were planes that had actually been used in combat as opposed to factory fresh, polished and with any wrinkles smoothed out with putty filler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 2, 2018)

Robert Porter said:


> No, I have heard elsewhere that Kurfurst cherry picks what data he posts. I think that is the issue with him. His data is not incorrect or fraudulent it is incomplete and therefor does not show the whole story.


I think that the German performance figures allow for a tolerance of +-5%, so if the RAE says 390 mph for a Bf 109F-4, that is the mean; 410 mph is possible, as well 370 mph. Although Kurfust does present the highest figures, he also presents the Allied figures. So a Me 262 could have a top speed ranging from 485 - 540 mph.


----------

