FAA Seafire vs Corsair
- Thread starter aircro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Captain
The other side of the coin.
Admiral Beez
Captain
I like the Seafire. Give it the Mk.III's folding wings and improved oleos from its 1941/2 debut and you have a winner. Though as a Canadian (UK born) I have a soft spot for the Corsair and Canada's last VC.
Chance Vought F4U Corsair
Chance Vought F4U Corsair
"Fixing" the corsair involved
1 Shock absorbers in the oleos to stop bounce on landing.
2 Extended tail yoke to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor circulation when in the 3 point attitude.
3 Stall strip to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor rotation.
The bearcat had the engine angled down and to one side to create a counter to prop torque. Perhaps this could have been done to Corsair.
The Spitfire suffered from some of the same issues including the oleos. The tail was too small especially for the Griffon variants. The problems were solved by contra rotating propellor post war.
The Corsair and Spitfire both had handling issues that came out under the pressure of carrier opps. The corsairs obviously worse.
The USN thought the P-51D unsuitable for carrier opps but the P-51H was suitable due to its enlarged tail.
1 Shock absorbers in the oleos to stop bounce on landing.
2 Extended tail yoke to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor circulation when in the 3 point attitude.
3 Stall strip to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor rotation.
The bearcat had the engine angled down and to one side to create a counter to prop torque. Perhaps this could have been done to Corsair.
The Spitfire suffered from some of the same issues including the oleos. The tail was too small especially for the Griffon variants. The problems were solved by contra rotating propellor post war.
The Corsair and Spitfire both had handling issues that came out under the pressure of carrier opps. The corsairs obviously worse.
The USN thought the P-51D unsuitable for carrier opps but the P-51H was suitable due to its enlarged tail.
Admiral Beez
Captain
While the rudder increased in size, now that you mention it the tail does seem tiny on the later models. And integrating the hook into the tail seems needlessly complicated. Still though, one of the prettiest prop aircraft to ever grace a flattop.
The above is a Griffon Seafire XVIII I believe. It has the enlarged tall rudder first seen on the Merlin engined Spitfire VII/VIII I think. Even this rudder lacked sufficient authority. If I understand correctly Handling issues of the Seafire seem to relate to the undercarriage ability to handle the required sink rate forcing a slow approach and countering engine torque. My "Spitfire 70" contains little info on the issues.
Admiral Beez
Captain
The firebrand seems to have another characteristic undesirable in a carrier aircraft: a long nose thereby giving visibility issues. It's likely caused by putting the fuel tanks ahead of the cockpit behind the engine. Aircaft such as the Hellcat, Fw 190 put it behind and underneath.
The Hellcat was considered viceless in terms of handling and had good visibility. The Corsair gets the glory only because of a post war 440mph variant with an powerful engine the Hellcat never got.
The development of Seafire was opposed by many, including Churchill, on the grounds of maximizing Spitfire production. Perhaps we would have seen more Mk XIV, XVIII and F22.
The RN would have done well to stick to hellcats and corsairs for its fleet carriers.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Captain
Agreed. Ideally both CC&F and CAC should have begun license-building the Wildcat in 1938 instead (in CC&F's case) of the Hurricane. These would have been non-folding Martlets, unless CC&F designed a folding wing of their own.
The Firebrand had all sorts of problems, it just wasn't very good at anything. A big tail only gives authority in one dimension.
The F4F wasn't even accepted by the USN until mid 1939 and the first production aircraft didn't fly until Feb 1940. CCF couldn't possibly license build an aircraft that wasn't ready for production.
OTOH, CCF could have navalized the Hurricane if given the go ahead by Hawker and the RN FAA.
Hellcat wasn't available, even to the USN before mid 1943, hence the desire for the F4U, but even that wasn't ready before late 1942, hence the Seafire. Also the USN refused to part with enough Hellcats so the RN turned to the F4U. The F4U did have a performance advantage over the F6F, but maybe not enough to really matter.
Admiral Beez
Captain
The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Regarding post # 4, the Corsair didn't need new oleos. Instead they could have dones what modern Corsair owners do. Don't service the struts to full recommended pressure. It is all over the place if serviced normally. But it more or less lands straight if you leave the struts soft.
That from actual Corsair drivers today.
That from actual Corsair drivers today.
Admiral Beez
Captain
I suppose this is late war and best practice, but these FAA Corsairs are landing nicely.
That rofficer with the wavy hair lecturing on landing a Corsair would be lead singer in a band called Simplyred nowadays.
The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G nor as far as I can tell did Seafires. They spent their day chasing of intimidating and attacking Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft such as Fw 200 and Ju 290 and bombers such as the Ju 88 and He 111. For that job the Fulmar, Martlet and Sea Hurricane are perfectly adequate till Hellcts and Corsairs became available and Hence the Seafire was perhaps a luxury or perhaps indulgence of the Admiralty. The type suffered a high accident rate.
The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G nor as far as I can tell did Seafires. They spent their day chasing of intimidating and attacking Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft such as Fw 200 and Ju 290 and bombers such as the Ju 88 and He 111. For that job the Fulmar, Martlet and Sea Hurricane are perfectly adequate till Hellcts and Corsairs became available and Hence the Seafire was perhaps a luxury or perhaps indulgence of the Admiralty. The type suffered a high accident rate.
The Seafire IIC and LIIC did encounter FW190s and the Seafire was deployed during the Sicily and Salerno landings, and it was Seafires operating from CVEs that provided close air cover for the Salerno landings.
Some combat with Me 109G and chased of Fw 190 fighter bombers. Noteworthy is that within 3-4 days over half the Seafire II (essentially a spitfire v) were not operational due to landing accidents. That shows the types unsuitabillity.
Like the Corsair the Seafire had poor visibility necessitating a curved approach. The constant throttle changes required on both aircaft caused strong torque reactions not easily handled by the small tails and rudders at the low speeds.
The Seafires were operating off ~15 knot CVE's in essentially windless conditions, consequently their landing speeds were excessive but any other carrier fighter would have suffered under similar conditions.
Additionally, all Seafires from the II variant onward were purpose built as carrier aircraft, extensively modified from the basic Mk V, and were not converted Mk Vs.
Last edited:
While I agree a 17 knot headwind over deck is challenging I doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn't have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn't suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.
