Fastest low altitude allied Naval aircraft of WWII?

[Spitfires Forever]

Greetings to all

I have been reading Brown's book on the Seafire, and recently finished Mike Crosely's wonderful book (for the third time, that is how good it is)on his experience in the FAA. Both authors suggested that the Seafire LF Mk IIc (clipped, clapped, and cropped) was the fastest aircraft on the deck/sea level of the war. I had always understood that the Corsair was the fastest (in emergency power anyway) at least according to the myriad books I have read on the F4U. I imagine there are other candidates for this lofty position of fastest low altitude aircraft of WWII. Everyone has a favorite naval fighter, but with all bias aside, was the Seafire the fastest? The P-47M doesn't count, unless they put a tail hook on it! Feel free to chime in, I am sure there will be more than a few comments on this subject.

Cheers

[Dave Wilson]

I don't know but bear in mind that 'fastest' depends on a myriad of things, two of the same type of aircraft can be vastly different in top speeds given the same atmospheric day.

[Graham Boak]

The Seafire L Mk. III was basically an overweight Spitfire LF Mk.V, which because of the clipped supercharger would die at much above 10,000ft but was a pocket rocket up to then, with perhaps the fastest sea level rate of climb of any piston-engine fighter. The Spitfire Mk.XII/Seafire Mk.XV might have been better, but the heavier USN types didn't come near. The F2G or F8F probably would have done, but they didn't make the war. It therefore also had very good acceleration at low level, and it was partly for this reason that it was used as the last airborne line of defence for the Fleet. There's no doubt that the F4U was faster overall, but from what altitude?

[BrentCE]

Definitely the Corsair, especially the F4U-4. The F4U-1A/D with the R-2800-8W was good for 360+ mph at sea level and the F4U-4 hit 377 mph at sea level. The Seafire LF IIc/III with the Merlin 55m was way back at around 315-320 mph at sea level on +18 lbs boost/3000 rpm. It's sea level climb rate was excellent at almost 4,700 fpm, but it dropped off fairly quickly. At interceptor weight, the F4U-4 broke 4,800 fpm at sea level to around 10,000 ft and didn't drop below 4.000 fpm until almost 20,000 ft. Of course, the F4U-4 didn't see combat until May-June of 1945 so the F4U-1A/D mk II/IV is more representative starting around September 1943 for the water-injected -8w performance numbers.

Brent Erickson

Edited December 6, 2014 by BrentCE

[davidelvy]

Strictly speaking it would be wrong to call the L IIc 'clipped, clapped and cropped' as that phrase refers to the Vbs adapted to cope with the Fw190 at low level. L IIcs did not all have clipped wings and were not 'clapped' as they were not conversions from old airframes. They did, however, have Merlin engines with cropped vanes on their superchargers.

[Darby]

And here's me thinking it was the Skua

[DaveCromie]

Darby

surely you mean the Roc with its 303 calibre afterburners?

DC

Sorry for the thread drift but I couldn't resist it

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

How does the F8F and Sea Fury compare? I know neither saw combat in WW2 but they are essentially WW2 tech and their first flights were during WW2. I'm curious as I've seen the F8F, Sea Fury and F4U display at Duxford and the Sea Fury and F8F gave probably the most spirited display I can remember seeing from a piston engine a/c.

thanks

Mike

[Darby]

Darby

surely you mean the Roc with its 303 calibre afterburners?

DC

Sorry for the thread drift but I couldn't resist it

Forgot about those after cans. Just imagine if it could fire forward, airbrake or what?

[Guest]

Strictly speaking it would be wrong to call the L IIc 'clipped, clapped and cropped' as that phrase refers to the Vbs adapted to cope with the Fw190 at low level. L IIcs did not all have clipped wings and were not 'clapped' as they were not conversions from old airframes. They did, however, have Merlin engines with cropped vanes on their superchargers.

I'm just going by what I read, regardless I can't see the Merlin outperforming the R-2800 at sea level, but speed is in the eye of the beholder, or perception is reality.

[Work In Progress]

Yes, I'm reasonably sure the Corsair was faster than the Seafire LIIc on the deck, but power is not always what decides things: remember the Corsair is much bulkier and nearly twice the weight!

[espeefan]

As someone speculated above the F8F, which had deployed and was on the way to the western Pacific when the war ended, which I think makes it eligible for this discussion, was faster than either and had a higher rate of climb. Over 5000 FPM initially, and 415 MPH WE at sea level. I don't know the Sea Fury's numbers.

[Work In Progress]

If you get into what in the context of WW2 were the marginal and esoteric types then it's really just a question of what definitions you are prepared to accept as several could under various stretchings of the parameters be counted as faster naval aircraft than the R-2800 Corsair.

- While the Bearcat did not reached combat theatres it did at least get delivered as a customer product in small numbers during WW2.

- The Sea Fury didn't enter service until 1947, but the first prototype flew about 12 weeks before the Japanese surrender.

- The R-4360 F2G Corsair is another you could count if you didn't mind it not seeing combat service: the prototype flew before the end of the war.

Stretch in another way and you could even count the first jet to land on a carrier, which was LZ551, a Vampire. That airframe first flew as early as March 1944, though it did not land on a carrier until December 1945.

Of types that actually fought in WW2, I doubt we will find anything faster at low level than the R-2800 Corsair.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

If you get into what in the context of WW2 were the marginal and esoteric types then it's really just a question of what definitions you are prepared to accept as several could under various stretchings of the parameters be counted as faster naval aircraft than the R-2800 Corsair.

- While the Bearcat did not reached combat theatres it did at least get delivered as a customer product in small numbers during WW2.

- The Sea Fury didn't enter service until 1947, but the first prototype flew about 12 weeks before the Japanese surrender.

- The R-4360 F2G Corsair is another you could count if you didn't mind it not seeing combat service: the prototype flew before the end of the war.

Stretch in another way and you could even count the first jet to land on a carrier, which was LZ551, a Vampire. That airframe first flew as early as March 1944, though it did not land on a carrier until December 1945.

Of types that actually fought in WW2, I doubt we will find anything faster at low level than the R-2800 Corsair.

I was only asking as the Sea Fury and F8F had flown by the end of WW2 and they are WW2 tech (the Sea Fury being derived from the Tempest) and they represented the end of the line of naval single engine/seat piston fighters.

thanks

Mike

[Nobby57]

Don't mean to party-poop by going off tangent, but I received a Sword L MkIIc yesterday and looking at the two options in side-elevation, I noticed that the lower engine fairing/chin is much shallower in profile on the L.

Now, has anyone here made this kit, and if so, is the side-elevation accurate? There are only two parts and one is a Vokes.

Sorry if this is a derail,

Graham

[gingerbob]

I may be completely off-track here, but could it be that one is a Vokes-fitted Seafire, which was common, while the "L" as you call it has the later filtered intake, similar to that on the Spit VIII and late IXs, etc?

bob

[Nobby57]

Hi Bob, thanks for the response, I have the kit in front of me right now.

The kit number is SW72083 and has 2 options a L Mk.IIC of 809 NAS (1943), and a Mk.IIc of 880 NAS (1942), the former with a 4 blade prop and the latter with a 3 bladed prop. Neither show the Vokes intake but the L Mk. IIc has definitely got a shallower lower engine fairing than the Mk. IIc

As with a lot of the Sword/Admiral/Legato offerings, there are common sprues with several redundant parts.

I think I didn't express myself clearly enough. It would be best to actually photograph the drawings to show you what I mean, but you could very well be correct. As I'm a lover of the type but no aficionado, I'm at a loss as to a solution.

Better still here is a link...http://swordmodels.cz/475-thickbox_default/sw72083-seafire-mkiic.jpg

You'll notice the difference right away.

But once more thanks for your reply; and as I've said, I hope this isn't a derail

Graham

[gingerbob]

Now I see- hmm. I found a photo of the one (non-sharkmouth) and that does have a temperate non-filtered intake. Couldn't find a photo of the other, but there's a BM thread about it. I still think it might be the late filtered intake, just a poor rendering, but I'd like to see the photo!

bob

[woody37]

Didn't the PR versions have a deeper oil tank there? Could that be something that would affect profile differences at all?

[mike romeo]

Chaps,

I'm just building this particular kit (as the shark-mouthed LIIc) and can confirm that the undernose profile as well as the carb intake and spinner shape is different between the IIc and LIIc in the profiles on the rear of the box.

This is not due to an attempt to portray a Vokes filter or a PR variant or suchlike but, quite frankly, I'm at a loss to explain it. The IIc cowling (the deeper one) looks right for a Spit / Seafire without the early tropical filter, while the LIIc is shallower and - now my attention has been drawn to it - looks, quite frankly, wrong. There is only one undernose cowling piece included in the box and this is correct for either of the choices you can build oob (S-A MB218 and 7-K MB193) as neither had the tropical filter, (although it's included in the kit). My personal belief is that the LIIc profile is wrong. Why this should be, I haven't a clue.

Of course, whether MB218 actually had a sharkmouth is another question . . . and there's another thread discussing this somewhere here.

Apologies for further thread drift.

regards,

Martin

[Nobby57]

Right! To re-rail this thread all I can say is, thank you Bob, Woody and Martin. I'm nowhere near building any of the 10 Seafires in 1/72 I've amassed...but all of you thoughts have given me pointers and I shall obviously now, have to do some more research. But that's what I love.

Cheers All!

Now back to the fastest WWII naval fighter at sea level...ambient temperature and humidity factored in of course!!!

[XV107]

If you compare the figures for the F4U given here, with those of the Seafire LIIC given here

Report number 6195 from the former suggests 311mph for the F4U-1 at sea level while the latter has the Seafire going at 315mph at 0 feet.

For those who've not seen it, this is quite useful for this sort of thing, even if the trials cited didn't always use the same metrics, while this seems a pretty decent overview about comparing performance.

[BrentCE]

If you compare the figures for the F4U given here, with those of the Seafire LIIC given here

Report number 6195 from the former suggests 311mph for the F4U-1 at sea level while the latter has the Seafire going at 315mph at 0 feet.

For those who've not seen it, this is quite useful for this sort of thing, even if the trials cited didn't always use the same metrics, while this seems a pretty decent overview about comparing performance.

The F4U-1 report you quoted is for Normal power while the Seafire IIC speeds are at Combat/WEP power. Normal power for the Corsair is approximately 700 HP less than water-injection Combat power, 1550 HP vs. 2250 HP, hence the 311 mph@SL vice 360+ @SL.

U.K. and U.S. performance tests were reduced to standard atmospheric conditions so that the test results are directly comparable.

Brent