Corsair VS Spitfire

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?

Shortround6 said:

A lot of activity for a not very useful result?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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?

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.
.

Click to expand...

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?

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."

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?

Click to expand...

Depends on the Seafire mark of course, but generally:

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
- strengthened and raked-forward undercarriage
- catapult spools
- lower altitude engines
- folding wings (at Mk.III)​

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Greyman said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

drgondog said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

Have a Great Day.

Hope you also have a great day, but CV Ops wasn't the stated Topic.

Click to expand...

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.

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