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
GregP
Major
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.
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
Captain
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
Colonel
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
Major
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!
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
Captain
Fair enough.
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.
buffnut453
Captain
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
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
[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?
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
Colonel
Last edited:
GregP
Major
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.
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.
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
Major General
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.
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
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!
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!
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
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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!
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!
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.
