Corsair VS Spitfire
- Thread starter Razgriz1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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.
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
Captain
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.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
^^^ 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.
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.
What are the criteria for determining best?
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
1st Lieutenant
F4U is a newer aircraft with a newer and more powerful engine. You would expect it to be superior and it is.
drgondog
Major
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.
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.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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.
of offensive explosives, the F4U-1D / F4U-4 are the only ones in the running.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
Obviously the big fighter is going to have different strengths and weaknesses than the smaller fighter.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Which Spitfire, which engine and which wing.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
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
Captain
The only thing I would add is that the XII may struggle for performance against the F4U at altitudes above ~10-15,000ft.
parsifal
Colonel
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
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
GregP
Major
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.
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.
wuzak
Captain
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
- Thread starter
- #17
In a dogfight, both turning & BnZ.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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$.
But I have time to leave you with this for now.
The Spitfire 14 was capable of 359 mph. at sea level using +18 lb. boosting in
operational service, January 1944. Later in June 1944 to the end of the war was
capable of 370 mph. at sea level using +21 lb. boost with the higher grade of fuel.
The standard F4U-1D became operational in January 1945 and could manage
366 mph. at sea level. The F4U-4 became operational in May 1945 and could
manage 389 mph. at sea level according to the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy
Department. The Spitfire XIV's speed did eclipse the F4U-4 at about 8.700 m. and
up.
As far as roll rates are concerned. The maximum roll rate of the clipped wing
Spit XII would be about 150 degrees a second at 200 mph. The Spit XIV to the
best of my knowledge is 105 degrees a second at 200 mph. Both versions of the
the Spitfire's roll rate fall off continually as speed is gained. The F4U-4 could roll
to the right at 89 degrees a second at 235 mph. However the roll rate of the
Corsair increased continually with speed.
enjoy ourselves. So I don't have a lot of time to post right now. We just came off
the shooting range where the Mrs. promptly did in four silhouette bad guys. Any-
way we are now on our way up to the ritzy shops for the Mrs. to buy, buy & buy$.
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Major General
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.
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.
