fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
It uses Handraulics
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
It uses Handraulics
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,128
- May 13, 2018
The same as the cars in the 1940s. Power steering by Armstrong.
Manual wing folding, as per the video.
Break it down.. arm, strong = man powered, like the Mk.1 Eye Ball as your search equipment.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
A video I just finished watching, about the Seafire. Interesting discussion,
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Corsair was 100 times better than the Seafire, any version
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
You know the guys are going to make you show the math on that equation.
Shortround6
Major General
Nope, just file it under fiction.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Both Seafire and Corsair had serious problems being adapted for Carrier landings initially, but these issues were worked out with the Corsair, while they never really were with the Seafire.
I think that video upthread a few posts is a pretty good overview with a couple of caveats. The Seafire had a ton of problems, it may have had it's moment against Kamikazes briefly late in the Pacific War, but by and large it was sorted out (to the extent that it was) too late. It was a disaster at Salerno.
I'm not sure I agree with the narrator that it's armament compares so well to a Hellcat either, which is one of the few points I'd disagree with the narrator on. I also don't think the Sea Hurricanes main problem was the .303 armament.
But it's also true that for the RN, both the Hellcat and the Corsair came a little too late to make a big difference. The critical moments with the convoys and Battle of the Atlantic were fought with Skuas, Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes, the incredibly desperate "Hurricats" (which must have had some of the bravest and lonliest pilots of the war), Fulmars, and to a lesser extent, Martlets. They did their best with what they had and just about managed, saving Malta by a tenuous thread. And getting just enough of those Arctic convoys through to help keep the Soviets alive during their most critical phase.
Aside from landing and general carrier ops problems, Seafires (and Sea Hurricanes) just had too short of a range and endurance. I'm not sure the low altitude engine was a great idea either, something FAA was obsessed with. It could come in handy for example against Kamikaze strikes and torpedo planes, but it limits versatility. Sometimes you want CAP flying higher.
The part at the end about their using 90 gallon P-40 drop tanks was interesting, I'd like to see some harder numbers on it.
Overall though I think F4U and F6F were much better naval aircraft than a Seafire.
I think that video upthread a few posts is a pretty good overview with a couple of caveats. The Seafire had a ton of problems, it may have had it's moment against Kamikazes briefly late in the Pacific War, but by and large it was sorted out (to the extent that it was) too late. It was a disaster at Salerno.
I'm not sure I agree with the narrator that it's armament compares so well to a Hellcat either, which is one of the few points I'd disagree with the narrator on. I also don't think the Sea Hurricanes main problem was the .303 armament.
But it's also true that for the RN, both the Hellcat and the Corsair came a little too late to make a big difference. The critical moments with the convoys and Battle of the Atlantic were fought with Skuas, Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes, the incredibly desperate "Hurricats" (which must have had some of the bravest and lonliest pilots of the war), Fulmars, and to a lesser extent, Martlets. They did their best with what they had and just about managed, saving Malta by a tenuous thread. And getting just enough of those Arctic convoys through to help keep the Soviets alive during their most critical phase.
Aside from landing and general carrier ops problems, Seafires (and Sea Hurricanes) just had too short of a range and endurance. I'm not sure the low altitude engine was a great idea either, something FAA was obsessed with. It could come in handy for example against Kamikaze strikes and torpedo planes, but it limits versatility. Sometimes you want CAP flying higher.
The part at the end about their using 90 gallon P-40 drop tanks was interesting, I'd like to see some harder numbers on it.
Overall though I think F4U and F6F were much better naval aircraft than a Seafire.
The CAM ships may have been unusual and even desperate but they worked. 9 launches, 9 kills (not one kill per launch) with others driven away. One pilot died from injuries baling out, one other injured. In air defence of anything that is about as good as it can get. CAM ship - Wikipedia
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Yeah no denying it, they worked. I didn't realize the causualty rates were so low. Ditching in the North Atlantic doesn't sound fun. But those guys were badass.
I find the air combat way out to sea really fascinating. We got into some of the bomber vs bomber battles in another thread.
I think they parachuted out, its far safer and they were baling out over a fleet, Hurricanes were just not made to ditch in water.. One pilot landed in Russia. 4 condors 1 Ju88 and 4 He 111s in exchange for 8 obsolete Hurricanes would have ended the Battle of Britain in weeks.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of difference between "much better", twice as good, and 100 times better.
For some reason the Spitfire very, very rarely got two speed single stage superchargers, either Seafires or land based.
So for Seafires it was either a high flying single speed Merlin or a low flying single speed Merlin or a Griffon engine.
Not sure if fitting Merlin 32s to some Seafires was an attempt at engine standardization with the Barracuda?
Now figure out which aircraft were in squadron service when. RN was getting their first 1/2 dozen or so F6Fs about the time of Salerno.
Just as an aside the Wildcat had a wheeltrack of 6 ft 5in and had over 12in of oleo stroke. Wildcats had some deck handling (or shore runway problems of their own.
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Well that's true, 100 times is hyperbole. I just feel that Seafire, for most of it's career, wasn't really suitable as a carrier aircraft.
They may have been good at chasing Kamikazes but so were Corsairs by that time.
Another RN aircraft best not thought about too much...
I don't think it was comparable with the issues they had with the Seafire. Be glad to see hard (operational) numbers though if you have any.
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,466
- Dec 6, 2006
USN thought that 1 20mm was the equal of 2 to 3 50 cal. The USN wanted to employ 20mm cannon instead of .50 but production difficulties prevented that.
Carrier warfare was much lower level than the air war over Europe. CAP was 20,000 ft max. The R-2800 2-stage supercharged wasn't a spectacular engine at altitude in any event. The Bearcat was specifically tailored for low altitude performance with a single stage R-2800. Tailoring the Merlin for increased performance at lower altitudes was an excellent decision.
Shortround6
Major General
The Bearcat cheated
The F8F-1 got a "C" series engine, the -34. Modifications to the supercharger (and an extra 100rpm) got an extra 100hp military power at 3000ft in low gear compared to 2000hp at 1500ft that the "B" series had in low gear. However it was the 1700hp at 16,000ft instead of 1600hp at 13,500ft that helped bridge the gap between the 2 speed engines and the 2 stage engines.
The "B" series two stage engines were good for 2000hp to 1000ft in neutral (engine supercharger turning), 1800hp at 15,500ft in low gear and 1650hp at 22,000ft in high gear.
the real "cheat" comes in with the F8F-2 which used an "E" series engine which among other things (Like 115/145 fuel) used a new single stage supercharger with a variable hydraulic drive.
This allowed for 2250hp Military power at sea level and 1600hp at 22,000ft. So it was within 50hp of the old two stage engine at altitude.
To almost round out the story the "C" series engines used in the F4F-4 Corsairs (-18) were good for 2100hp to 1000ft in neutral (engine supercharger turning), 1900hp at 14,000ft in low gear and 1800hp at 23,000ft in high gear.
Shortround6
Major General
The Wildcat had issues, they were different issues. The long travel soft landing gear soaked up carrier landings pretty well. The landing gear kept the props out of the deck planking. They may have tracked fairly well. On land bases they didn't handle cross winds well and they known to to dip a wing on rough strips or in cross winds and put a wing tip into the ground. These may have been lower speed accidents and more easily repairable?
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I know that 20mm is better, but I don't care what the "USN thought", one 20mm, especially one carrying 60 rounds of ammunition, is definitely not equivalent to 3 x .50 cals.
12.7 x 99mm API round has velocity of 890 m/s, weighs 43 grams, carries 2% incendiary
20 x 110mm round has velocity of 860 m/s, weighs 130 grams, carries 8% HE
12.7mm ROF 13 rounds per second,
20mm Hispano II ROF 10 rounds per second
six 12.7mm Browning = 78 rounds per second, at 43 grams, a 'weight' of 3,354 grams, or 3+ kg at 890 m/s = KE of 1,328,351.7 Joules
two 20mm Hispano II = 20 rounds per second, at 130 grams, a 'weight' of 2,600 grams, or 2+ kg at 860 m/s = KE of 961,480 Joules
Add four .303 = 20 rounds per second, 11 grams, that's another 220 grams at 760 m/s
With the cannon armament, all of your power is basically in those two guns. If they fail, or miss, you got nothing. With the six .50 cals, you can have a couple of them jam and you are still good, and you are sending four times as many bullets down range, in a flatter trajectory, and are thus more likely to hit something most of the time. The 20mm has the HE shell burst but that isn't such a huge difference as to make up for that.
More important, the Seafire carried 60 round drums for each of those 20mms, whereas the Hellcat carried 400 rounds per gun, the Corsair carried 400 and 375. That makes a big difference, 60 rounds goes quickly (unless the guns jam).
It was lower than the air war over Europe but performance at 20 or 25,000 feet was still important. That's why the P-38 did so well in the Pacific.
The R-2800 was performing quite well at those altitudes, and the F4U was definitely much faster than the Seafire. According to "Armored Carriers", kind of a fan page for the RN, Seafires made claims of 39 enemy aircraft shot down in the whole war. I know that is not really a fair comparison as it's partly a measure of opportunity, but lets compare anyway:
F6F (US use) 5160 in the Pacific and 8 in Europe
F4U (US use) 2140 in the Pacific
Wildcats (US use) 986 in the Pacific and 26 in the Med where they were only very briefly engaged. (FM-2s claimed another 400+)
Lets compare performance:
Seafire
Seafire IIC gets 342 mph at 20,000 ft, about 320 mph at 16,000 ft
Seafire Mk III gets 338 at 20,000 ft. 351 mph at 10,000 ft, 312 at Sea Level,
Hellcat
F6F-3 gets 379 mph at 23,000 ft, 360 mph at 20,000 ft, about 310 mph at Sea Level
F6F-5 gets 390 mph at 24,000 ft, 380 at 15,000 ft, 318 at Sea Level (at military power)
Corsair
F4U-1 gets 430 mph at 20,000 ft (WEP) or 415 mph at 22,000 ft (military power) and 365 / 350 at Sea Level
(British) FG-1 gets 389 mph at 23,000 ft, 330 at Sea Level (this is a lower power setting 28" Hg, apparently they were having trouble during the test)
Nevertheless, even the one in the British test blows away the Seafire at all altitudes.
Seafire did climb better, especially down low, which is good for a Naval fighter, but I think they were actually kind of anemic at altitude which was also needed (especially for example facing dive bombers and their escorts)
Last edited:
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Apparently Seafires had a particular problem with cracking their props on the decks
IIRC the only US carriers to venture into the Med operationally in WW2 were:-
Wasp in April / May 1942 ferrying Spitfires to Malta. She retained at least 11 of the 27 F4F-4 of VF-71 during these operations, having left the rest of her airgroup ashore at Hatston in the Orkney Islands. They only flew CAP and had no engagement with the enemy.
The CVEs Kasaan Bay and Tulagi in Aug 1944 for Operation Dragoon. They took the Hellcat equipped VF-74 (32 F6F-5/3N) and VOF-1 (26 F6F-5) into action over Southern France.
Ranger took the F4F-4 (24 aircraft) equipped VF-4 with her while operating with the Home Fleet between Aug & Nov 1943.
And this ignores all the CVE operating in the Atlantic with composite squadrons containing F4F-4/FM-1/FM-2 from in the ASW role from early 1943, as well as the US carriers involved in Operation Torch in Nov 1942.
Wasp in April / May 1942 ferrying Spitfires to Malta. She retained at least 11 of the 27 F4F-4 of VF-71 during these operations, having left the rest of her airgroup ashore at Hatston in the Orkney Islands. They only flew CAP and had no engagement with the enemy.
The CVEs Kasaan Bay and Tulagi in Aug 1944 for Operation Dragoon. They took the Hellcat equipped VF-74 (32 F6F-5/3N) and VOF-1 (26 F6F-5) into action over Southern France.
Ranger took the F4F-4 (24 aircraft) equipped VF-4 with her while operating with the Home Fleet between Aug & Nov 1943.
And this ignores all the CVE operating in the Atlantic with composite squadrons containing F4F-4/FM-1/FM-2 from in the ASW role from early 1943, as well as the US carriers involved in Operation Torch in Nov 1942.
