Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?

CORSNING said:

Readie,
I don't now about that. The Bf.109 was in the Spanish Civil War. Operational just a tad bit before the Spitfire. With every mark of Spitfire came a Bf.109 equal right up to 1945. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spit was an awesome weapon. But It was not always supreme throughout the war.

Click to expand...

The development race between the arch rivals was a leap frog affair as one would expect.
The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.
if they had never gone to war the Spitfire would still have been lauded as a pilots plane and the 109 forgotten.

As we got the upper hand in WW2 the 109's older design limited its use.
The Spitfire's development in power, weapons, range, versatility and longevity makes her the winner.

Before anyone says anything I know the 'G' version is supposed to be the hotrod version. But, it was too late to impact in WW2.

The other thing is that the Spitfire is a national treasure and symbol of all that we stand for. With the greatest of respect Its hard for American's to really understand how we feel about our wonderful Spitfire.

Cheers
John

Readie said:

The development race between the arch rivals was a leap frog affair as one would expect.
The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.
if they had never gone to war the Spitfire would still have been lauded as a pilots plane and the 109 forgotten.

Click to expand...

I dont know that the spitfire was superior just different. Some spitfire pilots during the BoB would have preferred top swap places with 109 pilots due to its diving ability and cannon armament.

Readie said:

The Spitfire's development in power, weapons, range, versatility and longevity makes her the winner.

Click to expand...

please don't include range that is a non starter as for longevity the 2nd largest user of Spitfires dropped them at end of war and swapped for the 51

pbfoot said:

please don't include range that is a non starter as for longevity the 2nd largest user of Spitfires dropped them at end of war and swapped for the 51

Click to expand...

Considering the Supermarine manufacturing plant was across a very wide ocean and where the NAA manufacturing plant was, it is not hard to understand why the switch to the P-51.

To say the Spitfire was a vastly superior aircraft to the 109 is absurd. Both aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over the other. There are too many factors involved to even come to a conclusion.

What altitude?
What speed?
What conditions?

Both aircraft traded slight superiority over the other throughout the war. As I told Ratsel, you have to put national pride aside to compare these two aircraft.

Readie said:

Before anyone says anything I know the 'G' version is supposed to be the hotrod version. But, it was too late to impact in WW2.

The other thing is that the Spitfire is a national treasure and symbol of all that we stand for. With the greatest of respect Its hard for American's to really understand how we feel about our wonderful Spitfire.

Cheers
John

Click to expand...

The G is not a hotrod version, if anything the G was probably the worst relative to its contemporaries, at least from 1943-44. Only the late G-10 and very similar K are "hotrods" and they were competetive to the contemporary Spitfire versions. The Spitfire benefits a lot from the more steady improvement of the Merlin when compared to the DB60x which had some problems in the mid of its lifecycle. It's important to note that the Spitfire and Mustang had the better fuel available, I wonder if there had been a performance gap between the Messerschmidt and those two had they all used the same grade fuel. Some of the aerodynamic refinements made to the Bf 109 could and should've been made earlier though (retractable tail wheel, main wheel fairings, G-10-style cowliung covers...).

lets be honest, the differences between any of the 109/spitfire marks are bordering on irrelevant compared to the importance of the tactical situation in which they engaged!

its interesting but these kind of threads will always be subjected to a degree of national/personal predjudice!

Personally I think that the Spitfire the Me 109 just reflect certain differing priorities in the context of a similar basic requirement.
Both are outstanding designs, clearly.
Each has its strengths and weaknesses (varying at diferent points in their WW2 life-cycles).
The big deal with the 109 was, I think, that it was not only a highly competitive fundamental design but it was optimised for ease of truly massive mass-production in a way that was simply unknown anywhere outside of the US once the great effort to 'build build build!' got going.

The one thing that I find incredible regarding the 109 is the vast array of sub-types field conversion, had they been able to standardise earlier and much more effectively I can imagine they would have produced several thousand more.
Meanwhile in the UK the chioce seems to have been to slog it out, the more difficult more expensive to produce Spitfire's production was bludgeoned into an incredible level of production all things considered.

In short 2 amazing planes I count myself very lucky to have seen both in the air and on the ground several times (real DB engined 109s too).
Thank god we are long past their reason for being and can just appreciate them for the technical historical marvels they were/are.....and perhaps spare some time to reflect on just how blessed some of us have been to have been born well past those dark terrible days.

Very well said Gixxerman.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

To say the Spitfire was a vastly superior aircraft to the 109 is absurd. you have to put national pride aside to compare these two aircraft.

Click to expand...

So, what part of YOUR national pride are you putting to one side before you say that then Chris?

Readie said:

So, what part of YOUR national pride are you putting to one side before you say that then Chris?

Click to expand...

1. Where have I used national pride to compare these two aircraft, or any aircraft?

2. What does being an American have to do with the Bf 109 and the Spitfire?

Come on now, now you are digging.

Seriously, the Bf 109 is my favorite aircraft, but I would never make a fool out of myself pretending it was the best. Nor would I kid myself into thinking the Spitfire or the Fw 190 were the best. There were aircraft built on both sides that were better than all 3 of them.

Lets be honest here, all of these aircraft (Bf 109, Spit, Fw 190, P-51 and Corsair since it was actually part of the thread topic) all were great aircraft. They all had advantages and disadvantages over the others. The better aircraft most of the time would be the one who's pilot could use his aircraft's particular advantages better than the other pilot.

Guys, guys guys........you take all of the 109 Spitfire jockeys and put them in a P-51B , they would say "what the hell have I been missing". Looks, performance, birdcage , it's a no brainer. They were both awesome birds and I'd give my left nut to fly in either one. When I look at a Spit I think that you can make it dance, when I look at a 109 I think pure fear. Two of the Greatest ever built.

Readie said:

The first primary difference is that the Spitfire was a superior aeroplane by design.

Click to expand...

This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.

Discussed 1000 times, two different but well balanced solutions. Strictly no evidence about full Spit conception superiority.

Altea said:

This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.

Discussed 1000 times, two different but well balanced solutions. Strictly no evidence about full Spit conception superiority.

Click to expand...

Discussed a million times Altea !!

I was referring to the pedigree of the Spitfire. The Schneider Trophy racing heritage and lessons learnt to make a plane not only beautiful to the eye and to fly but, also a deadly interceptor fighter. Supermarine and Rolls Royce came up with an advanced winning design.

I realise that the 109 is a popular aircraft on this forum but, I will stay loyal to the Spitfire.

Cheers
John

A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. However, Germany had the newer Fw 190 they could build on whereas GB was relying almost exclusively on the Spit for a long time due to a lack of adequate alternatives until the Mustang and later Tempests arrived.

It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently I get the impression hadn't they cut so many small corners with the G (like eliminating the radiator bypass) and added a few refinements the later made to the K it would've still been very competetive in the critical months of 1943-44 where the G-6 was clearly inferior to the opposition. I guess at the time the G was laid out they were too confident in the design due to the perceived superiority of the F. Really only the Spitfire V was seen as competetive at the time.

Readie said:

I will stay loyal to the Spitfire.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that either.

1. It was a great aircraft, and one of the best piston fighters ever built (and a very beautiful looking one as well).

2. Everyone has their favorite aircraft anyhow.

riacrato said:

A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. ...

It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently .

Click to expand...

I agree with that. But I don't see how would you comfort any allied pilot falling down with a Hurricane I or a P-40C after a fight with a 109F-4, for instance in North Africa.
Will you say to them your plane "would" be much easier to adapt on heavier and larger engines, the day they will be available?

riacrato said:

A side effect of the aircraft being "too big" was that it was more easy to adapt to heavier and larger engines and armament (also discussed a million times), thus it reached its design peak later. However, Germany had the newer Fw 190 they could build on whereas GB was relying almost exclusively on the Spit for a long time due to a lack of adequate alternatives until the Mustang and later Tempests arrived.

It is often said, they should've stopped building the Bf 109 after the F-version, but recently I get the impression hadn't they cut so many small corners with the G (like eliminating the radiator bypass) and added a few refinements the later made to the K it would've still been very competetive in the critical months of 1943-44 where the G-6 was clearly inferior to the opposition. I guess at the time the G was laid out they were too confident in the design due to the perceived superiority of the F. Really only the Spitfire V was seen as competetive at the time.

Click to expand...

We could take a look at respective powerplants, too: in the time Spit received two stage Merlins (both powerful reliable), 109 either soldiered with DB 601E, or struggled with DB 605s (only 1,3 ata allowed for more then 6 months - the engine that killed Marseille?). It took DB some 2 crucial years to make an engine as 'good' as Merlin 60's series

Altea said:

This is rather unsustainted claim, but at least shared by the TsAGI reports. Not very surprising, the Spit was an aerodynamist dream (it was the job of TsAGI's men) as well as production engeener nightmare...
Ok for the Spit's best Cd. At the same time, if Mitchell's team succeed to make it sleek, they forgot (or failed) to make it small (not in the absolute, but compared to the 109).
So the full drag = SCd is balanced or equivalent, at usual speeds. The higher 109 WL is compensated in turn by a thicker profile and lift devices.

Discussed 1000 times, two different but well balanced solutions. Strictly no evidence about full Spit conception superiority.

Click to expand...

My own belief is that the Spitfire was better more by luck than by actual design or intent. Both were different solutions to almost the same question/problem (but then so were the Hurricane and the Dw 520 and the P-36/P-40).

The bigger wing on the Spitfire was, in part, due to the official requirement. Once the RAF said they wanted 8 guns a small wing was pretty much out of the question. Mitchell guessed that the thin wing wing of the Spitfire would have less drag at high speed than the thick wing of the Hurricane. He didn't KNOW for absolute certainty. The Boffins at the RAE were assuring Camm that the thick wing section would pose no problem several years later on the Typhoon. The elliptical wing was a way of gaining interior volume in the wing as much as it was a way gaining efficiency. The elliptical wing offered more cord further out from the fuselage than a straight taper wing of equal size would. Mitchell needed the cord in order to get the thickness in inches that he needed in hide the landing gear in. As a for instance if you have an 80 in cord (distance front to back on a wing) a 16% thickness wing will have a maximum thickness 2.4 inches more than a 13% thickness wing with the same cord. Since Mitchell could not shrink things like the tires and needed certain minimum thicknesses at certain points and he had chosen a thin section wing he needed certain cord dimensions at certain points in the span to get those actual thicknesses. This gave him the ellipse ( I suppose he could have used a straight wing section out to the wheel wells and a then a succession of tapers, but that may have been not much easier to build than the ellipse). The wing section may have dictated the the gun layout. The thick Hurricane wing allowed for ammunition belts to pass over the tops of some guns to reach others. There may not have been room for this in the Spitfire wing which meant that the guns had to spaced to allow for ammunition between guns. This also pushed the last gun out near the wing tip so the wing needed a certain amount of thickness and cord to house the gun.
The 109s wing may have looked rather different if it had been required to hold eight guns.

The Spitfires larger wing may have been a detriment in the early years but it turned into an asset later on when it could not only house heavier armament but could support larger increases in weight with less detriment to it's flying qualities.

Airframe designers do not tell air staffs what armament to use, either in type of gun or numbers. They may provide more than the air staff requests but if more armament means lower performance their design stands a good chance of not being picked.

Airframe designers sometimes get to pick the engine and in other cases are told what engine to use. While any air frame designer could anticipate engines getting better ( more power for the same or little more weight) nobody in 1936 knew how fast or how far such improvement would go. Looking back at the last 10 years no designer would have thought that a 1935 fighter design would still be in production (even severally modified) 10 years in the future.

Altea said:

I agree with that. But I don't see how would you comfort any allied pilot falling down with a Hurricane I or a P-40C after a fight with a 109F-4, for instance in North Africa.
Will you say to them your plane "would" be much easier to adapt on heavier and larger engines, the day they will be available?

Click to expand...

Point taken, but then, not even heavier engines brought those two into the top tier of fighters. They simply weren't as good fighter designs (with all due respect) as the the Spit or Messerschmidt. Again it is about balance, but assuming that all else is equal, wouldn't you take the airframe with the longer design lifespan?

But I agree with Shortround6 in that the Spitfire's relative longevity compared to the Messer was more by accident then intent. I'm sure at the time, both design teams simply wanted to fulfill their specifications as good as they could at this time. Neither of the two specs was especially geared towards future improvements afaik.

I think overall 1940-45 the Spitfires are as a whole better WW2 fighters from a pilot perspective, but I think the Messerschmidt is the better weapon taking production and maintenance into account.