FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[Macandy]

And just to add, I remember reading about the guys that restore aircraft and one of them was talking about the Corsair, apparently the wing spar on it is the most expensive time consuming and exact part of the whole aircraft.

F4U corsair wing spar drawings

l am looking for drawings for the wing spar for the corsair. Is there any to be had? thanks

www.arcforums.com

However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109.
They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

 

[yulzari]

, without the Spit England couldn't win.

England could not win anyway, not having an Air Force.

 

[Macandy]

The Spitfire was made in many marks, low/high altitude fighters, Photo recon, fighter bombers, recon, had different guns/cannons, could be used on carriers, had many different engines and was a peer fighter throughout the war, the other two didn't have that record. Ultimately it doesn't matter that it took twice as many man hours to make than the Hurricane, for twice as many manufacturing hours you get a plane that's five times better, without the Spit England couldn't win.

Except;

The Spitfire wasn't '5 times' better than a Hurricane, let alone a Bf 109.
Production was a constant headache with the not a thought put into making it in quantity Spitfire.

More kills in the BoB went the Hurricane, and despite the modern aviation 'experts' decrying it, the Polish pilots found it more than good enough to hack down the Bf 109

Britain didn't have to win, it just had to not lose. Even if the Luftwaffe had established air supercity over the Channel coast, all it had to do was pull back to its bases north of the Thames and carry on.

 

[drgondog]

However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109.
They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

Hmm, the Spit XIV and 109K were not only less complex but also high performance. Ditto P-51. Also the word 'interval' is curious as both the Spit and Bf 109 Evolved. And to 'at the pinnacle of piston engine fighter design', where below the 'pinnacle' do you rank the P-51H, F8F, F7F, Ta 152, or even the F6F? AU1 was faster than AD but otherwise inferior as a CAS, multi role attack aircraft - and woefully short on air to air capability than the others listed above.

 

[buffnut453]

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

Err...which Spitfire? The Spit Mk 24 had a max t/o weight of 9,900 lb, while the Seafire Mk 47 weighed in at 12,530 lb. Not bad for a design that, in its original form, had an empty weight of just 4,306 lb.

 

[pbehn]

It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.

However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

There were 20,000+ variants of the Spitfire (designers pet project) while only 12,500 variants of the F4U Corsair (waste of blue paint and Malcolm hood, bomb truck).

 

[PAT303]

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

I'd like to know what was taken out for a corsair to carry that load.

 

[PAT303]

The Spitfire wasn't '5 times' better than a Hurricane,

Yes it was, an FW190 would treat a Hurri like a kiddies toy in a fight, you needed a Spitfire and even then a MkIX with the Merlin 66 to really be equal. As much as I like it it was a design dead end and obsolete compared to the other three.

 

[PAT303]

However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

So the Spitfire's wing spar was a manufacturers nightmare but the far more complex and labor intensive Corsairs wasn't?.

 

[PAT303]

And to 'at the pinnacle of piston engine fighter design', where below the 'pinnacle' do you rank the P-51H, F8F, F7F, Ta 152, or even the F6F? AU1 was faster than AD but otherwise inferior as a CAS, multi role attack aircraft - and woefully short on air to air capability than the others listed above.

What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.

 

[Shortround6]

More kills in the BoB went the Hurricane, and despite the modern aviation 'experts' decrying it, the Polish pilots found it more than good enough to hack down the Bf 109.

Modern experts and even experts of the time recognize that there were almost twice as many Hurricanes flying at any time than Spitfires. The Spitfire was better, it just wasn't twice as good in 1940 which is what you need to get twice as many kills.
The Hurricane was hitting a wall, it needed more power to get the same increase in performance.

And once again there are unanswered questions.
There were 5 different Spitfire wings, some had minor changes, some had larger changes (this does not count the tip changes as you could modify most (all?) of the wings to any wing tip you wanted. And nobody has answered what the build time was in Southampton in 1939 vs the build time time in Southampton in 1944 vs the build time in Castle Bromwich in 1941 vs the build time in Castle Bromwich in 1944.

And here: Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types — Variants & Technology | Reference

we have the following
"

C type

Called "universal wing", this wing was structurally modified to reduce labour and manufacturing time and allow mixed armament options; A or B type armament or a new, yet heavier combination of four 20 mm Hispano cannon.

The undercarriage mountings were redesigned and the undercarriage doors were bowed in cross section allowing the legs to sit lower in the wells, eliminating the upper-wing blisters over the wheel wells and landing gear pivot points"

doesn't say by how much anything was changed.

My father used to help design jigs and fixtures for M-16 rifles in the 1960s, a rather simple device compared to an airplane. At one point there were 3 companies building M-16s in the 60s. Once company was getting twice as much per rifle as Colt was. I don't know the man hours. Some politician wanted to investigate Colt for excessive profits and not the company making twice as much per rifle.

Curtiss prices per P-40 changed with every model/contract. Be very careful what you are comparing. The original P-40 contract included all kinds of extra "Stuff".
The 1939 contract for 524 airplanes was actually for 560 airframes, only 524 were to be completed, the remainder were in spare parts. One airframe was completed as a skeleton (no skin) for instruction. Also included were parts manuals/catalogs and all kinds of documentation. You cannot divide the 524 aircraft into the contract price and get the cost per airplane.

 

[Shortround6]

What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.

The actual high point of Corsair was the F4U-5. The AU-1 was more of a monkey model in modern terms. It used a single stage two speed supercharger and had very poor high altitude performance for a post war aircraft.

It also wasn't going to fly very far carrying the claimed war load.
It may very well have been listed in documentation, however this web site : https://alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf

shows an empty weight of 9,835lbs
basic weight of 10,600
max weight of 19,400lbs from a field
max weight of 18,500lbs for a catapult launch.

It does say 8,200lbs for max ordnance but................

19,400lbs
-8,200lbs
11,200lbs
-10,600lbs
600lbs

You have 600lbs for the pilot, fuel, oil and ammo for the 20mm guns and a few extras

 

[PAT303]

The actual high point of Corsair was the F4U-5. The AU-1 was more of a monkey model in modern terms. It used a single stage two speed supercharger and had very poor high altitude performance for a post war aircraft.

It also wasn't going to fly very far carrying the claimed war load.
It may very well have been listed in documentation, however this web site : https://alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf

shows an empty weight of 9,835lbs
basic weight of 10,600
max weight of 19,400lbs from a field
max weight of 18,500lbs for a catapult launch.

It does say 8,200lbs for max ordnance but................

19,400lbs
-8,200lbs
11,200lbs
-10,600lbs
600lbs

You have 600lbs for the pilot, fuel, oil and ammo for the 20mm guns and a few extras

Hence my point as to what was left out to carry the claimed bomb load, the pilots aren't going to be happy needing to have a poo and skipping breakfast for an extra liter or two of fuel.

 

[Shortround6]

Gliding back to base like an ME 163 was probably not high on the pilots happy list either

 

[drgondog]

What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.

The XP-51G and XP-47J were cancelled because there were no requirements for mid-range escort or interceptor that late in the war for AAF. That was the reason NAA devloped the P-51H to replace the P-51D - but still retain P-51D range but dramatically improve performance. That said, it took nearly 8 mo to solve 1650-9 WI/Boost issues to achieve design performance for the new enine.

 

[Peter Gunn]

However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109.
They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

I think it's totally valid to compare the Corsair to the Spitfire, considering that they both served side by side (along with the F6F) in the same theater against the same foe for some time:

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945

www.armouredcarriers.com

Also, I don't see the Corsair capable of doing the Lightning or Thunderbolt's job of high altitude escort of heavy bombers into the most hotly contested airspace of WWII, let alone able to do the Mustang's job. Nor do I see it having the ability to escort B-29's to Tokyo (hello P-51D and P-47N) and back... just an observation on my part. Mind you, the Iow Jima Mustangs were NOT much different (they did have the "UNCLE/DOG" system installed) than the P-51D marques that had been escorting Eighth AF heavies a year earlier.

I DO however see the P-38, P-47 and P-51 able to do the Corsairs job (albeit NOT from a carrier, I'll give you that) in the Pacific. One can argue that a P-40 was just about able to accomplish what the F4U was capable of in 1943 - 1944. In fact, I'd have to check but I think the RNZAF kept their P-40's in to 1945 before finally switching to the F4U.

 

[EwenS]

The first RNZAF squadrons became operational on the F4U in May 1944.

 

[GregP]

Yes it was, an FW190 would treat a Hurri like a kiddies toy in a fight, you needed a Spitfire and even then a MkIX with the Merlin 66 to really be equal. As much as I like it it was a design dead end and obsolete compared to the other three.

No, it wasn't. You might recall that Hurricanes shot down more airplanes than Spitfires did in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was a good fighter that started the war OK, but rapidly became "on the slow side." That didn't mean it couldn't maneuver well and wasn't well-armed. It could and was.

The Fw 190 was a better fighter than the Hurricane, but that doesn't mean the Hurricanes didn't get in their licks. They did.

The Fw 190 was better than a Gladiator, too, but the Fw 190 would have trouble getting a Gladiator in its sights for long since the Gladiator would be WAY more maneuverable. That does not suggest anyone would rather have a squadron Gladiators over a squadron of Fw 190s; they wouldn't. But it DOES suggest that the Gladiator would be able to do some things that Fw 190 could not do. Ditto the Hurricane.

It surely wasn't going to out-roll an Fw 190. But a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-3 had a wing loading of about 43.6 pounds per square foot at 8,580 pounds gross weight. A Hurricane Mk IIb had a wing loading of 28.3 pounds per square foot at 7,300 pound gross weight. There is no way an Fw 190 was going to out-turn a Hurricane Mk IIb. Now, personally, I'd rather have the Fw 190. But the Hurricane wasn't exactly a kill when it got caught by an Fw 190, especially if the Hurricane saw the Fw 190 coming.

 

[NevadaK]

I think it's totally valid to compare the Corsair to the Spitfire, considering that they both served side by side (along with the F6F) in the same theater against the same foe for some time:

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945

www.armouredcarriers.com

Also, I don't see the Corsair capable of doing the Lightning or Thunderbolt's job of high altitude escort of heavy bombers into the most hotly contested airspace of WWII, let alone able to do the Mustang's job. Nor do I see it having the ability to escort B-29's to Tokyo (hello P-51D and P-47N) and back... just an observation on my part. Mind you, the Iow Jima Mustangs were NOT much different (they did have the "UNCLE/DOG" system installed) than the P-51D marques that had been escorting Eighth AF heavies a year earlier.

I DO however see the P-38, P-47 and P-51 able to do the Corsairs job (albeit NOT from a carrier, I'll give you that) in the Pacific. One can argue that a P-40 was just about able to accomplish what the F4U was capable of in 1943 - 1944. In fact, I'd have to check but I think the RNZAF kept their P-40's in to 1945 before finally switching to the F4U.

The Corsair wasn't designed for long range escort and we shouldn't expect it to do so as well as aircraft designed for that mission, although the late model F4U5 did perform very well at altitude. On the other hand, I don't agree that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 performed the Corsair's job as well. From the results of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, the Corsair rated highest as a ground attack fighter and 2nd behind the P-47 in strafing. When you look at Corsair operations in the Pacific it was often flying quick turnaround close air support within 40 miles of the ground conflict from very short/unimproved airfields or carriers. Conditions where the Lightning, Mustang, and Thunderbolt wouldn't be able to operate at all.

Just my two cents.

 

[Tkdog]

Almost like someone was assigning the different planes to missions where they could be most useful. Weird.

I mean that kind of thinking is how you end up with crazy things like flying boats.