# P-51 vs. Hellcat



## nimrod.michaeli (Apr 3, 2009)

if the two were to fight who do you think would win


----------



## drgondog (Apr 3, 2009)

nimrod.michaeli said:


> if the two were to fight who do you think would win



depends on best pilot and to a degree the tactical situation - meet at 30,000 feet or on the deck?


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2009)

Below 25000 feet it would be pretty even with the Mustang having the ability to seperate out of the fight if needed. Above 25000 feet the P51 B,C or D would have a bigger advantage. The Hellcat would be able to absorb more damage and still be in the fight.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 3, 2009)

Hellcat. It was a great fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## koutsivtom (Apr 3, 2009)

hellcat!!!!!!!!P 51 was a great plane but F 6 was better and more stable in middle hights with a better engine and greater design.F-6 and F-8 was to my opinion the best designs of the american industry,the last before the jets.Us navy had earlier jet planes in service so these two great planes din't had the opportunity to proove their worth,because when they went to service,Japan was allready defeated and allmost all her good pilots were dead.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 4, 2009)

The Hellcat was a great plane. It could have taken on the FW 190A like the P-51 did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## twoeagles (Apr 8, 2009)

My Dad flew the Hellcat in the Pacific, and had his own P-51 as a hobby in the late 1960's. His opinion is he would take the Hellcat into a fight with the 'Stang.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fly boy (Apr 8, 2009)

i think the hellcat would win but if going against a few mustangs it would die


----------



## timshatz (Apr 8, 2009)

I am a huge fan of the Hellcat. Favorite fighter plane. Would want to fly it, if I got the chance.

That being said, I'd give the advantage to the Mustang. This is not based on any technical details other than speed. The Mustang can leave the fight when it wants, has the Hellcat in terms of level speed. Possible climb too. Add those two together and it's the better bird. 

Probably go give it a shot in IL2 and see what the results are. Not that it proves anything but I'd do a boom and zoom on the Mustang and see what happens.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 8, 2009)

fly boy said:


> i think the hellcat would win but if going against a few mustangs it would die


What do you call that in your country?
Over here, it's called 'stating the bleedin' obvious...'


----------



## fly boy (Apr 8, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> What do you call that in your country?
> Over here, it's called 'stating the bleedin' obvious...'



i wouldn't know i have never been to england i want to


----------



## Njaco (Apr 8, 2009)




----------



## dragonandhistail (Apr 8, 2009)

The Hellcat was top scorer during the war and much more rugged with its radial engine. It was a better ground attack aircraft by virtue of its ruggedness. I'd take it in any fight under 25,000 feet and in any ground attack or interdiction role. I'd take the P-51 as an escort and above 25K in altitude. Overall give me the F6F.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 8, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> The Hellcat was top scorer during the war and much more rugged with its radial engine. It was a better ground attack aircraft by virtue of its ruggedness. I'd take it in any fight under 25,000 feet and in any ground attack or interdiction role. I'd take the P-51 as an escort and above 25K in altitude. Overall give me the F6F.




The F6F barely topped the 51 in air combat scores, was far behind in the toughest strafing of all - German aircraft destroyed on German airfields - and got its scores against much more formidable opponents - 109s/190s and even 262s

Different war against non-common opponents, different missions


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

I think I would much rather be in a Hellcat then a Mustang due to the ruggedness of the Hellcat. When you went down in the ETO over the continent due to overheating you became a POW. The Hellcats radial engine saved countless pilots lives by taking abuse that woud force a Mustang pilot to ditch. Ditching in the Pacific was not a good thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Apr 8, 2009)

Two 109s and a 190 probably thought they were more formidable when they went up against the FAA's Hellcats over Norway. but that's one little incident. I'm not saying the Hellcat did stellar, but I think it could hold its own against German aircraft. 

My problem with the Hellcat is simply it's poor visibility. Maybe that's just an issue I have in IL-2.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm not a fans of mustang, for true neither helcatt, but i take mustang can take the initiative it's too fast on climb and level for helcatt.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Apr 9, 2009)

DRGONDOG,

But the F6F still topped the P-51 and that is what counts. As for your comment on strafing; different geography, different war. Lots of water in the Pacific and lots of land in Europe. The F6F would have been a much better strafer in the ETO as it was much more rugged. F6Fs tore up the Japanese aircraft and airfields when they found them. Just look at the carrier raids on Japan in the summer of 45 by F6Fs, they were deadly. P-51s were great strafers in 1944-45 because they were the predominant aircraft, not because they were better ground attack aircraft than the P-47, there were just more of them. ask most ETO pilots and I'll bet they'd prefer to do ground attack in the Jug than the Mustang due to the ruggedness and engine toughness issues. That was a big lesson from Korea. Mustangs went down in droves from single hits. I would also contend your comment about non-common opponents. German and Japanese pilots in 1944-45 were merely fodder for either opponent because of their lack of training, whether an F6F or P-51. It is hard to say that a 109 / 190 was superior to a Ki-84, J2M, or George. In fact the 109 would probably pale in comparison to any of these. The pilot would make all the difference and at that late date when the Mustang ran up its scores they were flying against pilots and planes that were hardly a match for them, much like the F6F against and Japanese opponents in the same timeframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Amsel (Apr 9, 2009)

"A man with a rifle" could shoot down a Mustang. At least that was a saying in the 8th Airforce.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 9, 2009)

Amsel said:


> "A man with a rifle" could shoot down a Mustang


The Hellcat was undoubtedly generally more resiliant to ground fire
but 'a man with a rifle' could equally put one through the canopy of the Hellcat and kill the pilot; would one be considered a lack of resiliance to small-arms fire and the other pure luck?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 9, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The Hellcat was undoubtedly generally more resiliant to ground fire
> but 'a man with a rifle' could equally put one through the canopy of the Hellcat and kill the pilot; would one be considered a lack of resiliance to small-arms fire and the other pure luck?


I agree. The post was just echoing the sentiment the Mustang pilots had toward the P-51 and it's liquid cooled motor and other associated technical problems they had flying over the "continent".


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I agree. The post was just echoing the sentiment the Mustang pilots had toward the P-51 and it's liquid cooled motor and other associated technical problems they had flying over the "continent".



Amsel - my father flew two tours in the Mustang, crash landed his Mustang from 100mi behind enemy lines, then three more times progressively closer to Steeple Morden - all flak. He had zero problem with a merlin engine powered Mustang whichj took him all the way to Russia on September 18, 1944. 

While he flew his share of Fighter Bomber Sweeps and Dive Bombing missions - the role of the 8th AF Mustang was to Kill The Luftwaffe. No other fighter did it better.

He much prefererred the 51 to the 47 and 38 as an ETO fighter.

Don't give too much credence to 'coolant damage fears' of Mustang pilots.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Amsel - my father flew two tours in the Mustang, crash landed his Mustang from 100mi behind enemy lines, then three more times progressively closer to Steeple Morden - all flak. He had zero problem with a merlin engine powered Mustang whichj took him all the way to Russia on September 18, 1944.
> 
> While he flew his share of Fighter Bomber Sweeps and Dive Bombing missions - the role of the 8th AF Mustang was to Kill The Luftwaffe. No other fighter did it better.
> 
> ...


Ok. Thats the bad thing about history, seperating fact from opinion. Hats off to your father; both of my grandfathers served in the PTO as well. I was mostly referring to the memoirs of "Bud" Fortier who also flew out of Steeple Morden with the 354th. He talked of some major growing pains with the P-51 and the vulnerability of it's engine, especially compared to the radial powered fighters. I assume that many people will figure the Mustang to be the best fighter in the American arsenal as well as the Hellcat for some of the same reasons.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> DRGONDOG,
> 
> But the F6F still topped the P-51 and that is what counts.
> 
> ...



Take a hard look at when the P-51 made 80% of its scores - long before 1945. In 1945 the LW basically pulled back Defense of the Reich from the West and devoted much of its strength against USSR. My father saw enemy fighters (in the distance) once in 1945. You want to match Luft Flotte Reich fighter pilots skills (and numbers) against IJN in Dec 1943 -Dec 1944?

Make your case with facts - not generalities..


----------



## drgondog (Apr 9, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Ok. Thats the bad thing about history, seperating fact from opinion. Hats off to your father; both of my grandfathers served in the PTO as well. I was mostly referring to the memoirs of "Bud" Fortier who also flew out of Steeple Morden with the 354th. He talked of some major growing pains with the P-51 and the vulnerability of it's engine, especially compared to the radial powered fighters. I assume that many people will figure the Mustang to be the best fighter in the American arsenal as well as the Hellcat for some of the same reasons.



Go back and re-read it and reflect on Bud's comments about my father Bert Marshall..

Bud was one of the best and one of the very few that started ops at Steeple Morden in 1943 and finished when the war ended. Bud loved the 51. He got all of his scores (save 1/3 of a shared kill on his last mission in a Jug) in the Mustang.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2009)

Was the main difference between PTO and ETO fighters the ability to land on carriers? I mean, if one plane was good enough to take on Zekes and Fw190s, why so many different type fighters? I understand about different IPs but if the Hellcat could tangle well with 109s why wasn't it used in the ETO and vice versa?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2009)

That's a question I used to wonder about too. Part of it was the landing on Carriers thing, Carrier birds had to have good low speed handling. That usually translates into lots of lift and a big, wide wing. Also, the Navy liked radial engines because they saw them as more reliable. No pluming system to cool gave you one less problem to deal with and one less thing to fail. 

The Army liked inline engines because they lead to less draggy airframes and that translated into speed. Big thing for Army fighters, not so important for the bombers (where reliability was more important). However, as power increased, (and other aerodynamic changes) the down side of a blunt front mattered less and less. Hence the P47.

But that doesn't explain the Corsair. Good leggs, far enough along in the development process to be a good, long range fighter when the USAAF needed one but never got there. With drop tanks, it could probably make it as far as Berlin (a guess there). But it never happend.

I used to know the answer, but forgot.


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Apr 10, 2009)

I also heard the navy preferred radial engines because glycol is flammable, and that's one less hazard on a ship. I noticed in IL-2 that a few hits to the glycol tank on the Mustang causes the plane to explode, but that's just a game and I don't know how well the actually translated into real life.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

Interesting stats on Hellcat. Flew 66530 sorties with 553 losses to AA, 270 to AC and 340 operational. It shot down 1445 bombers and 3718 fighters. A question would be how many fighters that were acting as kamikazes? My guess is that the bag of the P51 shows a lot higher proportion of fighters and no kamikazes in the ETO. No doubt in my mind as to the degree of difficulty. The overall quality of Japanese pilots went steeply downhill after mid 1943 although obviously there were some of the old timers such as Saburo still around at the end. Prior to the Leyte Gulf battle some of the IJN pilots could barely execute a carrier landing. The Hellcat was a formidable ACM AC and probably would have held it's own in the ETO as a fighter bomber and low and medium altitude fighter but there was no way it could fill the role of a long range escort fighter working at altitudes of 20 to 30000 feet as well as the Mustang. The truth is that the Hellcat was a kind of easy going work horse that could do a lot of things fairly well, including carrier landings, but was not especially stellar at anything. The Hellcat had good visibility, better than the P51B or C because the pilot sat high with good visibility over the nose. Probably not as good overall as the P51D.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 10, 2009)

I would not ever discount the Grumman F6f5. It was one of the best aircraft of the second world war. Not as glamorous as the European duty a/c but it was fast, hardy, and manueverable.


----------



## renrich (Apr 10, 2009)

A quote from a WW2 pilot comparing the Corsair versus the Hellcat. "The Corsair was a high strung predator while the Hellcat was a nice safe pussycat." In comparing the Hellcat versus the Mustang, the Hellcat was very good at the job it was designed for; a reliable, rugged, easy to maintain, easy to fly, carrier fighter which had the necessary performance edge over most of the enemy. The Mustang came to be the premier long range escort fighter of the war. Neither would have been outstanding at the other's mission.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 10, 2009)

timshatz said:


> That's a question I used to wonder about too. Part of it was the landing on Carriers thing, Carrier birds had to have good low speed handling. That usually translates into lots of lift and a big, wide wing. Also, the Navy liked radial engines because they saw them as more reliable. No pluming system to cool gave you one less problem to deal with and one less thing to fail.
> 
> *The USN did prefer radial engines and never purchased an aircraft with an in-line engine AFAIK.
> 
> ...



It was a USN ship. 

The Army didn't buy Navy and the Navy didn't buy Army except when there was no other choice (B-25 for USMC and PB4-Y modified B-24 for USN patrol bomber, plus A-24/SBD for USAAF)


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 11, 2009)

> Neither would have been outstanding at the other's mission.



It would have been pretty interesting if they had tried to put folding wings on a P-51!


----------



## renrich (Apr 11, 2009)

An interesting comparison between Hellcat and P47, somewhat similar AC playing somewhat similar roles. There were 12275 F6Fs manufactured and they flew around 66500 sorties, almost all in the PTO. There were 15683 Jugs built and they flew around 423400 sorties in the ETO and some more in the PTO. That means that each Hellcat flew 5.42 sorties if each flew the same amount. (Not true) Each Jug flew 27 sorties if you don't count the PTO. Hmmmmm? On the face of it the Jug was a lot better value for the taxpayer. Another statistical curiosity. There were around forty US carriers of all sizes in WW2. Most of the Hellcat service was off of carriers. If we say the average carrier had 20 Hellcats, taking into account CVLs and CVEs, that accounts for 800 Hellcats. The Hellcat only had a total of 591 AC lost. What were they doing with the other more than 11000 Hellcats. Is there some cave somewhere that is full of Hellcats or maybe an AC graveyard called Hellcat Heaven. The Jug had 3077 losses in the ETO which makes the number easier to reconcile. I sense a scandal here.


----------



## barney (Apr 11, 2009)

I’m a lurker here, but having just finished Saburo’s book of WWII exploits, I remember the section where he first encountered the Hellcat. Saburo, at this stage was a one eyed pilot but was the master of his mount, the Zero. And, he encountered a sky full of Hellcats. So, he dipped into his arsenal of Zero tricks and was surprised when those maneuvers were matched by the enemy. If the US Navy pilots could have shot, I guess shooting is something only learned with time in combat, he would not have lived to write his book or so he says. 

My wife bought me a model set of two planes for Christmas, a 109 and a 
F6F – a strange combination. Anyway, the horizontal tail surfaces on the 
F6F as compared to the 109 are huge. Maybe this was needed for slow speed landings on a carrier or maybe it was to allow the pilot to pull more gees. The F6F model almost looks like it has four wings. 

To get to the question under discussion, as the Mustang pilot, I wouldn’t want to be pulled into a low maneuver fight with the F6F if it can follow a Zero. I’d want to be high and fast. Otherwise, it would be time to run away.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 11, 2009)

Hi Nimrod,

>if the two were to fight who do you think would win

The Mustang, at least more often than the Hellcat.

Here is a comparison, based on the F6F data from here ...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...d-corsair-vs-grumman-f6f-5-hellcat-17293.html

... and on Mustang III data from a British comparison of Hornet I, Meteor III, Spitfire XIV and Mustang III.

(The Mustang III is a well-streamlined non-bubbletop version with a relatively light weight, so it looks rather favourable. On the other hand, the British data is for just +15 lbs/sqin, not for the +18 lbs/sqin the Mustang was cleared for later.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Apr 12, 2009)

I'm sure colorful graphs would tell you the B-239 performed worse than its Russian competitors, yet the Finns were beating the Russians. Obviously the pilot can really turn the tide in a fight.

I understand the Hellcat isn't the do everything airplane people are trying to portray. It was built to survive a beating, be easy to fly, and easy to produce, and to replace the aging Wildcat.

That being said, I think a good pilot in the Hellcat could frustrate a talented Mustang pilot, and then exploit a mistake. Of course, it could always go the other way.


----------



## tpikdave (Apr 12, 2009)

*To get to the question under discussion, as the Mustang pilot, I wouldn’t want to be pulled into a low maneuver fight with the F6F if it can follow a Zero. I’d want to be high and fast. Otherwise, it would be time to run away.*

Barney said the above...... I don't think it could be said better.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Hellcat,

>I'm sure colorful graphs would tell you the B-239 performed worse than its Russian competitors, yet the Finns were beating the Russians. Obviously the pilot can really turn the tide in a fight.

"Colourful" graphs have always been the means of judging the quality of fighters, and it would be stupid to ignore them:

WWII Aircraft Performance

The Finns beat the Russians were incompetent and the Finns were not. 

Take two equally competent pilots, and the winner will most likely be the guy in the superior performing fighter - in this case, the Mustang.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Tpikdave,

>>To get to the question under discussion, as the Mustang pilot, I wouldn’t want to be pulled into a low maneuver fight with the F6F if it can follow a Zero. I’d want to be high and fast. Otherwise, it would be time to run away.

>Barney said the above...... I don't think it could be said better.

"... if it can follow a Zero" - oh well, it can't, not in a turn, not even remotely.

Here's the gen.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2009)

Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?

Lowest speed for Clmax, which is specific to exact conditions. This works out as about 260 km/h for the A6M3 at sea level, and 10 - 15 km/h more than that for the F6F-5.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?
> 
> ...



Gotcha - thanks!

Now I wonder what the same data would be at say 515 KPH?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Now I wonder what the same data would be at say 515 KPH?

Considering 6 G the maximum a WW2 pilot without G suit could pull without blacking out, the A6M3 would reach that figure at sea level at 350 km/h, a speed at which the F6F-5 would only be able to pull 4 G. This would be far beyond what the engine could sustain, so both aircraft would slow down rather quickly to the speeds quoted in my above post, with the F6F-5 being unable "to follow the Zero" at speeds below 420 km/h if we adhere to the 6 G pilot-induced maximum.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## barney (Apr 12, 2009)

The Hellcat was on the drawing board before the outbreak of war between Japan and the US. Still, the designers had access to the Aleutian Zero and the Zero was a dogfighter and principle US Navy aerial enemy at the time. You’d think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray. Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?


----------



## tpikdave (Apr 12, 2009)

OH well, can't argue with those graphs I guess. Could you expand the size, I need some new wallpaper for my grandkids bedroom. 

The A6M was a beautiful plane and a marvel to handle in a dogfight. It was also a "flambe in waiting" and all it took was one incendiary round. The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Apr 12, 2009)

barney said:


> The Hellcat was on the drawing board before the outbreak of war between Japan and the US. Still, the designers had access to the Aleutian Zero and the Zero was a dogfighter and principle US Navy aerial enemy at the time. You’d think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray. Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?



Well Grumman looked at what they drew up and what was out in the field and decided to increase the horsepower of the Hellcat and better protect it. With the tactics at hand, maneuverability was becoming less important compared to speed and numbers. If a Zero was on your tail, you could run away, or have your buddies pick him off of ya.

It's also hard to build a plane with the armor to keep inexperienced pilots alive, and the turning ability to combat the Zero. But you could build one that keeps inexperienced pilots alive, and goes really fast in a dive with guns blazing.


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2009)

The Hellcat was originally designed for a smaller engine but, finding the performance goals were not met, Grumman went to the R2800. A Zero like AC could have been designed but an equivalent to the A6M was not desired. The Navy wanted something superior.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Barney,

>You’d think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray. 

They could have substantially reduced the weight (difficult without major redesign, which would have taken a lot of time), or increased the wing area, which would have been difficult to fit on a carrier and reduced speed performance. Or they could have increased the power - which they did, by replacing the R-2600 of the XF6F-1 with the R-2800 of the XF6F-3.

>Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?

Speed alone was the most important characteristic of a WW2 fighter. You can't really use extreme manoeuvrability without threatening unit cohesion, and on the other hand manoeuvrability can be defeated by coordinated attacks.

Additionaly, superior speed at the beginning of an engagement is equivalent to excess energy that can be traded for a position advantage - this can get you into a shooting position quickly even though you might not have a chance in a longer dogfight.

The F6F really had the decisive qualities it needed to be successful against the Japanese fighters it faced, even though its speed might appear a bit low compared to contemporary Western fighter.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Tpikdave,

>The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.

Grumman actually built such a plane, the F8F Bearcat 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Here is a comparison, based on the F6F data from here ...



Hello Henning,

Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944. At these boost levels, the P-51s are faster at sealevel by 25 to 35 mph and roughly continues at this level as altitude increases (at 20k the P-51D has a 21 mph advantage and the P-51B has about a 30 mph advantage), and the P-51B/D outclimbs the F6F-5 at all altitudes, and it will also out dive the F6F-5.

I would take the P-51 any day due to its much better command of energy management, it has too many more tools to use.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 13, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944. 

Good point - do you have a complete data set with weight, top speed at specified altitude, and boost level used?

Then I might be able to add a P-51D contemporary to the F6f-5 to the chart 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2009)

actual flight test data with specified takeoff weights by loading, as well as a range of averages for speeds and boosts are well documented in Mike's site

P-51 Mustang Performance

In most cases full internal fuel is always used, sometimes ballast for ammo and sometimes a full fuselage tank but the report will so state as well as the calculated gross weight for the resulting test.

And, for what it is worth G-suits were available to all 8th AF FC pilots starting in September and completed by November, 1944 so the average Mustang pilot by then was better equipped for high G manuevers than their counterparts not so equipped.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> And, for what it is worth G-suits were available to all 8th AF FC pilots starting in September and completed by November, 1944 so the average Mustang pilot by then was better equipped for high G manuevers than their counterparts not so equipped.


Oh but their counterparts seats were reclined back, so there was no advantage there!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh but their counterparts seats were reclined back, so there was no advantage there!



I DO remember that argument! Where is he anyway?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Davparlr,
> 
> >Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944.
> 
> ...



Here is some data on the P-51B using 44-1 fuel from Spitfireperformance. Data on the P-51D using this fuel and boost seems to be lacking. Performance of the P-51D with 44-1 fuel should be similar to the P-51B accounting for slightly greater weight, P-51D, fighter weight is 9611 lbs., and is probably slightly less clean. I hope this helps.

Airspeed
P-51B w/44-1 fuel
A/C 43-24777
Tested Wt. 9339 lbs
Reference Fighter wt. 9263 lbs
Tested boost 75 inches
Source 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-level.jpg

Altitude (ft), Airspeed (mph) with/racks, Airspeed without/racks

SL, 376, 386

5k, 400, 410

10k, 411, 420

15k, 414, 427

20k, 429, 442

25k, 424, 440

30k, 436, 430 (extrapolated) 

Climb
P-51B w/44-1 fuel
A/C 43-24777
Tested Wt. 9335 lbs 
Reference Ftr.Wt. 9236 lbs
Tested boost 75 inches
With racks
Source
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-climb.jpg

Altitude (ft), Climb Rate (ft/min)

SL, 4380

5k, 4000

10k, 3820

15k, 3660

20k, 2940
25k, 2600

30k, 1600


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I DO remember that argument! Where is he anyway?



Don't know, I was wondering the same!


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2009)

twoeagles said:


> My Dad flew the Hellcat in the Pacific, and had his own P-51 as a hobby in the late 1960's. His opinion is he would take the Hellcat into a fight with the 'Stang.



I suspect he never pushed his private Mustang the way the way he pushed the government F6F.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 14, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I suspect he never pushed his private Mustang the way the way he pushed the government F6F.


True, that veteran aviator is crazy for loving the piece of crap Hellcat.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Dav,

>Performance of the P-51D with 44-1 fuel should be similar to the P-51B accounting for slightly greater weight, P-51D, fighter weight is 9611 lbs., and is probably slightly less clean.

To correctly portray the P-51D with bubble canopy, I decided to use the Mustang IV data from the flight test here:

Mustang IV Flight Trials

It seemed to be the best-documented P-51D test, showing compressibility corrections etc.

The weight given there is 9480 lbs with an empty fuselage tank. As 67" Hg is given as power rating for 5 min duration in the report, and also as maximum in my reprint of the 1945 P-51 Mustang manual, I decided to use this rating (first).

Here is the comparison to the Hellcat. The engine data I used for the calculation is slightly different than that for the earlier Mustang III calculation due to the data listed on P-51 Mustang Performance

Note that the figures listed by the British are for a weight of 9000 lbs while mine are for the take-off weight of 9480 lbs. With a full fuselage tank, the weight would be 9990 lbs. You listed a fighter weight of 9611 lbs, which is probably with empty fuselage tank but a bit more equipment and stuff 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 14, 2009)

FWIW, my vote is for the P-51 over the Hellcat. For the best of both types, it would be a P-51B/C versus the F6F-5.

The P-51 has the following advantages:
Level Speed
Diving Speed
Climb Rate
Roll Rate

They are equal in firepower for as long as it matters

The Hellcat has an edge in sustained turn.

I don't know which aircraft has better acceleration but with the climb rate advantage and power loading, the P-51 probably wins here as well. How can you win against someone who has every advantage except for low speed turns if he doesn't want to play your game? I don't think durability is enough.

- Ivan.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>Tested boost 75 inches

As power data for 80" Hg accompanies the Mustang IV test, I just went ahead and tried to make (or actually made) some graphs for this power settings.

However, I found that these data points don't match the 67" Hg data points in a way that makes it likely that increasing boost after providing the correct fuel was the only change. I'm not sure, but the 80" Hg data looks a lot like the "Jumo 213 mit A-Lader als Bodenmotor" data, showing a Jumo 213 with increased boost and reduced compression ratio. Perhaps that's not just coincidence, but convergent evolution 

Anyway, I proceeded more cautiously then and attempted to extrapolate power at 72" Hg from the data for 67" Hg. This went fairly well, and since 72" Hg is specifically mentioned in three quotes provided by Mike on his site, it's probably a good basis for a fair comparison to the F6F-5.

Here the graphs ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Davparlr,
> 
> >Tested boost 75 inches
> 
> ...



Those graphs look pretty good for your data points. That test shows a bit slower than other tests but probably within error. SL climb appears more closely related to 67".

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-climb.jpg

75" was approved and often used, but 72" was the official AAF WEP setting so that is a good selection. Apparently the Brits tested to 80" but I have no evidence they used it.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Apr 15, 2009)

The hellcat is just to slow.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>That test shows a bit slower than other tests but probably within error.

I like the original data set since it is subject to the full British methodology, which usually gives good result with few self-contradictory effects and so on. There are (fortunately) many Mustang tests around, but some show effects that make me think "How on earth ...?" 

>SL climb appears more closely related to 67".

Hm, interesting. This is a big difference as in addition to the greater climb rate, they also used a higher weight. As my climb calculation usually tends a bit towards the high side and I'm low in this case, I have to file this under "unexplained contradiction" 

>75" was approved and often used, but 72" was the official AAF WEP setting so that is a good selection. Apparently the Brits tested to 80" but I have no evidence they used it.

I really wonder if they changed the compression ratio for the V-1 chaser engines ... I've never read about that before, but it would explain the apparent "kink" that results from connecting the data points directly.

From my latest graph with the 67" and 72 "Hg curves, you can graphically extrapolate the 75" Hg curves easily by just "sliding" the full-pressure bits towards higher performance by 60% of the difference between 67" and 72" Hg 

By the way, the talk is of 80" Hg (on Mike's site, too), but the British apparently considered it +25 lbs/sqin which I convert to 80.82" Hg.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi again,

Well, I made a new set of generic engine power curves based on the 67" Hg power curve on Mike's site.

I found that the (admittedly slightly suspect) sea level power figure in the original data point does not scale well in the extrapolation, so I replaced it with a generic figure based on the temperature quotient between full throttle height and sea level.

This helped climb rate a bit, but (unavoidably) also resulted in a higher sea level speed. Take this with a grain of salt - the source data just appears not to be perfectly coherent.

So here a set of curves for the Mustang IV at different power settings, compared to the F6F-5 ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi again,
> 
> - the source data just appears not to be perfectly coherent.



It seems that those of us that try to make something coherent from what data we have are doomed to despair. Your charts looks as good as I've seen. Good work.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Apr 21, 2009)

STANG..most definitly...Being able to break off combat at will is a bigger advantage then most think--I love leaving La7's and spitfires in the dust with my jug in il2, amids the catcalls of "Boom and zoom noob", and "You wimp TURN AND FIGHT" 

I think a hellcat would only take a mustang in a low speed turnfight as the Stang's instability would probably do it in.


and sorry for the long Hiatus guys...good to see you guys are still at it in here


----------



## eddie_brunette (Apr 21, 2009)

F6F for me 

edd


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

The P-51 is way faster, and like most fighter pilots will confirm, speed is life!

The F6F should turn better at low alt and at slow speeds, but thats all its got going for it.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

The Jug Rules! said:


> STANG..most definitly...Being able to break off combat at will is a bigger advantage then most think--I love leaving La7's and spitfires in the dust with my jug in il2, amids the catcalls of "Boom and zoom noob", and "You wimp TURN AND FIGHT"
> 
> I think a hellcat would only take a mustang in a low speed turnfight as the Stang's instability would probably do it in.
> 
> ...



What 'instability' are you talking about??


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Apr 22, 2009)

Mustangs were know to be a bit unstable, especially with fuel in the aft fuselage tank, witch im shure in a low speed turnfight would probably end with the mustang spinning in


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2009)

The Jug Rules! said:


> Mustangs were know to be a bit unstable, especially with fuel in the aft fuselage tank, witch im shure in a low speed turnfight would probably end with the mustang spinning in



The SOP was to use the fuselage tank at least to 25 gallon point. At that point the 51 no longer had an aft cg issue. Most of the time that 60 (of 85) gallons would be used up by the time it was crossing the English Channel. Additionally, the Fuse tank was only filled beyond 25 gallons in the case of very long escort or ferry runs.

The LW failed to exploit this temporary condition by virtue of not attacking Brit airfields.

If, on the other hand a Mustang did engage w/fuse tanks full he was risking a violent snap roll in a sharp turn. Rarely happened.


----------



## Watanbe (Apr 22, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> FWIW, my vote is for the P-51 over the Hellcat. For the best of both types, it would be a P-51B/C versus the F6F-5.
> 
> The P-51 has the following advantages:
> Level Speed
> ...



Thats exactly what I think! In all the key areas the P51 seems the better choice! The Hellcat did its role perfectly, it was produced to out perform its competition at the time, be rugged, easy to produce and be operable from a carrier. It did all these things and was a key to success in the Pacific. I just don't see how it compares to a P51 which appears to have a significant advantage over it! They are different fighters, produced with different criteria! In the time the hellcat was scoring significant victories in the Pacific the Luftwaffe was still a dangerous, very well organised force.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 23, 2009)

Hellcat.


----------



## ironcat46 (Apr 25, 2009)

What criteria do you use when comparing two very different aircraft? Appearance? A twin row Pratt Whitney 2800 radial engine vs. liquid cooled Rolls Royce? Hands down the Mustang was the looker. Top speed? Mustang. Climb rate? Hellcat. Durability? Hellcat. Combat proficiency? Hellcat. Why? A 19:1 kill ratio. Hellcats shot down 5163 enemy aircraft of all types with the loss of only 270 cats! The Mustang only achieved a 3.6:1 ratio. I suspect one reason the Mustang always out votes the competition is that it was the most produced American fighter of WW2, and it got its rep in the ETO (which for some reason was the more glamorous stage). Bottom line though is durability. Me thinks that over water be it the Pacific or Channel, the radial reliability of the Hellcat’s Pratt Whitney (or a Jug’s its ETO counterpart) would seal the deal for me. There were only about 4 thousand some odd more Mustangs produced than Hellcats during the war, but there were almost 10 times as many P-51’s lost than F5F’s!


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 25, 2009)

ironcat46 said:


> What criteria do you use when comparing two very different aircraft? Appearance? A twin row Pratt Whitney 2800 radial engine vs. liquid cooled Rolls Royce? Hands down the Mustang was the looker. Top speed? Mustang. Climb rate? Hellcat. Durability? Hellcat. Combat proficiency? Hellcat. Why? A 19:1 kill ratio. Hellcats shot down 5163 enemy aircraft of all types with the loss of only 270 cats! The Mustang only achieved a 3.6:1 ratio. I suspect one reason the Mustang always out votes the competition is that it was the most produced American fighter of WW2, and it got its rep in the ETO (which for some reason was the more glamorous stage). Bottom line though is durability. Me thinks that over water be it the Pacific or Channel, the radial reliability of the Hellcat’s Pratt Whitney (or a Jug’s its ETO counterpart) would seal the deal for me. There were only about 4 thousand some odd more Mustangs produced than Hellcats during the war, but there were almost 10 times as many P-51’s lost than F5F’s!


You are correct.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 25, 2009)

Hellcat! It had the unbeatable 19:1 kill ratio and it proved to be one of the most succesful navy fighters.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2009)

ironcat46 said:


> What criteria do you use when comparing two very different aircraft? Appearance? A twin row Pratt Whitney 2800 radial engine vs. liquid cooled Rolls Royce? Hands down the Mustang was the looker. Top speed? Mustang. Climb rate? Hellcat. Durability? Hellcat. Combat proficiency? Hellcat. Why? A 19:1 kill ratio. Hellcats shot down 5163 enemy aircraft of all types with the loss of only 270 cats! The Mustang only achieved a 3.6:1 ratio.
> 
> *As a first time poster - I greet you. But I would like to take the time to request your sources and direct me specifically to your Macr rollup that leads you to believe any ratio you want people to believe. The 8th AF Mustangs, for example destroyed 3328 LW a/c in the air, 3212 on the ground, lost 326 in air to air combat, lost 570 strafing - and including losses air/ground lost a total of 1280 "all in" meaning
> air
> ...



I suspect, without proof that the F6F is more durable because of the radial and would have been a better ship strafing airfields - but I would point out that the Mustang lost fewer aircraft per strafing award than either the P-47 or the P-38. 

You are comparing apples to oranges in both the Mission and the Competition.

A simple fact is that the Hellcat couldn't do what the Mustang did over Berlin and Poland and Czechoslovakia and Rumania and Austria - and the Mustang would never be carrier qualified by Navy brass.

I might also draw your attention to Henning's plots on the P-51D versus the F6F-5, which I have checked based on the flight test data. While we don't compeltely agree on some details (SL and altitude greater than Critical Performance altitudes are good) the trends and comparitive performance differences are pretty good. 

I might also point out that the P-51B-5 with a Merlin 1650-3 or a P-51B-7 and -15 with the Merlin 1650-7 are all significantly better in climb and better in turn than the P-51D due to a.) better engine performance at high altitude for the -3 and about 500 pounds less take off weight than the P-51D.

My sources for the above statistics are;

USAF 85 (and Frank Olynyk's Stars and Bars) for cross reference of air Awards, 
the 8th AF Victory Credits Board for Ground scores, 
the Missing Aircrew Reports for 8th AF and, 
the Accident Reports for the 8th AF

So, your sources would be?

So, in conclusion, present your Hellcat breakouts with sources so that we may learn from your academics.

Perhaps you and Doughboy can share data?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Watanbe (Apr 25, 2009)

If pilots of equal skill are fighting off in a Hellcat vs Mustang battle I would pick the Mustang every time. Its performance edge is to much to overcome, it has the ability to dictate how the fight proceeds!


----------



## lukeready4war (Apr 26, 2009)

i thing war will break lol


----------



## lukeready4war (Apr 26, 2009)

mustangs suck go BMW


----------



## lukeready4war (Apr 26, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> If pilots of equal skill are fighting off in a Hellcat vs Mustang battle I would pick the Mustang every time. Its performance edge is to much to overcome, it has the ability to dictate how the fight proceeds!


 mustangs suck go BMW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2009)

I suggest you stop being an asshat noob or you will be removed from this forum.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2009)

One more unintelligible post out of you, luke, and you are outta here.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 26, 2009)

I think that the P-51B-15 with Malcom Hood has it over the Hellcat.... It had it over the P-51D thats for sure....


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

Is this done on equal terms? Mustang with carrier landing equipment or the Hellcat without it?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2009)

Gotta go with the P-51 on this one. Yes, the Hellcat had a higher kill/loss ratio, but the Mustang served in BOTH Pacific and European theaters for the US. 

Quote from Saburo Sakai:


> "For a short period of time the fighters broke the B-29's myth of invinciability, and the Raiden's four cannon and flashing speed raised our hopes by blowing several B-29's out of the sky."
> 
> "The enemy's answer was to send swarms of Mustangs over Japan during the daylight raids. The swift enemy fighters tore savagely at our planes and slaughtered them. Where the Raiden shone against the B-29, it was helpless before the swifter, more manuverable Mustang."



And for the record, the top Hellcat ace, David McCampbell had 34 victories. The top Mustang ace, Don Gentile, had 35 kills. 

When you look at the service record and longevity, the P-51 was kept around for a lot longer after the war, serving in some countries well into the 1980s.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

evangilder said:


> When you look at the service record and longevity, the P-51 was kept around for a lot longer after the war, serving in some countries well into the 1980s.


I don't know if this could be taken into account in this arguement due to many of those poorer countries who used the Mustang not having aircraft carriers, and needing a carrier bird.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2009)

But if it was better than the Mustang, other countries would have wanted it too, right?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

That is correct, but only if those nations needed a carrier bird. As far as I know the P-51 could never be considered for naval service on a carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2009)

Not with liquid cooled engines for the US Navy anyway.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Is this done on equal terms? Mustang with carrier landing equipment or the Hellcat without it?



Well, the Thread is P-51 vs Hellcat with no distinction regarding opponents fought, missions flown, mission profile or even distinctions between dash numbers. The way I looked at it was 'bring what you have' and talk about it.

I am of the school that the P-51B-15 with Merlin 1650-7 and malcolm hood was the best overall performing - aerodynamically - fighter that the US fought with during WWII.

I acknowledge and agree that the F4U-4 was its peer - better in some flight regimes, inferior in others.

For the ETO, this airplane was the difference maker in US Strategic bombing capability.

For the PTO, the F4U-4 was a better choice simply because it was carrier qualified. The F6F-5 and P-38L in my opinion were superb but slightly below the Mustang and Corsair.

A comment on air to air scores is in order also.

The Mustang scored most of its victories in the ETO and MTO, and the run on the LW was between Dec 43/Jan44 through Jan 14, 1945. After that period the Luftwaffe basically and dramatically reduced defending the West to shift to East to fight VVS.

While the 51s fought in CBI, they really had no dog in the IJA/IJN hunt in the PTO until the Phillipines, then Iwo Jima, were taken and the Mustangs were in a position to not only escort with very limited time over Japan - but also sweep the home island and Formosa. Still, the resistance was low compared to the opportunities for the F6F in 1945.

Next - compare the fighter vs fighter engagements for Mustangs against LW as a percentage of bomber engagements, against F6F engagements with aircraft in the PTO, mostly much slower, with no armor or self sealing tanks and ask the question - How much tougher was it to shoot down a 190 and 109, the 262/163 and Ar 234 (and the odd He 111, Do 217 and He 177) than an A6M or Tony (or Val or Betty)? How many more 'damaged and crash landed' 109s and pilots lived to fight again - versus the Zero making a water landing in the middle of the Pacific?

On the other hand the Hellcat was experiencing volumes of low time pilots, flying in mostly obsolete fighters by 1945 standards (some exceptions but not very many Raidens/George/Shidens were engaged proportionately) all the way through the end of the war. 

IIRC and I may not remember and should look it up - there were far more equal to superior performance aircraft produced and flown (Me 262, FW 190D, Me 163) by Germany than the lesser performing George, Raiden, and Shiden's combined.

Summary - Most big 51 battles were over after January 14, 1945 in the ETO. The residual talent remaining in the LW was far higher in 1944 than in IJA/IJN in 1944 but still enough aircraft and low time pilots to get huge scores against for example, large Kamikaze attacks.

So, with this fabric to look at, the Hellcat was awarded 200+(?) more e/a in the air and FAR fewer destroyed on the ground against FAR less formidable airfield defenses in its combat career and folks want to make air to air awards the determinant?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

I do concede that the P-51 was faster and was better at the high altitude fighter role though. In the Pacific naval campaign I still think the F6F5 outclasses the P-51.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## HoHun (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Amsel,

>That is correct, but only if those nations needed a carrier bird. 

Actually, if the F6F-5 had been considered better than the P-51D, non-carrier nations would not have cared that the F6F-5 could also land on a carrier 

(The Vought F4U Corsair saw service with some non-carrier nations, I believe.)

But anyhow, the original question was: "if the two were to fight who do you think would win" ... and it doesn't look too good in that regard for the F6F-5.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Amsel,
> 
> >That is correct, but only if those nations needed a carrier bird.
> 
> ...


I understand. I was just making conversation. Everyone knows that the P-51 was one of the best fighters of the war. A better comparison would be against maybe a La-7 or a Fw-190 D9 then a heavy, reliable carrier bird.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 26, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I don't know if this could be taken into account in this argument due to many of those poorer countries who used the Mustang not having aircraft carriers, and needing a carrier bird.


The so-called 'Football War' of 1969 was waged between El Salvador and Honduras and the engagement in the air was fought by a mixed bag of P-51s and F4Us; I don't believe either country could afford a carrier and both sides opted for both the types mentioned above - neither selected the F6F.

From what I recall, the Salvadoreans made significant strides on the ground but were given a spanking in the air which stopped their ground offensive in its tracks. Interestingly, they lost most of their P-51s to the Honduran F4Us; speculation but possibly indicative as to why the F6F wasn't selected?

Incidentally, the last piston-engine vs piston-engine engagement in any conflict area to date.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The so-called 'Football War' of 1969 was waged between El Salvador and Honduras and the engagement in the air was fought by a mixed bag of P-51s and F4Us; I don't believe either country could afford a carrier and both sides opted for both the types mentioned above - neither selected the F6F.
> 
> From what I recall, the Salvadoreans made significant strides on the ground but were given a spanking in the air which stopped their ground offensive in its tracks. Interestingly, they lost most of their P-51s to the Honduran F4Us; speculation but possibly indicative as to why the F6F wasn't selected?
> 
> Incidentally, the last piston-engine vs piston-engine engagement in any conflict area to date.


I agree with what your saying about performance but have to seriously question your logic concerning Honduras's choice in a/c being an F4U and not the F6f. That may be true but other factors may have been taken into consideration.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2009)

evangilder said:


> And for the record, the top Hellcat ace, David McCampbell had 34 victories. The top Mustang ace, Don Gentile, had 35 kills.
> 
> When you look at the service record and longevity, the P-51 was kept around for a lot longer after the war, serving in some countries well into the 1980s.



E ~ in all fairness the top ETO Mustang air to air scorer was George Preddy (23.83), Then J.C Meyer with 23 then Eagleston (18.5) then I think, Kit Carson ( 18.5). These are P-51 scores only.

George Voll, 31st FG in MTO w/21, Varnell 52nd FG w/17

Pappy Herbst in China w/18

Preddy had 3 more with P-47 , Meyer 3.5 with P-47 before the 352nd got Mustangs

Gentile got 15 in Mustangs, 4.33 in P-47 and 2 in Spits. The rest were on the ground.

There were quite a few more in the 13 -17 range in ETO and MTO Mustang scorers.

Note that 9 of McCambell's scores were Vals, Judy's and Dinah's. Most were Zeke's and Oscars with a couple of Hamp's. Compare against Me 109G and K as well as Fw 190A and D.

All of Meyer's scores were 109s and 190s except one Ar 234. (plus Mig 15s in Korea). Similarly Preddy except for 2 Ju 88's, and 1/2 of a 410.

I am NOT denigrating McCampbell but I had made a point earlier that the Hellcats had a lot of shots on easy to shoot down Jap bombers and his scoreboard illustrates the point.

The top scorers for US were P-38 pilots (PTO), then Hellcat (PTO), then P-47 (ETO) for top 6 fighter aces, Then P-51 (ETO) and F4U(PTO) dominate with a couple of Hellcat and P-47 insertions.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2009)

You're right Bill. I wasn't sure if all of McCampbell's kills were in the Hellcat. While I do love the Hellcat and it's record, against a P-51, I still think the P-51 would have the advantage, except off of a carrier deck, of course.  The Hellcat is big and brutish while the Mustang is more sleek.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 26, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I agree with what your saying about performance but have to seriously question your logic concerning Honduras's choice in a/c being an F4U and not the F6F. That may be true but other factors may have been taken into consideration.


Hi Amsel
my last post was in response to your post concerning poorer countries on the look-out for an instant airforce, who didn't necessarily have a carrier, I merely presented as a case in point two such countries who, well, chose what they chose for whatever reason; I don't think it's conclusively damning of the F6F that it wasn't selected here but it is noteworthy.  

On the subject of factors, I'm not sure if availability could be considered, both the F6F and the F4U made their way to South America where they served with the Argentine and Uruguayan Navies. On completion of their second service life, these would then be sold off to poorer economies within South America who would presumably have had the choice of F6F and/or F4U. 
Of course, without knowing the eventual fate of both types whilst in Argentine and Uruguayan service (eg maybe most of the F6Fs were written off accident/damaged/lack of maintenance spares/military action) it remains speculation as to why it was the F4U that showed up on the inventories of the poorer economies' airforces, rather than the F6F.

Both the F6F and the F4U were still active in various airforces until at least the early to mid-60s.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Of course, without knowing the eventual fate of both types whilst in Argentine and Uruguayan service (eg maybe most of the F6Fs were written off accident/damaged/lack of maintenance spares/military action) it remains speculation as to why it was the F4U that showed up on the inventories of the poorer economies' airforces, rather than the F6F.
> 
> Both the F6F and the F4U were still active in various airforces until at least the early to mid-60s.


It would be interesting to find out about the fate of those Hellcats.


----------



## Coors9 (Apr 29, 2009)

I've really enjoyed reading all these posts. It's funny that my two fav birds are the B-Stang and the hellcat. Both are absolutely drop dead beauts.That being said, even with only 4 50's , give me the Merlin any day.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

evangilder said:


> You're right Bill. I wasn't sure if all of McCampbell's kills were in the Hellcat. While I do love the Hellcat and it's record, against a P-51, I still think the P-51 would have the advantage, except off of a carrier deck, of course.  The Hellcat is big and brutish while the Mustang is more sleek.



McCampbell got all of his scores between June 11, 1944 and Nov 14, 1944 - in Hellcats.

He got 28 of his 34 in separate 10 days in three months - getting 5 Zekes and 5 Judys on two separate days.

MoH and Navy Cross pretty impressive


----------



## davparlr (May 1, 2009)

Coors9 said:


> I've really enjoyed reading all these posts. It's funny that my two fav birds are the B-Stang and the hellcat. Both are absolutely drop dead beauts.That being said, even with only 4 50's , give me the Merlin any day.



You seem to imply that the P-51 only has four 50cals. This is only true with the P-51B. The P-51D had six, like the F6F.


----------



## drgondog (May 1, 2009)

davparlr said:


> You seem to imply that the P-51 only has four 50cals. This is only true with the P-51B. The P-51D had six, like the F6F.



I agree Coors choice of a "B-Stang' and would go with a 51B-15 and Malcolm hood.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

I hope the right pilot is in the Hellcat, only because I can't stand the P-51 !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 12, 2009)

How come? 

The P-51 was a decent plane, and that's giving it small compliment.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 31, 2014)

nimrod.michaeli said:


> if the two were to fight who do you think would win


Hellcat. Plain and simple. Their weapons are the same (I think), but the Hellcat has better armor (I think)


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 31, 2014)

Yerger said:


> I hope the right pilot is in the Hellcat, only because I can't stand the P-51 !



I don't like the P-51 either


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 1, 2014)

I think I would choose Mustang for High-alttitude, like 25,000+ and Hellcat for low, like 25,000-. Wasn't the Mustang originally supposed to be a bomber escort, and that's why it was better at higher altitude? I am not to proud to admit that my precious Hellcat wasn't as good at high altitude.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 1, 2014)

The Mustang was originally conceived as a 'better P-40'. In the time the Mustang was designed, the USAF's doctrine was that bomber is to fend for itself. Once realities of the war proved that doctrine as faulty, the USAF started escorting it's bombers. Combination of low drag, ample fuel capacity and a very suitable engine (both power and consumption were well suited) made the Merlin Mustang an excellent choice for long range work. We may also note that Allison Mustangs were sometimes used for long range work, even the dedicated low-level A-36 sometimes escorted B-25s in the MTO.
Both the Merlin Mustang were using two-stage engines, that gave good high-alt power. A small detail, namely the layout of ram air intake, was Mustang's strong point, not so strong for the Hellcat. The Mustang was a far less draggier aircraft, and far lighter, hence the speed differential of 50 mph, give or take. The speed differential was pronounced at all altitudes, the Mustang also climbed better.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 2, 2014)

> I don't like the P-51 either



No wonder he's been banned  Two very different aeroplanes used in different contexts. I'd choose the Hellcat if I wanted a carrier based fighter and the P-51 if I wanted a land based long range fighter.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2014)

ive not read all the posts of this thread guys, but I do think the supposed fragility of the Mustang is being way overplayed here. Mustangs were used in both TOs and in both cases was found to be a tough aircraft to match, moreover it continued in front line service until Korea, whereas the F6F ended production November 1945, and rapidly disappeared from USN front line service.

In terms of the up front comparison, Mustang has one distinct advantage, its straight line speed is far superior to that of the hellcat. p-51H had a top speed more than 100mph greater than the hellcat. In terms of horizontal manouver, i dont think there is anything in it, and I am unsure about issues like dive and climb and roll rate. I would hazard a guess however and say that the Hellcat does not hold any decisive advantage in any of these areas. Happy to stand corrected if someone has contrary information. 

Both aircraft were exceptional, so its hard to be definitive. but it is hard not to look at that speed difference and not lean in favour of the P-51....

one question, what was the repective ammo supply carried in each aircraft. anyone know?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

Ammo supply was better for the Hellcat, with about 400 rounds per gun. 
4 gun P-51B&C carried 250rpg for inboard gun and 350rpg for outboard gun (?) and 6 gun P-51Ds carried 500rpg (later 400) for the inboard guns and 270rpg for center and outboard guns. Center guns could be removed and outboard gun ammo increased to 500rpg. 

The 6 gun P-51 had enough ammo for all six guns to fire about 20 seconds so how much of an advantage the extra 10 seconds of firing time the F6F has I don't know. In some cases very handy but how often?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> The 6 gun P-51 had enough ammo for all six guns to fire about 20 seconds so how much of an advantage the extra 10 seconds of firing time the F6F has I don't know. In some cases very handy but how often?



*Jimmy Thach is quoted as saying, "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will miss with eight."*


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

Jimmy Thach also starting flying in 1929 or 30 and served for quite sometime as a gunnery instructor I believe. Not trying to take anything away from him but the context of the quote may be as interesting as the quote itself. 

Several F6F pilots did make "ace in day" or in one flight which speaks to *both* good shooting and high ammo capacity. But the number of times a single pilot could actually get 4 or more targets in his sight in one flight out of the tens of thousands of combats is pretty small.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Jimmy Thach is quoted as saying, "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will miss with eight."*



Surely you could say the same for two or even one gun. The more guns you have firing a deflection shot the more chance of strikes on target. With a standard mg fitted to a US fighter what is the separation between each bullet? Mind you I think for example in the BoB the Spits and Hirricanes may have been better suited with 6 MGs and more ammunition.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Surely you could say the same for two or even one gun. The more guns you have firing a deflection shot the more chance of strikes on target. With a standard mg fitted to a US fighter what is the separation between each bullet? Mind you I think for example in the BoB the Spits and Hirricanes may have been better suited with 6 MGs and more ammunition.


His point was more guns don't always make aerial combat more effective, before we could start talking about armament effectivness (in a day were the trend was to add more and more guns to fighters), the pilot has to be able to hit the target to begin with.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> His point was more guns don't always make aerial combat more effective, before we could start talking about armament effectivness (in a day were the trend was to add more and more guns to fighters), the pilot has to be able to hit the target to begin with.



Agreed...it depends on the destructive power of the gun.

I have read here that 2or 3 hits from a 30mm cannon could take down a B17 but in the BoB bombers were examined showing over 100 hits with .303 calibre


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2014)

mike williams I think did some work on th relative effectiveness in terms of firepower of various guns. its rather simplistic, but from memory, he rated a typicall 20 cannon at around 2.4, a 50 cal at around 1 and a 0.303 at 0.2 per gun. 30mm cannons were rated at about 6 per gun per unit of time. 

Its not that simple of course. a 30mm cannon is an excellent bomber destroyer, but fairly slow projectile and fairly slow rof. As a fighter to fighter weapon it is not as effctive as the 20mm/0.5" combination.

The real battlefield is the debate between the 50 cals favoure by the Americans and the 20mm favoured by everyone else. 50 cal in my opinion is better at range, but far less firepower. given that most air combats of WWII were at 200m or less the 20mm was the better option for most pilots.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

I would take the Hellcat, simply for ruggedness. I would fight a fast beauty in a slow, tough, and ugly plane then veasa versa. 

The bottom line is both were great planes and great in their different situations.

Also, would a army Hellcat have more armor (can be heavier, it has more runway) or less (because it wouldn't need the extra armor for the arresting gear?)


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2014)

You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster? 

The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets

Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 4, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster?
> 
> The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets
> 
> Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)



Thanks, I didn't know that.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 7, 2014)

parsifal said:


> mike williams I think did some work on th relative effectiveness in terms of firepower of various guns. its rather simplistic, but from memory, he rated a typicall 20 cannon at around 2.4, a 50 cal at around 1 and a 0.303 at 0.2 per gun. 30mm cannons were rated at about 6 per gun per unit of time.
> 
> Its not that simple of course. a 30mm cannon is an excellent bomber destroyer, but fairly slow projectile and fairly slow rof. As a fighter to fighter weapon it is not as effctive as the 20mm/0.5" combination.
> 
> The real battlefield is the debate between the 50 cals favoure by the Americans and the 20mm favoured by everyone else. 50 cal in my opinion is better at range, but far less firepower. given that most air combats of WWII were at 200m or less the 20mm was the better option for most pilots.



Not all 30mm cannons are equal, though.

I believe the Mk 108 30mm cannon had low muzzle velocity. This was the 30mm most used by the Germans. The Mk 103 had much higher muzzle velocity, but it was also much longer and a bit heavier. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't reliable by the end of WW2.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2014)

The MK 101 was a bit more problematic, and the RoF was lacking (240 rpm?). The MK 103 have had improved RoF, 420 rpm, also the reliabilty was improved vs. MK 101. Problem with both of those 30 mm was that fuselage installation was next to impossible both for Fw-190 and Bf-109 alomost until the VE day.
Pople might want to check out the stuff I've posted in the Luftwaffe guns topic (recent post) at the Armament systems subforum, the energy of the shell is also listed.


----------



## paladin24 (May 10, 2014)

The Hellcat began kicking butt on day 1 of introduction and was still kicking butt at the end of the war with a design that only incorporated minor changes and only 2 main variants (water injection, spring tabs, bomb and rocket racks being the major additions) and a lot of it was because Grumman had a philosophy of eschewing fancy chrome plated pie in the sky designs in favor of a plane that was simple, rugged, cheap to build, easy to maintain, effective in combat, and to able to be flown in adverse conditions from aircraft carriers by mass-produced rookie pilots. 
 
The Mustang required an engine transplant and an extra fuel tank which adversely affected its stability when full, to be truly effective in the role of long-range fighter escort.

And I find it a little insulting people are trivializing the opposition and difficulties faced by Allied forces in the PTO or the achievements of pilots like McCampbell - who achieved ace in a day _twice_ as well as being the commanding officer of the _Essex's_ air group, which achieved outstanding performance under his leadership. Harris, Vraciu, Voris, and other standout Hellcat aces were I'd wager just as capable as anyone in any other branch. By the end of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe had large amounts of barely-trained kids, same as the Japanese. 

Mustang was a fine machine, however.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 11, 2014)

When comparing the Hellcat with Mustang, quirk is that those two machines were excellent in each of their own domains, and would be hard pressed to undertake jobs of the another machine. Hellcat was a fighter that offered docile handling characteristics (crucial for run-on-the-mill aviators, let alone for the carrier duties), ability to shrug off plenty of enemy hits that landed home, perfect weapon layout for it's job and war theaters, an engine that offered plenty of power at all altitudes for the heavy brute. On the other hand, Hellcat was offering less performance and range than Merlin Mustang (even without fuselage tank), or even P-51A (V-1710). Sending droves of Hellcats at 25-30000 ft against Luftwaffe would've meant plenty of dead Allied airmen, due to lack of performance. 
Mustang was a fine-land based fighter even with V-1710, let alone with 2-stage Merlin aboard. It went into a contested airspace some 15 months before Hellcat, and was not considered as a pushover by anyone. Despite having no advantage worth speaking of vs. Luftwaffe. Mustang got better with different V-1710 and drop tanks capability (P-51A/Mustang II). On the other hand, the tested P-51D was not that well regarded as the Hellcat as a carrier bird, though we might wonder how good would've been the lighter P-51/51A in that role.



> The Mustang required an engine transplant and an extra fuel tank which adversely affected its stability when full, to be truly effective in the role of long-range fighter escort.



Again, P-51A was already longer ranged and better performer than Hellcat. The capability to have a new engine and fuel tank installed is simply that - a capability, not a shortcoming. 
We might recall that even the A-36, with a true low-level V-1710 installed, was used as an escort fighter in MTO. That is several moths before the Hellcat 1st fights.



> And I find it a little insulting people are trivializing the opposition and difficulties faced by Allied forces in the PTO or the achievements of pilots like McCampbell - who achieved ace in a day twice as well as being the commanding officer of the Essex's air group, which achieved outstanding performance under his leadership. Harris, Vraciu, Voris, and other standout Hellcat aces were I'd wager just as capable as anyone in any other branch.



Don't think that anyone wants to make insults to any of the pilots or crewmen. The fact is that Japanese opposition was flying, in 90% during the 1st Hellcat's war year, the fighters that were making between 330-370 mph (= slower by 20-60 mph). Many of them were ill armed to really harm the Hellcat. Hellcat also engaged plenty of bomber and attack aircraft, unlike the Mustang that mostly engaged fighters. Against the IJN, the USN have had, in time Hellcat was aboard, far more numerous and better led fighter force, backed up by radar assisted command and control network. 



> By the end of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe had large amounts of barely-trained kids, same as the Japanese.



The Japanese started to scrub the barrel already in late 1942, due to the efforts of Allied forces both on the ground, air and on ships. Japanese can also blame themselves for that, of course. 
The LW was in that state maybe at mid, or late 1944?


----------



## parsifal (May 12, 2014)

> The LW was in that state maybe at mid, or late 1944?



Tomo, i dont know about that. LW descent was more gradual than the japanese loss of expertise, but standards were already dropping in middle of 1942. hours were on the way down from that time on, as thje allied times were on a corresponding increase. From memory, LW training hours were about 350 at the beginning of 1942, dropping to about 250 by the end of the year, and then 150 a year later. by the beginning of 1944 it was down to about 150 before plumetting to under 50 hours by the end of 1944. these figures come from Murray. 

The big problem for the germans was insufficient trainers and fuel , the main problem for the Japanese was this, plus a shortage of instructors. Both attempted to meet these challenges by early conversion to front line types and early deployment to a frontline squadron, where it was hoped they would be able to fight as they learned. In both cases, this policy was, predictably, a disaster. It took longer to bring down the LW, but it was a process weel under way by the latter part of 1942.

Soviets gave the least amount of training of anybody during the war. Before the war it was a different story, but so desperate were the Soviets for pilots, that by the beginning of Kursk, Training times have been estimated to be about 20 hours on operational types. This was found to be grossly wasteful, so that training standards had increased to around 60 hours by the beginnig of 1944, and then about 100 hours by the middle of the year. Still shy of what the LW was receiving, but good enough, so to speak.


http://ww2-weapons.com/Armies/Germany/Luftwaffe/Training.htm


----------



## pbehn (May 12, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster?
> 
> The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets
> 
> Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)



I think the IL 2 was fairly well protected against rifle fire but not much else and it had a reduced payload because of it


----------



## Donivanp (May 12, 2014)

I think a better face off would have been Thunderbolt v Hellcat that being said the mustang is faster (later Merlin engined) and I'm not sure but more maneuverable. Catch is, one hit from the hellcat and the stang bites it. The hellcat can take a licking and keep on ticking.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 13, 2014)

pbehn said:


> I think the IL 2 was fairly well protected against rifle fire but not much else and it had a reduced payload because of it



Yep, 400 kg normal, and 600 kg max. 400 kg was max if 23 mm cannons were installed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2014)

Donivanp said:


> one hit from the hellcat and the stang bites it.



If you're referring to the 20mm armed F6F, just about any aircraft taking a round (or two) in the right place from a cannon bites it.


----------



## parsifal (May 13, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you're referring to the 20mm armed F6F, just about any aircraft taking a round (or two) in the right place from a cannon bites it.



I get the feeliing that he isnt referring to just that model. I think hes one of the "hellcats can do anything" club.


----------



## grampi (Jul 29, 2014)

As good as the Hellcat was, the Mustang outperforms it in almost every category...while the Hellcat is more durable, it would need every bit of that durability against a Mustang as the P-51 would outmaneuver, outclimb, outdive, or simply speed away form the Hellcat...


----------



## snelson (Jul 31, 2014)

sorry but i didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but here i go anyway.

while i understand that the P-51 was better than the hellcat at higher altitude and had longer range and better top speed. but i had always thought that the hellcat was better at low altitude turning fight and it dove better. now this could all be wrong, is there anywhere where the hellcat held the edge over the mustang?


----------



## CommanderBounds (Jul 31, 2014)

I love me a F6F Hellcat but I will agree it's not much of a match for a P-51. It may also depend on the variant of the aircraft at hand.


----------



## grampi (Aug 5, 2014)

snelson said:


> sorry but i didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but here i go anyway.
> 
> while i understand that the P-51 was better than the hellcat at higher altitude and had longer range and better top speed. but i had always thought that the hellcat was better at low altitude turning fight and it dove better. now this could all be wrong, is there anywhere where the hellcat held the edge over the mustang?



I highly doubt the Hellcat could outdive a Mustang...I think the only plane that could was the P-47...I also doubt the hellcat could outturn the Mustang at any altitude as it was considerably bigger and heavier than the 'Stang...the only area where it could possibly hang with the P-51 would be in roll rate...


----------



## grampi (Aug 5, 2014)

CommanderBounds said:


> I love me a F6F Hellcat but I will agree it's not much of a match for a P-51. It may also depend on the variant of the aircraft at hand.



Late model F6F vs P-51A, yeah, the Hellcat would have the advantage, but against a B or later version of the P-51, forget it...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2014)

grampi said:


> Late model F6F vs P-51A, yeah, the Hellcat would have the advantage, but against a B or later version of the P-51, forget it...



The P-51A was faster than the F6F-6, but had a higher wing loading, lower rate of climb, lower power to weight ratio, and less armament, but was almost a ton lighter.


----------



## snelson (Aug 5, 2014)

with the hellcat being a lot heavier than the mustang and it has a 2000 hp engine i would have thought that it could out dive about anything like the P-47. so what am i missing


----------



## grampi (Aug 6, 2014)

snelson said:


> with the hellcat being a lot heavier than the mustang and it has a 2000 hp engine i would have thought that it could out dive about anything like the P-47. so what am i missing



Being heavy certainly helps a plane's diving ability, but aerodynamics also plays a big role...these planes would probably do well over 500 mph in a dive, so aerodynamics is huge! This is why the Mustang would outdive many of the heavier fighters of the time...


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2014)

grampi said:


> I highly doubt the Hellcat could outdive a Mustang...I think the only plane that could was the P-47...I also doubt the hellcat could outturn the Mustang at any altitude as it was considerably bigger and heavier than the 'Stang...the only area where it could possibly hang with the P-51 would be in roll rate...



It also had 42% more wing area.

I believe that the F6F was noted for its turning ability and the P-51 not so much.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2014)

> I believe that the F6F was noted for its turning ability and the P-51 not so much


.

Possibly more correct to say it was a good turner at higher speeds, but its higher speeds were moderate speeds for the P-51.

At low speeds, neither was a particualarly good turning aircraft. The problem for the hellcat is that its spped ranges were much more restrictive than the P-51s speed envelope.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Head to head Mustang has the advantage but if I had to deliver ground ordnance Hellcat is a better choice. Much more rugged and probably the easiest single engine fighter to fly.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Performance wise the Hellcat is probably more equal to an Allison power Mustang. The improved Hellcat is probably a better match for the Merlin Mustang, it called the Bearcat, albeit a little late to the show.


----------

