FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[EwenS]

We tend to concentrate on the fighters but to a degree this also applies to the bombers. I have read that some crews preferred the B17F to the G and the RAF definitely preferred the earlier Boston III to later versions.

AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).

I wouldn't say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn't want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.

But by 1943 the RAF were looking for better aircraft. At home squadrons swapped Bostons and Venturas for Mosquitos and B-25 Mitchells so that by the end of 1943 only 2 squadrons (88 & 342) flew Bostons. That continued until spring 1945 when 88 disbanded and 342 switched to Mitchell.

In the Med, the SAAF squadrons that had been flying Bostons began converting to B-26 Marauders, along with some from the RAF, in early 1944. The longer range and heavier bomb load suited the missions they now had to fly across Italy & the Balkans.

 

[PAT303]

Lets not get carried away with what I said, a 109E pilot is not going to keep it over a 109F/G same as a MkV Spit pilot wouldn't pass on a MkIX, pilots will want the newest (hopefully) better model.

 

[drgondog]

I think the Zero comes closest to your definition. It had the external drop tank from the 65th airframe onwards. It certainly was capable of gaining air superiority at great range, as demonstrated in the Philippines in December 1941.

Face Palm = of course you are correct, but I wonder why not airframe #1.The P-38E in November/December 1941 tested and provided pylon kits, including F4, but not a prototype, initial design feature.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The point I was making was latest model aircraft incorporate leasons learned in combat, developements in technology and are generally better performing than the previous model so pilots would naturally want the newest one, the six gunned Wildcat was lower performing than the four gunned model, the six guns was a British request for more firepower, in this case the newer model was not an improvement so yes the pilots would not look kindly at it.

Right, so your gold standard isn't whether or not the plane is newer, but if the plane is better -- which makes perfect sense. The assumption built into your premise is obviously "newer = better", which we all know isn't the case, as you yourself have acknowledged twice now.

 

[PAT303]

Right, so your gold standard isn't whether or not the plane is newer, but if the plane is better -- which makes perfect sense. The assumption built into your premise is obviously "newer = better", which we all know isn't the case, as you yourself have acknowledged twice now.

Well you'd hope the newer models were an improvement over the older ones which was generally the case.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well you'd hope newer is better which was generally the case.

Right, but there are plenty of examples where it isn't. Probably better to just use the adjective "better" rather than "newer".

 

[PAT303]

Right, but there are plenty of examples where it isn't. Probably better to just use the adjective "better" rather than "newer".

Taking the F4F4 as an example, the folding wings made it heavier against the F3 but more of them could be stored on board because of it, so it was newer and better in that respect, unfortunately the other improvements weren't as popular.

 

[buffnut453]

Face Palm = of course you are correct, but I wonder why not airframe #1.The P-38E in November/December 1941 tested and provided pylon kits, including F4, but not a prototype, initial design feature.

I don't have any detailed references but it seems like the need for an external drop tank was included in the original requirements. Introducing it on the 65th airframe suggests it was planned from the beginning but just not implemented on the first prototypes and early production airframes. Perhaps it was a schedule-vs-risk problem, where getting the first 11 prototypes delivered was more important than completing detailed design of the drop tank installation?

 

[Peter Gunn]

I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.

 

[Glider]

AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).

I wouldn't say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn't want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.

But by 1943 the RAF were looking for better aircraft. At home squadrons swapped Bostons and Venturas for Mosquitos and B-25 Mitchells so that by the end of 1943 only 2 squadrons (88 & 342) flew Bostons. That continued until spring 1945 when 88 disbanded and 342 switched to Mitchell.

In the Med, the SAAF squadrons that had been flying Bostons began converting to B-26 Marauders, along with some from the RAF, in early 1944. The longer range and heavier bomb load suited the missions they now had to fly across Italy & the Balkans.

I read that the earlier versions were used for as long as possible as the much heavier later versions were a lot heavier on the controls which was important, whilst the addition of the turret with 2 0.50 mgs didn't add much to the defence in the real world

 

[PAT303]

I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.

The B series were the quickest with the streamlined hood but visibility was regarded as poor compared to the Malcomb/bubble type.

 

[Macandy]

AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).

I wouldn't say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn't want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.

But by 1943 the RAF were looking for better aircraft. At home squadrons swapped Bostons and Venturas for Mosquitos and B-25 Mitchells so that by the end of 1943 only 2 squadrons (88 & 342) flew Bostons. That continued until spring 1945 when 88 disbanded and 342 switched to Mitchell.

In the Med, the SAAF squadrons that had been flying Bostons began converting to B-26 Marauders, along with some from the RAF, in early 1944. The longer range and heavier bomb load suited the missions they now had to fly across Italy & the Balkans.

The main reason the RAF moved away from the Boston by 1944 was there was simply less need for a fast intruder bomber to go looking for trouble..
It was always a very popular bomber with its crews, fast, tough and comfortable.

One of the RAF Bostons last hurrahs was as smokescreen layers on the morning of D Day, first planes over the beaches - unfortunately - the only planes over the beaches! so everyone spent the morning banging away at them as they flew up and down in straight lines. They had expected to suffer very heavy losses - much to the crews surprise, they all made it home for a cooked breakfast.

 

[Macandy]

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.

Whats with this fixation of high altitude escorts of bombers, it was last years model for piston engined fighters once the jets turned up.
By late 45, it wasn't going to be P-51's and and P-47's escorting bomber raids.
95% of the time, fighters fought under 20,000 ft or were on the deck ground pounding.

The war ended - everything went out of production bar the Corsair, with the last ones rolling off the lines in 1953. These supposedly 'better' fighters couldn't adapt and evolve, and all went to the boneyards.

 

[drgondog]

I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.

Dad had similar feelings about the differences in 'feel' but preferredthe D to fight with. When the Reverse Rudder Boost tab was installed the advantage in feel was reduced, particularly at high speed.

The B series were the quickest with the streamlined hood but visibility was regarded as poor compared to the Malcomb/bubble type.

Actually the B framed canopy was not the lowest drag or the 'quickest' for same takeoff GW and with/without racks - the D was, with the greater slope windshield to eliminate the stagnation point at the cowl/windshield interface and a cleaner wing rack. Lednicer proved that with his CFD models pointing out the issue with both the Spit IX and the P-51B for windshield/canopy pressure distribtions.

A couple of points of B vs D flight tests that are available on Mike Williams' spitfireperformance site.

First, the condition of the tested Mustang is crucial for comparisons. Second, the testing available were performed and recorded based on the airspeed indicator, The P-51B compared to D airspeed indicator, was more accurate at lower speeds from 300mp through landing speed, but the D was more accurate at airspeeds >300mph. The external rack on the P-51B was improved on the D model by reducing drag about 50%. At 430mph the drag difference of the B rack was about 12mph compared to 'no rack', The D difference was about 6mph.

Then you have the big wildcard - namely which engine? the 1650-3 with FTH near 29K or the 1650-7 with FTH near 26K (Ram air for both). AFAIK there are no available flight test results for the 1650-3 installed on the P-51D/D-1 and the early P-51D-5. For comparable Drag comprisons based on available flight tests on Mike's site, use the April 1944 tests with 44-1 fuel on P-51B-5 and -15 to look at top speeds at FTH with and without racks for 67"MP- approx 12mph between 426 (racks) and 438 (no racks) at 67" with 1650-7 and 9600 # at takeoff. The Rack on airspeed at 67" has to be picked from the Test report charts.

Look at June 1945 P-51D-15 tests for performance as well as for different external loads. For the 1650-7 at FTH 26000, 67" MP, WITH racks - the top speed is 442mph with 9600 # takeoff weights... approx 16mph difference favoring the D for the same GW at takeoff to eliminate induced Drag delta in the comparisons. Fully loaded P-51D with max inernal fuel, oil, guns and ammo is 10,200 pounds so Induced drag will reduce top speed approx 3 mph

Summary - the P-51D was a.) Cleaner, b.) Faster with and without racks, - at same MP/RPM at comparable altitudes - by about 12-16mph when tested with 1650-7 vs 1650-7 in the different airframes.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The main reason the RAF moved away from the Boston by 1944 was there was simply less need for a fast intruder bomber to go looking for trouble..

The RAF used its Bostons for standard level bombing with fighter escort, the intruders were the Mosquitoes.

One of the RAF Bostons last hurrahs was as smokescreen layers on the morning of D Day, first planes over the beaches - unfortunately - the only planes over the beaches! so everyone spent the morning banging away at them as they flew up and down in straight lines. They had expected to suffer very heavy losses - much to the crews surprise, they all made it home for a cooked breakfast.

Number 2 Group RAF ended 1943 with 3 Boston squadrons, 88, 107 and 342. 88 Continued with Bostons until disbandment on 6 April 1945. 107 squadron moved to Mosquito VI February/March 1944. 342 squadron moved to the Mitchell in March/April 1945.

By British clocks (double summer time) D-Day sunrise was at 5.45, the full moon set at 05.53.

There were plenty of allied aircraft over the beaches, the smoke laying started at 05.00 hours, the brief was first light, aircraft operating in pairs 10 minutes between runs. 1 Boston downed by German flak, 1 shot at by allied ships, one aborted after hitting the water, one crashed for unknown reasons.

9th Air Force bombers began take offs at 03.43 so they could attack targets at first light. Similar for the 8th.

 

[Macandy]

The RAF used its Bostons for standard level bombing with fighter escort, the intruders were the Mosquitoes.

Number 2 Group RAF ended 1943 with 3 Boston squadrons, 88, 107 and 342. 88 Continued with Bostons until disbandment on 6 April 1945. 107 squadron moved to Mosquito VI February/March 1944. 342 squadron moved to the Mitchell in March/April 1945.

By British clocks (double summer time) D-Day sunrise was at 5.45, the full moon set at 05.53.

There were plenty of allied aircraft over the beaches, the smoke laying started at 05.00 hours, the brief was first light, aircraft operating in pairs 10 minutes between runs. 1 Boston downed by German flak, 1 shot at by allied ships, one aborted after hitting the water, one crashed for unknown reasons.

9th Air Force bombers began take offs at 03.43 so they could attack targets at first light. Similar for the 8th.

I'm going by my contemporaneous interview notes.

 

[PAT303]

A couple of points of B vs D flight tests that are available on Mike Williams' spitfireperformance site.

I just looked at some charts to compare speeds, 441 for the B, 437 for the D, but like you've posted so much development was happening it's hard to compare like for like. It's also interesting that you mention the windscreen, I have the same test results on drag and the Spit windscreen is a big drag area, people seem fixated on the radiators but the windscreen is a big issue.

 

[drgondog]

I just looked at some charts to compare speeds, 441 for the B, 437 for the D, but like you've posted so much development was happening it's hard to compare like for like. It's also interesting that you mention the windscreen, I have the same test results on drag and the Spit windscreen is a big drag area, people seem fixated on the radiators but the windscreen is a big issue.

'Like' to'like' has to strip variables. In the case of B vs D, that means same engine, same MP/RPM, same GW, same exteranal drag items.

Lednicer was first (for me) to produce sophisticated CFD models to accurate scale representations - and the graphic pressure distributions at cruise were enlightening - ditto for FW 190.

 

[PAT303]

'Like' to'like' has to strip variables. In the case of B vs D, that means same engine, same MP/RPM, same GW, same exteranal drag items.

Lednicer was first (for me) to produce sophisticated CFD models to accurate scale representations - and the graphic pressure distributions at cruise were enlightening - ditto for FW 190.

I'd like one for the 109, it's windscreen is horrible, probably the worst of the lot.

 

[GregP]

The Bf 109 K-4 is supposed to have been able to hit 440 mph @ 24,600 feet and 1,850 PS (1,825 hp) @ 1.8 ata (52.1 in Hg) boost, so it really couldn't be all that bad. drag-wise.

They didn't fix the stick mechanical advantage issue, so it wasn't exactly easy the throw around, and didn't have rudder trim, either. If it was actually going 440 mph, it was running to or from a fight; it wasn't fighting. But, it was within a hair of being as fast as a P-51D (at least for a short time) no matter how you cut if, using slightly more HP.