Corsair VS Spitfire

[J.A.W.]

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."

 

[David Fred]

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]

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.

 

[Juha2]

...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]

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]

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."

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]

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!

 

[Gemhorse]

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

 

[Kevin J]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin J]

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.