FAA Seafire vs Corsair (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter aircro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
Greg, note the early P-51B-1 flight tests clean as the K-4 would have been tested. 441 at 29K at 1270 Hp 61"MP and 422 @23K at 1275 Hp @61" for relative drag to Hp comparisons.. The P-51D-15 flight tests with 1650-7 With Racks was 438mh at 61" MP and 1288 Hp at (Military Power) at 28K.
According to Hoerner, the CD for Bf 109 clean (no racks) was ~ 0.036 vs production P-51B-5 @NACA of 0.0208. Don't know which model Bf 109 Hoerner was referring to but think 109E in full scale wind tunnel.. The CDwet for 109 is shown as 0.0095, for P-51 = 0.0040 - Table A, chapter 14.9. 'Fluid Dynamic Drag".
drgondog
Major
also notable is that All windshields on production fighters were 'inclined flat plates' - with varying degree slope from cowl.
Imagination says 'ugly around the edges' but not a Lot worse than Spit IX with armored windshield?
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Fixation? Gee, I don't know, perhaps dominating the air war in the ETO? Not to mention helping win said conflict. Point is, it illustrates that Mustangs and Thunderbolts were capable of that, F4U not so much.
Actually, Mustangs would (and were) still be escorting B-29's by late '45, they just weren't needed as B-29 ops switched to night bombing as a rule and Japanese daylight interceptors were next to nonexistent by August '45..
And why do you suppose the Corsair remained in production? It certainly wasn't as a first line fighter, as you state, jets were taking that role over. And while we're on it, I'd say the Skyraider has it all over the Corsair for CAS. One might posit that the Navy kept buying Corsairs as their CAS options were limited? I don't see where the F4U "adapted and evolved" while other went to the boneyard, and you can't seriously argue the F4U was a front line fighter anytime after 1946, it was basically a bomb truck by then. Perhaps you might look at the Korean conflict and relative missions and loss rates vis a vis Mustang and Corsair.
*EDIT* This is not to say I dislike the F4U or think it was a bad airplane, quite the contrary, I think it was an excellent low to medium fighter bomber that could hold it's own with anything piston driven within it's performance envelope. I've seen too many people over the years trumpeting how it was the greatest of all time and that simply is not the case. So my "Fixation" with long range escort is to illustrate that while the Mustang (and the Thunderbolt) could do the Corsair's job (low to medium altitude fighter and CAS), the F4U was NOT capable of doing the Mustang (or the P-47's) job i.e. long range high altitude escort.
Cheers
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Actually they built over 550 F4U-5s between 1946 and 1950. The initial contracts were specifically because the jets weren't quite ready yet.
The F4U-5 had the "sidewinder" engine and was rated to have service ceiling of 45,000ft. Top speed was 469 mph at 26,800 feet but that may be without racks?
The F4U-5 was also the first version with all metal wings which reduced drag. Many of them got radar in a wing pod and they operated as night fighters several years before the jet powered night fighters showed up.
So yes, they were front line fighters after 1946, well after 1946.
By 1950 it may have been a different story.
By 1952/53 the F4U-6/7 the production of the Corsairs were for ground attack or for the French.
The F4U-5s shared the end of US Navy Piston development with the F8F-2 Bearcats.
The F4U-6/7 were somewhat retro grade. Good ground attack but no longer fighters.
drgondog
Major
Hi Mike- his detail drag analysis was for Bf 109G. Drag data, however, for the full scale 1939 test at Chalais-Moudon wind tunnel in 1939. Reference 14.6 (e) Results of Me 109 Analysis at Re=4x10^6. The comparable NACA full scale test of P-51B-1 (langley) was at Re=6.19x10^6. Unknown conitions save that the Me 109 was tested with covers over intakes s P-51B as full production configuration - and no Meredith Effect.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
All true, I'm well aware of Corsair development and again, I'm not saying it wasn't a fine aircraft, it was. The H model Mustang and the P/F-82 were in production postwar as well, and one could make a case that the F-82 was better and more versatile than the F4U. But really by 1947-48, would you prefer an F4U as a fighter or a F-80? Or even for CAS? That Naval jet development was lagging behind the USAF can be used for a case to continue piston fighter development/deployment I'll give you that.
But how many F4U-5's were available for long range high altitude escort during WWII?
drgondog
Major
The first F4U-5 flew in 1946.
The only 'front line' attribute of F4U-5 and P/F-51H and F7F and P/F-82 were much more range and payload than the FJ, the F80/84/86 of the late 40s. In low threat environments they were superior in payload and target accuracy due to lower speed - but not CAS survivabiity or air to air combat
GregP
Major
Hi Bill!
I was just looking at top speed. The Bf 109K-4 was neck-in-neck, top speed-wise, with the P-51D, CD0 notwithstanding. I have no illusion that the rank and file Bf 109 was nearly as clean as a clean P-51D, but the top speed suggests it wasn't far off the mark. I have never seen an aerodynamic study of the K-4, so I don't know what CD0 was.
No other point.
The Bf 1009K-4 still needed:
1) Better mechanical advantage on elevators and ailerons. Re-do the control system or move the fulcrum.
2) Rudder trim. Should not have been too difficult. Even some very basic airplanes have rudder trim.
3) More fuel. Could have increased the size of the main fuel bladder under the seat easily.
4) A better windscreen / canopy. They did this on some experimental models, but it never made production.
All easy fixes that somehow never made it to the field.
drgondog
Major
Hi Greg - cited the numbers in the other thread to illustrate the F-4 mantra - you can drive a brick fast with enough Hp. In the case above I showed MP (not Combat) 61"MP at 28K 439mph (with racks) vs 442 (clean) for K-4 w/1825Hp - 30% less HP (1288hp) for P-51D-15. This not entirely fair to K-4 at its FTH as air slightly more dense at 26K.
At 67" WEP the P-51D WITH racks = 442mph (1410 Hp) or 23% less HP at 26K than K-4 - apprx same density altitude.as your K-4 top speed altitude.
I don't know what the CD numbers for 109K-4 are, but they are at least 40% higher than P-51D.
More factors to consider. Respective CL for both the 109 and 51D increase with altitude and start to contribute to increased pressure drag as AoA incleases to maintain level flight, as well as compressible flow (CDm) becomes a factor - more for K-4 than P-51D due to wing
From the MkV all Spits had internal armoured windscreens, the 109, Spit and P51B all had high drag screens.
Admiral Beez
Major
The Brits had some excellent glass manufacturing. The Malcolm Hood impresses.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
In 1948, for CAS, I'm definitely going with the F4U. As a fighter, of course it was being surpassed at that time, but for putting ordnance on target, it had already had a lot of practice.
GregP
Major
Hi Bill and Mike,
This link to Hoerner shows an "Me 109" with a DB 601A engine with 1200 hp. The only variant with a DB 601A engine was an early Bf 109E. Surely cannot be a Bf 109K-4.
And the Bf 109K-4 had about 1,150 hp at 24,750 feet at 440 mph. The engine made some 1,800 hp for takeoff at sea level and 1.8 ata. Source for the hp is: Messerschmitt Bf 109K, but you can find it elsewhere, too. Might or might not be correct, but I doubt the full 1,800 or 1,850 hp at 24,750 feet in any case. The DB was a good engine, but it wasn't magic. The supercharger was single-stage and had a variable-speed hydraulic coupling.
I am not arguing drag; I am citing top speed. The Bf 109K-4 certainly had the top speed to be VERY competitive since it was faster than the P-51D by a very small amount ... a few mph, which in the real world means "about equal in top speed."
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
drgondog
Major
Agreed, but he used the G for drag build up in Chapter 14 - and 1200HP as the basis from which to illustrate exhaust gas thrust (way too simplistic, I might add).
Not disagreeing - just pointing out that FTH and external stores and basc drag need apple to apple comparisons to be meaningful.As an aside I saw a FB video today in which Jack Roush made the comment that the "P-51B was 15kts faster than the D" and I was astounded that he didn't qualify conditions or basis of comparison.
Yeah the Skua is the winner in the most horrible angle windscreen competition.
Shortround6
Major General
The angle is pretty bad but at least the frame doesn't look like apprentice blacksmiths hammered it out in-between making raw horse shoes.
Letting the people responsible for the 109 wind shied frame actually shoe the horses is animal abuse.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
You would be grateful for that cockpit view landing at night in bad weather.
