# Corsair and Hellcat in Europe



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

The Chance-Vought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.

What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?

It's OK to speculate the Pacific would not have gone as well without the two deployed in the same numbers as they were in real life, but remember the P-38 was there, too, and was not mach limited versus the Japanese in most cases.

Grumman's chief test pilot, Corky Meyer, has said in print (Flight Journal) that the Hellcat and Corsair flew side by side when at the same power levels when HE tested it except in the main stage (where it was 5 - 6 mph slower since the Hellcat didn't use ram air to avoid carburetor icing, and the same speed in low or high blower stages), and surmised the difference in airspeed was pitot tube placement on the Corsair since they verified the speed of the Hellcat with rigorous means. He says the Corsair was "optimistic" on airspeed and the Hellcat wasn't. Read the article ... but I can't remember the exact issue description. About 10 years ago or more, maybe 15 years ... can't remember.

I can't really say since our pilots at the Planes of Fame have never raced the two, but they fly side by side at the same power level when we DO fly them side by side (same rpm and MP). Same engine (basically, different dash number) and same prop in the early versions (same prop part number and diameter). Our Corsair is the oldest one in flying condition (tail number 799) and HAS the same prop as a Hellcat (F6F-3) ... and IT flies the same speed as a Hellcat at the same power levels in the same blower stages ± a few mph. Both gain or lose slightly, and not the same plane every time.

Corky seems to be right. What do you think?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 12, 2013)

> What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?



They would have been succesful without a doubt, the USAAF could well demolish the Luftwaffe just by numbers. However, I would not expect a high kill/loss ratio as in the Pacific theather. Bf 109 and Fw 190 were good divers, were well protected, and were competitive in all aspects. In some aspects they were superior.



> Corky seems to be right. What do you think?



I am not so sure. There are many tests from World War II with data on both aircraft, even comparisons, and the Hellcat is slower. An example:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Also, I would expect the instruments to be calibrated accordingly if the pitot tube is setup at a different height. Having said that, manufacturers stated that the performance could vary by 10% IIRC, thus there could be some "overlap".


----------



## Milosh (Apr 12, 2013)

Didn't some F6Fs take on some Luftwaffe a/c? Med and/or off Norway, iirc.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2013)

...Corasair from the FAA, too. JT404, a british Corsair Mk.II F4U-1A made an emergancy landing in Bodö/ Norway July, 18th, 1944. The pilot became PoW. The whole airplane was captured intact and sent to Rechlin for further investigations and provided the Luftwaffe with an opportunity to examine the F4U.

Corsair and Hellcat would be aviable ETO when not really needed. The Luftwaffe was adressed in 1943/44 by other assets more effectively. Neither Hellcat nor Corsair would be effective in providing critical high altitude, long range escort as well as the USAAF alternatives P38/ P47 or P51.

Later on, these A/C are even less effective against the perceived thread of jet propelled aircraft fielded by the GAF.

The Corsair in it´s various evolutions appears to be competetive and often presents a good match to contemporary Bf-109 or Fw-190 derivates but like other piston A/C is outclassed with the appearence of jet propelled A/C in the late 44 period.

The Hellcat is not really fast, but competetive climbing on ADI and likely superior in rate of turn. It is not well accelerating in light of the 2000hp engine aviable to it. With a speed about as fast as the contemporary Bf-110G, it´s barely competetive to contemporary Bf-109G and Fw-190A fighters and pretty much outclassed by late Bf-109, Fw-190D or jet A/C.

I guess the ruggedness would suite them both well but then again, the GAF in the period 43 to 45 made much use out of mine rounds which are substantially more destructive than 20mm HEI of the IJN/IJAAF, precluding a direct extrapolation of pacific experiences.

They would still be handy in downing various GAF A/C, altough the Hellcat in particular is significantly more stressed in ETO than the PTO engaging the high speed bombers of this theatre (Ju-88S, Ju-188, Me-410, Do-217M, He-177, Ar-234).


----------



## Readie (Apr 12, 2013)

Where they needed in the ETO?
On a volume mass produced basis perhaps.
We had the Tempest whose stats compare well to the Corsair.

Tempest beats F4U on speed - 435mph vs 425mph
Tempest beats F4U on armament - 4 20mm (=12 .5") vs 6 .5"
F4U beats Tempest on ceiling - 36900 vs 36500ft
Tempest beats F4U on rate of climb - 4,700 ft/min vs 3870 ft/min.
F4U beats Tempest on range - 1005 vs 740 mi
F4U beats Tempest on toughness - an air cooled engine is more damage resilient than water cooled.

Cheers
John


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

The Hellcat deployed in 1943. The Tempest deployed in 1944. Whatcha' gonna' do for the year you don't have any Tempests? The thread is about whether the Hellcat / Corsair duo would be successful in Euope as they were in the Pacific, not a comparison with the Tempest.

It's not waving the American flag ... it's just about the fact that the duo shot the Japanese out of the sky, what might they do in Europe if deployed there? I didn't say replace any home-grown Birtish planes, I said what if they showed up in Europe? Nothing whatsoever to do with the Tempest, Spitfire, or any other existing planes.

My thought is they'd have been successful and maybe the war in Europe would end a bit sooner and they could be redeployed to the Pacific to do what they did at that time. But the carriers would have faced larger numbers of more aggressive submarines from the Germans and the U-Boat arm was not known for letting ships sail by without trying to do something about it. It might have had an impact if we had lost, say, 5 carriers while deploying the duo to Europe ... carriers don't grow on trees.


----------



## Readie (Apr 12, 2013)

GregP said:


> My thought is they'd have been successful and maybe the war in Europe would end a bit sooner and they could be redeployed to the Pacific to do what they did at that time. But the carriers would have faced larger numbers of more aggressive submarines from the Germans and the U-Boat arm was not known for letting ships sail by without trying to do something about it. It might have had an impact if we had lost, say, 5 carriers while deploying the duo to Europe ... carriers don't grow on trees.



My post was out of interest Greg, I lost connection before I have completed it. 
Never mind... they were designed primarily to be carrier born fighters, as tough as they come, powerful and well armed. Looking through other American based forums the general consensus is that Corsair was better than the Hellcat. 
Had the Corsair arrived in significant numbers for the ETO then it would have contributed to the LW defeat. Which role? Fighter bomber in a ground assault role seems to be its forte.
Cheers
John

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 12, 2013)

" ... that Corsair was better than the Hellcat. "

The Corsair was more expensive to manufacture and tougher to fly (off carriers, AAR). Was the Hellcat not dubbed 'TheAce MAKER' ..?

MM

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2013)

The US duo, in 1943, has a number of advantages, as well as disadvantages, to be deployed in Europe.
In the ETO, at altitudes from 20-30000 ft, they offer no speed advantage over German fighters (they might easily be in disadvantage on any altitude), and at any altitude the Germans should climb faster. 
The fuel situation is, interesting, to say at least. The F4U historically did not carried drop tanks until late 1943, using the wing tanks instead. 361 USG should give about equal range, on the 1st sight, as the 370 USG found at late P-47Ds; both planes flying at ~25000 ft. That makes some 300 miles max, ie. not some long short range fighter.
The F6F-3 carried the drop tank from the day one (corrections welcomed), fuel quantity being 250 USG internal + 150 USG external. We might compare that with the late 1943 P-47 situation in ETO (305 + 108 USG). The map I've posted twice on the forum gives 375 miles of combat radius for such P-47, the F6F might not venture so deep in the Continent because of less internal fuel - 350 might be the maximum? 

Deployed in the MTO, they might opt for lower cruising altitudes in order to get better mileage. The Italo-German opposition there should be less capable on aggregate.

There is another thing to consider - the LW in ETO was fielding not so big number of fighters (300-350? corrections?); an early and wholesale (500 fighters?) introduction of a 300-350 mile fighter might deliver quite a few bloody nose for the LW, before they get smart and relocate the interceptions out of the escorts' radius?


----------



## Glider (Apr 12, 2013)

Just a thought, but woulld the Hellcat have been a reasionable long range escrot for the B7's in late 1943 and hold the line before the P51 arrived on the scene. Irecognise that it might not be that happy at altitude but its was probably a lot better than nothing


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

The Hellcat's combat radius was 945 statute miles and that is long enough to stand in for the P-51's. I believe the air distance is something like 570 miles. I hadn't considered that, but it might work.


----------



## davebender (Apr 12, 2013)

IMO F4U would be an improvement over every U.S. fighter type in Europe. 

F6F would be an improvement over P-40s widely used in the Med but that's about it. It was not a particularly high performance late war aircraft, especially considering the massive engine.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Had one hell of a combat record though ...


----------



## davebender (Apr 12, 2013)

A6M5 and Ki-43 were not high performance by late war standards either. If Japan flew Me-109Gs and Fw-190As I think F6F would have been quickly replaced by F4U.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 12, 2013)

GregP said:


> What do you think might have happened if it [the F4U] had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?





GregP said:


> The Hellcat's combat radius was 945 statute miles and that is long enough to stand in for the P-51's. I believe the air distance is something like 570 miles. I hadn't considered that, but it might work.


I think they'd have made a big difference. I don't think the German fighters would have fared any better against them than had the Japanese fighters. And, let's remember, the F4U and the F6F were bombing-fighting aircraft. They weren't just P47s and P51s. We could have sent squadrons of just those deep into Germany in lieu of the RAF and AF bombers to dive-bomb on those same strategic targets and take on the Luftwaffe fighters, at the same time, had we wanted. At any rate, they'd have provided more offensive punch going in with the RAF and AF bombers than just defensive cover. The record in the PTO shows, they took the blows. Had they been deployed in the right numbers in the ETO, they'd have given the Luftwaffe fits, in my honest opinion, trying to keep them off their targets. They were just too good at what they were concepted and designed for, that bombing-fighting double role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Gotta' disagree with you on that one Dave, the F6F was a superb fighter, rugged, had a LOT of wing area for great turning ability, long range, and easy to fly in the bargain. They didn't call it the ace maker for nothing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## dobbie (Apr 12, 2013)

I never understood why they didn't use a 4 bladed prop on the Hellcat in order to take advantage of all that horsepower? I think both the Hellcat and the Corsair could have found a variety of useful roles in the ETO, and certainly not limited to escort. Goodyear built some Corsairs without the folding wings and I believe they performed slightly better-maybe the same could be done with the Hellcat?
And some of the F4U's did replace the 6-50 cals to 4-20MM if that is an issue. I guess the limiting factor would be superchargers on both of them. My understanding is that the P47 begins to pull away from them at about 25,000 ft........

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Yah, the P-47 was one of the best high altitude fighters of the war. It would be tough to find a mass-produced fighter any better. They didn't make enough Ta-152's to make a difference, but they made a lot of P-47's and it hit very hard with eight 50's.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 12, 2013)

The FAA used both types in Europe, receiving its first Hellcats under Lend Lease in July 1943 and were first known as the Gannet I with 800 Sqn, seeing service carrying out anti-shipping strikes off the Norwegian coast flying from HMS _Emperor_. They also covered the Salerno landings in the Med and air attacks against _Tirpitz_. Most of the FAA's 1,182 Hellcats served in the Pacific Theatre though. The Name 'Hellcat' became standard in 1944. 

On 8 May 1944 _Emperor_'s Hellcats encountered a small number of Fw 190s and Bf 109Gs from JG 5 in Norway, Two Bf 109s and an Fw 190 were claimed. The FAA's Corsairs were the first of the type to see combat, although didn't go into action against the Luftwaffe in Europe. It was cleared for action off British carriers some nine months before the US Navy would do so. despite being used as escorts during _Tirpitz_ raids, although they were primarily used as anti-aircraft suppression.

Cdr Stanley Orr was an FAA ace and made claims against the Luftwaffe over Norway in 1944, although he became one on Fulmars before he flew Hellcats; here's what he had to say about the Grumman fighter:

"The Hellcat was without a doubt the best, and most popular, naval fighter of the period. It suffered none of the Corsair's stall and visibility problems, being an easy aircraft to fly and to deck land. It bestowed apon its pilot immense confidence, which was an important thing in those days as you usually had your hands more than full coping with the enemy. Indeed it was such a stable platform to fly that following the _Tirpitz_ raids we recommended that bomb racks be fitted to the aircraft. In no time at all this modification had been carried out, thus allowing us to attack targets on the ground when we weren't required to act as fighter cover for our Barracudas and Avengers."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm not a big data guy, but I don't understand how the claim can be made that the F4U and the F6F had the same speed. The F4U-1 had a top speed of 417 mph (doesn't list an altitude), while the F6F-3 had a top speed of 376 mph at 23,400 ft. Both numbers are from Jane's. Pitot tube placement doesn't explain a difference in speed of 41 mph. And using the Planes of Fame's aircraft isn't exactly accurate either, seeing as it says on their website:



> The primary changes to the aircraft it that it uses a Pratt Whitney R-2800 engine with a single-stage supercharger from a Douglas A-26 Invader bomber in place of the two-stage, two-speed, supercharged R-2800-8 engine that was more common to the early model Corsair fighters. As a result, the restored Corsair is about 700 lbs. lighter than a stock aircraft, allowing it to have a better rate of climb at low altitudes and a shorter take-off roll.



I don't know the effect of the weight difference on the top speed, but regardless using those two individual aircraft isn't accurate.

The Hellcat was certainly the safer aircraft to fly, but a better one? I'd say the US Navy choosing the F4U going forward into the post-war years is pretty telling.

As for the Ace Maker moniker, for sure, as mentioned, it was easier to fly, in particular when it came to taking off and landing, but it was also more widely used, so of course it's going to have more kills/aces. In 3 years, there were only 300 fewer Hellcats made than Corsairs made in 11.

It's unfortunate renrich is no longer with us, he'd have some great insight into this thread.

As for the particular subject at hand, it has been suggested in other threads that if the F4U had entered the European war, a version similar to the F4U-4 would likely have been seen sooner as it would have been prioritized, thus making a version that performed better above 20,000 ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 12, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> The Hellcat was certainly the safer aircraft to fly, but a better one? I'd say the US Navy choosing the F4U going forward into the post-war years is pretty telling.


Ted Williams flew F4Us when he switched to the Marines. He got his wings on F6Fs when he was in the Navy.The Marines got the F4Us because the F6Fs were a lock on the carriers. The post-war was a Marine war, not a Navy war. That's what's telling about that.


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Choosing the F4U was a matter of the logistics in place at the time. They had more spares for Corsairs after the war ended.

The Hellcat was fast enough and had a far better performance in combat as a fighter than any other fighter I can think of. With a 19 : 1 kill ratio in air-to-air combat, it was 50% better than the F4U's performance in combat. Performace in a test obviously isn't necessarily an indicator of combat performance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

I disagree with the spares argument, since the F4U-4 and later were the ones used post-war, and the F4U-4 just barely snuck into service in WWII. So all of those spare -1Ds are essentially scrap after 1945.

You're correct about the post-war era turning out as a Marine War, but the Navy still ordered an air-superiority version of the F4U in the F4U-5 because they weren't sure how jets were going to pan out, and yet they didn't ask for the same of an F6F.

However this may be better left for another thread.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2013)

Granted, the F4U was a terrific performer, but it was extensively used as a ground attack aircraft in the PTO, not just by the USN, but also RNZAF and FAA, so its air-to-air combat figures are generally going to be lower than the Hellcat.



> it has been suggested in other threads that if the F4U had entered the European war, a version similar to the F4U-4 would likely have been seen sooner as it would have been prioritized, thus making a version that performed better above 20,000 ft.



I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance wasn't that much greater than ETO fighters.


----------



## bob44 (Apr 13, 2013)

Down low they would have been excellent in Europe and the Med. theaters. But not so good up high escorting bombers. I wonder if the Russians would have liked them?


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Granted, the F4U was a terrific performer, but it was extensively used as a ground attack aircraft in the PTO, not just by the USN, but also RNZAF and FAA, so its air-to-air combat figures are generally going to be lower than the Hellcat.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance was that much greater than ETO fighters.



Excellent point about the kill figures.

The whole thing was a pretty "what-if" type scenario, particularly what if the Mustang hadn't panned out, and things along that line. Basically it would be the USAAF operating a version of it, that retained the fuel tanks in the wings and was modified to be better at high altitudes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2013)

> I wonder if the Russians would have liked them?



Probably would'a loved them. Might have been a bit tricky for them initially and of course they are a big aircraft compared to Russian fighters, but I'm sure once they got the hang of them they would have seen their benefit. Mind you, you never know with the Russians; one constant about them is that they are unpredictable.



> Basically it would be the USAAF operating a version of it



Sounds terribly implauseable, but for the sake of interest, why not.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

Exactly.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 13, 2013)

The USN tested the FW190 against the Corsair and Hellcat, and IIRC the verdict was that the 190 was a pretty much equal to the Corsair, and perhaps a bit better then the Hellcat, though the pilots agreed they would be happy to fly either against the German fighter. both the American fighter out-turned the 190 and were in turn out-rolled by the 190, surprise.
As a yardstick, how would the Hellcat have stacked against the Spit V? On paper they look similar but the Sit was struggling in Europe by 1943


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2013)

The spares thing comes from Navy pilots who were flying the Corsait at the time and were ina position to know. The Navy was building up their F4U invertory and spares and the Hellcat spares were running out bacasue the war was almost over and they weren't really maiing nay more spares.

That's what I've heard ... but I wasn't around at the time to veryify the information. In any case, if I had a warbird today, a Hellcat or Bearcat would be my first choice ... whichever came available first, and I wouldn't regret either one, ever.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

I wasn't around either, but the spares thing can't really be truly valid because as I mentioned, any spares left over would have been relegated to training duties at best besides the -4s that had already been built. Over 2000 of those were built, and all F4U-5s and AU-1s were built post-war. They could have continued development of the Hellcat instead, and continued to produce them, but didn't, because the performance envelope was apparently greater on the F4U's basic design. In my mind that makes the Corsair the better aircraft, because the Navy continued with its development, and not the Hellcat's.

I'm not surprised that the Fw 190 outrolled the Hellcat to be certain, I'm a little surprised about the F4U as it was noted to have an excellent roll rate. That said, I'm certainly not shocked either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> The USN tested the FW190 against the Corsair and Hellcat, and IIRC the verdict was that the 190 was a pretty much equal to the Corsair, and perhaps a bit better then the Hellcat, though the pilots agreed they would be happy to fly either against the German fighter. both the American fighter out-turned the 190 and were in turn out-rolled by the 190, surprise.
> As a yardstick, how would the Hellcat have stacked against the Spit V? On paper they look similar but the Sit was struggling in Europe by 1943



Somebody here actually posted copies of the test between the Fw 190 and the Corsair a while back. I think you are correct that overall the report considered them rather equal. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but for the most part pretty close to one another.

In the end it would come down to pilot skill, and who saw who first. Of course is that not the same for most air engagements between any acft type?


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2013)

Erich Hartmann in a P-40 against a rookie in a Spitfire XIV? I'd take Erich every time as long as he knew he was being attacked. The pilot makes the fighter work.

And I've heard the spares thing about teh Corsair from too many ex-Navy people who know not to give it credence myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> Erich Hartmann in a P-40 against a rookie in a Spitfire XIV? I'd take Erich every time as long as he knew he was being attacked. The pilot makes the fighter work.
> 
> .



I agree, pilot skill and who saw who first.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> And I've heard the spares thing about teh Corsair from too many ex-Navy people who know not to give it credence myself.



And that's fair, I just disagree.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2013)

Are we supposed to understand that both, F6F-3 and F4U-1 are operated from carriers ETO in the then prevailing weather and visibility conditions of the North Atlantic?


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2013)

Fair enough back at you. Who knows? You could be correct. 

I don't think the real behind-the-scenes political decision reasons will ever surface if they haven't after all this time. We know WHAT they did, but are speculating somewhat on WHY they did it. A lot of the folks who give talks at the museum on event days were there at the time, but active service pilots were probably not in the loop about the real reasons behind the decisions. Most decisions about military aircraft were made by people who didn't fly them and that still holds true today. It probably had more to do with how much money the aircraft manufacturer or their representative was willing to part with during a campaign or where the plane would be built, thus generating jobs in somebody's constituency who was in the decision-making loop. 

I'm not a Washington insider, so I don't have the actual answer as to why they did what they did after WWII with the equipment used to win the war. I'm sure a lot of planes simply got scrapped in place, right where they ended the war. Why spend the money to get them home when you are just going to scap it anyway if you DO get it home? Dig a hole with a buldozer, push the planes in, cover it up, then scrap the buldozer or give it to the locals for construction work. In some cases, they may not have even unloaded the guns or drained the tanks!


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 13, 2013)

> Are we supposed to understand that both, F6F-3 and F4U-1 are operated from carriers ETO in the then prevailing weather and visibility conditions of the North Atlantic?



Yes indeed. Actually their British equivalent, Gannet Is (later Hellcat Is) and Corsair IIs. The F4U-1, although supplied to the FAA in the USA never saw combat with the FAA; the British equivalent to the F4U-1A, the Corsair II was the first to go into combat. British Corsairs were different to their US counterparts in that they had reduced wingspans to fit into British carrier hangars, which had lower ceilings.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 13, 2013)

“No pervasive, national security "ideology" characterized U.S. military thinking in the early postwar period. The disorganization, misconceptions, and infighting that had disrupted the military services during the war continued well into the postwar period.”

This is from this article which has little to do with the details often discussed in this forum, but was an overriding consideration in that era. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm 

It seems the Corsair was probably just of a more versatile airplane, and since the fighter world was headed toward the jet age, the Corsair’s multi-role capacity won out. Also, the mindset may have also been that the Hellcat was made from scratch to kill Zero’s – which it did in an astounding fashion. 

The Hellcat vs the FW-190 is one of the more interesting "what if's" of the late war. Two fantasic sucessful planes banging heads, interesting indeed.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2013)

As for the construction equipment the original idea was to bring it home as they were new, expensive and could be used in the USA post war. However the manufacturers said that it would bankrupt them as no one would buy new equipment with so much quality second hand gear for sale. It was different in Europe as the reconstruction work was massive and they needed all the equipment they could get their hands on.

As for war material of all sorts i believe most was taken to storage depots and either stored or scrapped in situ.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2013)

As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)


----------



## vinnye (Apr 13, 2013)

I would think that the Hellcat would have been a useful addition as a ground attack aircraft, and the Corsair would have been a good fighter / fighter bomber.
Unless they were deployed in large numbers in addition to existing aircraft I do not think that they would have made a big difference. Existing types were getting thr job done!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Hellcat's combat radius was 945 statute miles and that is long enough to stand in for the P-51's. I believe the air distance is something like 570 miles. I hadn't considered that, but it might work.



The combat radius is roughly 1/3rd of the combat range (your mileage can differ  ) Any fighter with R-2800 will hardly be able to achieve combat radius, or escort radius, of 570 miles with 400 gals of on-board fuel in ETO conditions (= cruise at ~25000 ft, at decently high cruise speed).



Catch22 said:


> I'm not a big data guy, but I don't understand how the claim can be made that the F4U and the F6F had the same speed. The F4U-1 had a top speed of 417 mph (doesn't list an altitude), while the F6F-3 had a top speed of 376 mph at 23,400 ft. Both numbers are from Jane's. Pitot tube placement doesn't explain a difference in speed of 41 mph. And using the Planes of Fame's aircraft isn't exactly accurate either, seeing as it says on their website:
> 
> I don't know the effect of the weight difference on the top speed, but regardless using those two individual aircraft isn't accurate.



In 1943 there is no test where the F4U-1 achieved more than 400 mph, bar experiments with water injection power. With water injection, in operations from early 1944, the F4U-1 really outpaces itself from the F6F, something like 420-430 mph vs. ~380-390 mph.
See WWII Aircraft Performance , the F4U and F6F pages. 



> The Hellcat was certainly the safer aircraft to fly, but a better one? I'd say the US Navy choosing the F4U going forward into the post-war years is pretty telling.



Indeed, the XF6F-6 was capable for 425 mph at 25000 ft, the F4U-4 with same engine was 20 mph faster.



> ....
> As for the particular subject at hand, it has been suggested in other threads that if the F4U had entered the European war, a version similar to the F4U-4 would likely have been seen sooner as it would have been prioritized, thus making a version that performed better above 20,000 ft.



Without C series R-2800 there is no F4U-4, and that would mean 1945 year. The P-47M was the one with C series R-2800 aboard, it took the AAF and P&W some time to iron out the bugs.



drgondog said:


> As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)



The F4U-4 was a 1944/45 machine, the comparison with 1943/44 fighters is unfair, to say at least.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Somebody here actually posted copies of the test between the Fw 190 and the Corsair a while back. I think you are correct that overall the report considered them rather equal. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but for the most part pretty close to one another.


That may be. I never talked to anybody who flew these German fighters, and neither do we have any head-to-head track to go off of. I think both the F4U and the F6F would have given the Luftwaffe fighters some real problems, though, if, for nothing better, than for their dive-bombing aspect, and keeping them off their targets. These weren't makeshift dive-bombers, as were the Ps. They were closer to a JU and FW rolled into one.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

On the F4Us post-war, I think that's kind of simple. There wasn't any real appreciable difference between the F4Us and the F6Fs in terms of their capacities, and, again, the F4Us were Marine planes, and the post-war was a Marine war.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> On the F4Us post-war, I think that's kind of simple. There wasn't any real appreciable difference between the F4Us and the F6Fs in terms of their capacities, and, again, the F4Us were Marine planes, and the post-war was a Marine war.



You're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. The Korean war ended up, yes, being a heavily Marine war. But we're not talking about what ended up happening. We're talking about what the Navy thought would happen, and they weren't sure about the viability of early jets on carriers so they continued with the F4U line instead of the F6F. Not to mention that there were, at the end of WWII, numerous Navy (not even counting Marine) units using the F4U, such as VF-84, VF-10, VBF-83, VBF-6, VBF-88, VBF-10, VBF-86, VF-5, VF-6, and I'm certain others. I unfortunately cannot find an entire list. Why would the entire US Navy convert to a strictly Marine plane, replacing its "Navy" plane?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2013)

The F6F gave place to the F8F on the Grumman production lines (the F7F was also coming), so it's quite unlikely that Grumman would restart the F6F production. And, the F4U was always able to out-pace the F6F on same generation of engines.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2013)

drgondog said:


> As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)


 
Fair comment, which I would agree in. However, the F4U-4 appeared in combat squadrons only after VE-day (june 1945, IIRC) so it should be compared with P-51H / P-47N rather than P-38H/ P-47D/ P-51B, is that correct?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> You're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. The Korean war ended up, yes, being a heavily Marine war. But we're not talking about what ended up happening. We're talking about what the Navy thought would happen, and they weren't sure about the viability of early jets on carriers so they continued with the F4U line instead of the F6F. Not to mention that there were, at the end of WWII, numerous Navy (not even counting Marine) units using the F4U, such as VF-84, VF-10, VBF-83, VBF-6, VBF-88, VBF-10, VBF-86, VF-5, VF-6, and I'm certain others. I unfortunately cannot find an entire list. Why would the entire US Navy convert to a strictly Marine plane, replacing its "Navy" plane?


No, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The Marines are a branch of the Navy. The Marine pilots went through the Navy to be Marines. Do you see this big machine behind this handsome gentleman? This is NAS Glenview, October 1947. This is the fate of many of the Navy pilots and their Hellcats, post-war. They both went Reserve. The Corsairs got the nod in the post-war for much the same reasons the Hellcats got the nod on the carriers. The nature of the post-war was a ground war, a Marine war, and the Corsairs were the Marine machines. That's just how the cards fell. You're making this much more complicated than it is, I really think.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes indeed. Actually their British equivalent, Gannet Is (later Hellcat Is) and Corsair IIs. The F4U-1, although supplied to the FAA in the USA never saw combat with the FAA; the British equivalent to the F4U-1A, the Corsair II was the first to go into combat. British Corsairs were different to their US counterparts in that they had reduced wingspans to fit into British carrier hangars, which had lower ceilings.



You know, my problem with this idea is that if we have to assume F6F and F4U are operated from carriers in the North Atlantic then:

[1] it´s fairly save to assume that combat utility of these A/C is not identic to those experienced in the PTO, primarey because of different environmental conditions (flying hours per year) in North Atlantic / Barent Sea / North Sea on the one hand and Pacific on the other. We would also have to assume much bigger non-combat related loss rates in addition to combat related loss rates, which I am not going to speculate about.

[2] What effect have the then missing Fleet carriers in the Pacific theatre of operation?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm not sure that we need to assume that these two fighters would be operated from carriers vs. German-held assets in Europe.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm well aware of the fact the Marines are a branch of the Navy, and perhaps I am missing your point, but you have now posted the same sentence 3 times without elaborating on it. How is the Navy supposed to know going forward that everything is going to be a ground war, particularly with tensions with te USSR heating up? If WWIII had started, there would of course have been large amounts of air to air combat. We all know what happened in regards to Korea etc, but at the end of WWII when orders of F4Us kept coming and Hellcats stopped, the Navy had to keep both air to air and air to ground operations in mind.

But we're going in circles and are off topic. If you'd like to elaborate more on your point, by all means, but otherwise we should continue with the subject at hand.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 13, 2013)

delcyros said:


> Fair comment, which I would agree in. However, the F4U-4 appeared in combat squadrons only after VE-day (june 1945, IIRC) so it should be compared with P-51H / P-47N rather than P-38H/ P-47D/ P-51B, is that correct?



Yes you are.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> I'm well aware of the fact the Marines are a branch of the Navy, and perhaps I am missing your point, but you have now posted the same sentence 3 times without elaborating on it. How is the Navy supposed to know going forward that everything is going to be a ground war, particularly with tensions with te USSR heating up? If WWIII had started, there would of course have been large amounts of air to air combat. We all know what happened in regards to Korea etc, but at the end of WWII when orders of F4Us kept coming and Hellcats stopped, the Navy had to keep both air to air and air to ground operations in mind.
> 
> But we're going in circles and are off topic. If you'd like to elaborate more on your point, by all means, but otherwise we should continue with the subject at hand.


Fair enough. Let me just answer this way. Were the post-war a sea war, a carrier war, would the Corsairs have replaced the Hellcats on the carriers? Of course they wouldn't have. And there were a number of Navy Hellcat pilots who didn't go Reserve who went Marine and Corsair, post-war. But the way events played out, the Corsairs, especially by late 1944, throughout 1945, found their fit in the Marines, off the ground. And when the carriers and their aircraft were pushed to the background, the Corsairs naturally emerged front and center, in what (forgive me for repeating yet a fourth time, lol) was essentially a ground, land-based Marine war. Our boys in the Hellcats were still ready to go, that's why they were kept on, and kept sharp. The Corsair was a fantastic bombing and fighting aircraft, too, and I'm a complete and utter fool to take anything away from it. The post-war was just its time. The Marines had the experience in them. As our main hitter, they just made sense.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 13, 2013)

There we go! That makes sense. It wasn't so much that you had used the sentence multiple times, it's just that it lacked the framing around it that you just added. No, that makes a lot more sense now, thank you for clarifying. I certainly see your point, and to be honest hasn't considered the reserves, so I guess they didn't wholly switch over to the F4U, just with the active, front line units.

EDIT: And I hope I didn't come across as flippant at all when I mentioned how many times you had used the sentence, I just didn't know how else to phrase it to illustrate what my issue with understanding you was.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2013)

The "marine war" started in 1950. F6F production stopped in 1945. So the decision in 1945 was to take the "marine plane" to the "marine war" that was 5 years into the future?

As Catch 22 said, there were a number of Navy squadrons operating the F4U from carriers by the end of WW2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2013)

Somethings that complicates this story is that only ONE Hellcat got the the R-2800-18 engine used in the F4U-4. It was the XF6F-6. 

Production of the F6F was cut way back at the end of the war with ZERO F6Fs being delivered in Sept 1945 and a total of 63 more being delivered in October and November bringing F6F production to an end.

Vought continued production of the F4U-4 although at a much reduced rate. 

In 1946 the F4U-5 showed up and while it was used as a ground pounder in the Korean war that was far from it's _intended_ use. With a service ceiling of 45,000ft and hundreds more hp at high altitudes ( 1800hp at 30,000ft military power NOT Emergency or WER) it was intended for high altitude use. About 1/2 of the production run were completed as night fighters. Defense of Marine bases or defense of the fleet? 

The next version, the F4U-6 ( redesignated AU-1) was the _dedicated_ ground pounder with a low altitude single stage engine and extra armor to protect from ground fire.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Hellcat might have been a little behind the eight ball if it had been deployed as an air superiority or escort fighter over Europe. In general performance the Hellcat seems to have been similar to European fighters of circa 1942-3; Spitfire Vs Bf109Fs. By 1944 the standard was being set by Late model 109s and 190s, which required aircraft like the P 51 and Spit XIV to better them. As a fighter bomber I think the Hellcat would have done well, but as a pure fighter it would have been a year or two past its due date. The F4U would have been right up there, though.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The "marine war" started in 1950. F6F production stopped in 1945. So the decision in 1945 was to take the "marine plane" to the "marine war" that was 5 years into the future?


The carrier war was all but over. The need for the perfect carrier-based bomber-fighter was all but over. Who by the Summer of 1945 didn't understand that? 



wuzak said:


> As Catch 22 said, there were a number of Navy squadrons operating the F4U from carriers by the end of WW2.


They were training for their emerging role over land. The F4U unlike the F6F had serious track over land. They were the perfect fit for what was coming down the road.


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2013)

The F6F was a seriously good figher over land or water, and would have done just fine. Of course, that's my take on it, and it is shared by a LOT of former Navy pilots.

6Since it didn;t make it to Europe in numbers, who can say? But ... I find it very interesting that the F6F fought on after VE Day in the Pacific VERY EFFECTIVELY and yet is seen as obsolescent despite having a superior actual combat record to the very planes that people seem to think are better than the Hellcat. From one point of view, that is almost unexplainably strange.

But it IS a "what if," so there are no right or wrong answers.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 13, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> There we go! That makes sense. It wasn't so much that you had used the sentence multiple times, it's just that it lacked the framing around it that you just added. No, that makes a lot more sense now, thank you for clarifying. I certainly see your point, and to be honest hasn't considered the reserves, so I guess they didn't wholly switch over to the F4U, just with the active, front line units.
> 
> EDIT: And I hope I didn't come across as flippant at all when I mentioned how many times you had used the sentence, I just didn't know how else to phrase it to illustrate what my issue with understanding you was.


You weren't flippant. But anyway, thanks. Overall, I guess I'm saying, it was the nature of the upcoming conflict, most of all, that shifted the utilization of these respective aircraft. If you can swallow that, too, lol.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F6F was a seriously good figher over land or water, and would have done just fine. Of course, that'smy take on it, and it is shared by a LOT of former Navy pilots.


That's right, Greg. I know you boys don't like it too much when I relate to you what I head from my Dad and his buddies in his club (I mean, unless it's verified in Wikipedia by some 15-year-old or some darn thing, lol), but nobody who flew the F6F didn't represent it as a dream machine. And, that's the honest truth. I mean it, I mean it, I mean it, I mean it.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 14, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> The carrier war was all but over. The need for the perfect carrier-based bomber-fighter was all but over. Who by the Summer of 1945 didn't understand that?



Clearly not the USN, since they still have carrier based fighter bombers to this day, and they are in the process of acquiring a new one.

By carrier war I assume you mean carrier vs carrier. Carriers still had to protect the battle group from ground based aircraft.




VBF-13 said:


> They were training for their emerging role over land. The F4U unlike the F6F had serious track over land. They were the perfect fit for what was coming down the road.



Are you saying that the F6F was unsuitable for the role?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 14, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Clearly not the USN, since they still have carrier based fighter bombers to this day, and they are in the process of acquiring a new one.
> 
> By carrier war I assume you mean carrier vs carrier. Carriers still had to protect the battle group from ground based aircraft.


Yes, carrier vs. carrier; a sea war. A hangar-deck has its constraints. Another reason the F6F got the nod I believe resided in its simplicity. 



wuzak said:


> Are you saying that the F6F was unsuitable for the role?


No. The F4U was already in the role. By default, really. But due to its having been stiffed on the carriers (for the most part, anyway; go with me, here), it had a good year in the role under its belt.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

They could have picked the P-47, the P-51, the F6F, the F8F (too few made really) the P-38, or the F4U.

The P-47's were pretty tired from a LOT of sorties in WWII. The P-51 stayed on for awhile, but was intended for higher altitude work mostly. The F8F was probably right in there as one of the best performers ... but the end of the war saw the end of the orders and they didn't make many ... so it's pretty much out. The P-38 wasn't really a first class fighter-bomber ... it was a pretty good fighter, but not a great bomber.

That leave the F6F and the F4U.

We KNOW they picked the F4U but nobody in here knows why the F4U was picked ... unless they were in on the decision. If so, please chime in here. I certainly wasn't. I think the Hellcat would have been a better choice for ease of maintenance, toughness, far better manners at slow speeds (much nicer around a carrier or getting into or out of a short strip, better controlability right at liftoff) and in bad weather, decent bomb truck if not quite as good as the Corsair, and better visibility over the nose. Great accuracy in practice and in the war.

We KNOW they chose the hose- nose. I just wish I knew why ... speed wasn't an issue since jets were obviously on the way. 20 - 40 mph was nothing when carrying bombs ... the jets were 150+ mph faster. The Hellcat could turn tighter but the Corsair rolled better. Climb rate about a wash with equivalent engines and, if they HAD decided on the Hellcat, I'm pretty sure a more powerful R-2800 and a 4-blade prop would have shortly been in the works, possibly even as a field retrofit with a QEC package.

In the real world, the Corsair did pretty good work so it's hard to argue they made the wrong choice, but it is also hard to say the F6F would not have done as well given its many advantages. Another "what if" that can be sidestepped by just saying that the Corsair was picked and did OK in the early jet era when called upon to deliver the goods. 

Go Hose Nose. Sorry faithful Hellcat ... but you got aced out after the war.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 14, 2013)

First to answer the question at hand, they would have performed well, but not war-changers. The Pacific theatre, in the air as on the ground, was a world apart from the war in Europe. The Marines and Soldiers fought jungle warfare in the Pacific, while in Europe a lot was war within cities. (not all!) In the air war over the Pacific theatre I think a few major things are different: The Japanese did not have aircraft anywhere near the capabilities of the Luftwaffe, and the anti-aircraft weapons were only formidable on the continent of Japan. I say this as obviously not looking down the barrel of a Japanese gun emplacement on the island of "whatever" in the Pacific, but hopefully my point is understood. I am not certain, but I think a major reason the air war in the Pacific was not fought at the higher altitudes of Europe was the fact that there was not as a formidable of an anti-aircraft weaponry in the Pacific.

As great as the F6f stats are in the Pacific, I think they would have been a fraction of that if the Hellcat was used in large amounts in Europe. It was a great plane, perhaps the best, we had in the Pacific but i don't think it would have been as great against the Focke Wulf or the Messerschmitt. The Corsair I think would have been better in Europe than the Hellcat but not the equal to either the P-51 or the P-47. 

Whereas I think the Mustang could have performed the roles of the land based Corsair and Hellcat in the Pacific with equal effectiveness.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2013)

This might be of interest, its the US paper comparing the FW190A-4 to the Hellcat and Corsair
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F6F was a seriously good figher over land or water, and would have done just fine. Of course, that's my take on it, and it is shared by a LOT of former Navy pilots.
> 
> 6Since it didn;t make it to Europe in numbers, who can say? But ... I find it very interesting that the F6F fought on after VE Day in the Pacific VERY EFFECTIVELY and yet is seen as obsolescent despite having a superior actual combat record to the very planes that people seem to think are better than the Hellcat. From one point of view, that is almost unexplainably strange.
> 
> But it IS a "what if," so there are no right or wrong answers.


 
The Hellcat continued to excel in the PTO after the war in Europe ended because - amongst other things - the great majority of fighters which it faced were modestly updated versions of the same aircraft with which Japan started the war. The performance advantages it enjoyed over A6M5s and Ki43s in 1944 - 45 simply would not have applied against Bf109G-6s or Fw190Ds. In fact all the data I can see suggest these aircraft would have held a sisgnificant advantage.
The Hellcat was a terrific fighter in the PTO, but the fighters it would have been facing over Europe at the same time would have had its measure. When the opposition can outclimb you and outrun you, you are in trouble.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> They could have picked the P-47, the P-51, the F6F, the F8F (too few made really) the P-38, or the F4U.
> 
> The P-38 wasn't really a first class fighter-bomber ... it was a pretty good fighter, but not a great bomber.
> 
> .



The 5th, 9th and 15th AF loved it as a CAS fighter Bomber. Heavy firepower, great load and range mix.
Why is your opinion different?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 14, 2013)

GregP said:


> They could have picked the P-47, the P-51, the F6F, the F8F (too few made really) the P-38, or the F4U.
> 
> The P-47's were pretty tired from a LOT of sorties in WWII. The P-51 stayed on for awhile, but was intended for higher altitude work mostly. The F8F was probably right in there as one of the best performers ... but the end of the war saw the end of the orders and they didn't make many ... so it's pretty much out. The P-38 wasn't really a first class fighter-bomber ... it was a pretty good fighter, but not a great bomber.
> 
> ...


Let's not miss the forest for the trees. Any of the single-engine Ps could have taken off from carriers and stick a hook in their ass and they're landing on carriers. Both the Navy and the Marines had squadrons of carrier-based F4Us by the time the war was winding down. But, by then, what were those carriers? Were they carriers in the heat of combat that needed aircraft that worked below the deck as well as it worked above the deck and in the sky? No, they weren't. Not hardly. They were rather floating islands we could move around to wherever we needed to deploy whatever aircraft-load they could hangar. Not one of the single-engine Ps nor the F4Us fit as well as the F6Fs on those carriers facing those earlier combat exigencies. They were good aircraft, but the F6Fs were better.

That's over. It's history. The F6Fs proved themselves. The carriers are now moving islands, in a ground war, not a sea war, and the F4Us, from the outset, by default, had gone that distance of ground, and proved themselves over it, time and time, again. Put enemy carriers back into the fight and the F6Fs are right back there on those carriers and those F4U squadrons are gone for the same reasons the F6Fs got the nod over the F4Us on the carriers, in the first place. But, it was a different type of war, going forward, and, yes, credit that to those rotund, F6Fs, that didn't even look like they could get up into the sky, to some people, and, we move on. The F4Us were no slackers. Everybody knew that. They were the fit for going forward. Grumman's later F8F would have given anything at that time a good run for its money, but we simply had enough, and it was already on the ground, and we didn't need it. And, that's the big picture. If it isn't, it's a good piece of it.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

Hi Drgondog,

Just from talking with about 30 P-38 pilots. Sure, it could handle ground attack, but in most cases, was the only aircraft available to handle the task in the Pacific, so it was used as such effectively. It could handle a decent amount of ordnance, but wasn't really designed for the task, being designed as a higher-altitude fighter from the outset. I suppose it could have been picked but, by the time the war finished, enough money had been spent winning that the cost of two engines versus one plus the added complexity of P-38 maintenance (it ain't easy to work on, believe me) would probably tip the balance even if it were equivalent or even superior in all capabilities.

In more modern times, the F-14 was retired when the cost of maintenance was found to be 6 times the cost of the F/A-18 in fleet service, The plane wasn't worn out or obsolete ... it was too expensive to continue with. When retired, the F-14 was running 125 hours of maintenace per flight hour while the F/A-18 was running 18 hours of maintenance per flight hour. Though I really liked the F-14 and the F-18 only carried half the bomb load half as far, the cost per flight hour for the F-14 was just too high. Same thing retired the SR-71, too.

The P-38 probably reached the point of being too expensive to operate in quantity after WWII when these decisions were made. I really think the only two viable candidates for a ground-support plane at the time that were avialable in large numbers were the F4U and F6F. I don't think the Skyraiders were in service in large numbers yet when the decision was made. Though they supported heavily in Korea, the decision to contuinue with the Corsair was made pretty quickly after WWII ended, so the Skyraider wasn't a huge factor at the time, though it certainly would have been a great choice, too ... as time proved beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Post war the Hellcat was used for second-line duty by the USA and was used by the French in Viet Nam (French Indochina at the time). It soldiered on until about 1960 in first line duty with other air arms. If I'm not mistaken, the last air arm that used the F6F in first line duty was Honduras.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 14, 2013)

GregP

As one who lives not too far from one of the Navy's Master Jet Bases, your post reminded me of how I miss -- well somewhat miss -- the ole A-6 Intruder's flying over. They were just plain old fasioned loud even by modern jet standards. They were an earlier victim of the oncoming F-18 / F-14 wranglings. Though older than the F-14's, they were still incredible planes with a great attack range. Still no mistaking that plane overhead!

Though I would not claim to be an expert, everything I've ever read about the demobilization seems to show it was not as clearly thought out as it should have. I think the military and political leaders knew this in many ways. But, it should be remembered that one of thing that guided them early on was that all over the place was huge fields of aircraft that were no longer needed. That, and poorly realizing what would come next in terms of a military conflict probably lead to many, many poor choices. It was also a transistional time for avaiton also. Thank goodness the F-86 came along when it did!


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

Yeah, the old A-6 was a very good aircraft. Basically all it lacked in my mind was some forward firing weapon(s), maybe two pylons for AAM's and that's about it. A bit more power would have been nice, but it could cary some serious weapon loadouts a long way, especially when compared with the F/A-18. Some guys I knew at the time said they should have retired the Hornets and stayed with the A-6 ... they were, of course, A-6 drivers. I got to hear them awhile when in Seattle area since they still had EA-6B Prowlers at NAS Whidby Island and they still flew the pattern close to me at the time. 

Both the F-14 and A-6 were clearly superior to the F/A-18 in bomb load and range and, when it was loaded with bombs ... the F/A-18 isn't exactly a speed demon ... the A-6 might even keep up with it until weapon release. I KNOW the A-6 would apss it when the F/A-18 is on its way home and the A-6 is still ingressing a LONG way past the F/A-18 turnaround point. If they load the F-35 down with eternal weapons, it'll have essentially the same flight performance as the F/A-18 and teh same stealth ... it's only much better at both when carrying the internal loadout with a clean exterior. I hope they remember that and use appropriate tactics ... if it ever needs to be used. We can hope not, but history says otherwise, doesn't it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2013)

At some point the F4U was picked over the F6F and it appears that point was sometime in 1944. It often takes a year or more for production decisions to show up in the front lines. I was wrong earlier, there were TWO prototype F6Fs with the R-2800-18 engine built. The engine was in short supply and the F4U-4 got it. NO production F6F-6s. Grumman studied putting a R-4360 in the F6F airframe but decided too many changes were needed. F6F production was over with and Grumman was working other aircraft when the R-2800-32 engine (the sidewinder) became available and was put in the F4U-5. 

I don't know why but it seems like either the F6F didn't have the potential to be _easily_ re-engined/upgraded or Grumman had enough _other_ GOOD designs (F7F, F8F, F9F) in hand to keep redesigning the F6F from being a high priority. Vought on the other hand had no real piston engine successor to the F4U and may have tried a bit harder to upgrade it (or it was more adaptable?) and Vought's first jet was a _turkey,_ leaving Vought no choice but upgrade the F4U? 

The post war era was certainly a time of confusion with many aircraft (even jets) becoming obsolete before they could go from prototype to production. Jet engine capability increased in a dramatic fashion in just a few short years but some aspects of jet performance were lacking in 1945-46-47. A piston plane intended to cover some of the jets shortcomings in 1946 was totally obsolete in 1949 because the goal had moved, teh jets were that much better, not that the piston engine plane had failed to achieve it's performace goals.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

Good points SHortround. I think Grumman was just too busy with the planes you mentioned. They were turning the F7F into a 2-seat, radar equipped night fighter, the Bearcat was setting world records (kept doing so, and still has it), and the Hellcat was probably bottom of the priority heap, just as you said. You are spot on with Vought, too. If your new jet fails, might as well fix up the "war hearo" and soldier on until a new jet design can be made ready. Unfortumately the F7U Gutlass din't fare much better than the F6U Pirate, although it DID get purchased and made it into fleet service ... but everyone hated it ... so te Cirsair was again in a position to save some company revenue.

Grumman kept up an unbroken streak of good planes and the Hellcat, while fondly rmembered by all who flew it, was quickly just a Naval Reserve aircraft on its way out. It COULD have been upgraded, but there werer just too many good irons in the fire at Grumman to save them all, and speed was becomming more of a darling number in those days as the jets kept going faster and faster, even the unproduced prototypes.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 14, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Let's not miss the forest for the trees. Any of the single-engine Ps could have taken off from carriers and stick a hook in their ass and they're landing on carriers.[/. QUOTE]
> 
> The P-51 or P-47 as carrier fighters? Really? The Thundebolt needed half of England to take off and land and it was huge - major drawbacks for a carrier fighter. I read an account from Grummans chief test pilot who said the factory was concerned that North American were looking at making a carrier version of the Mustang, but once he flew it he knew it was never going to happen; the take off and landing characteristics were so far out of the ball park that it would have required a major redesign.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 14, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> The P-51 or P-47 as carrier fighters? Really? The Thundebolt needed half of England to take off and land and it was huge - major drawbacks for a carrier fighter. I read an account from Grummans chief test pilot who said the factory was concerned that North American were looking at making a carrier version of the Mustang, but once he flew it he knew it was never going to happen; the take off and landing characteristics were so far out of the ball park that it would have required a major redesign.


Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. I never said they'd make good carrier fighters. I said they could easily have been configured as such.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> VBF-13 said:
> 
> 
> > I read an account from Grummans chief test pilot who said the factory was concerned that North American were looking at making a carrier version of the Mustang, but once he flew it he knew it was never going to happen; the take off and landing characteristics were so far out of the ball park that it would have required a major redesign.
> ...


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 14, 2013)

They and some of the other single-engine Ps were looked at, Glider. There's a thread, somewhere, touching on that, but I can't put my finger on it.


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 14, 2013)

I have found these through various places on Google.






















EDIT: Accidentally attached a duplicate image, and can't figure out how to remove it.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2013)

Nice pics Catch22. I did one of those, too, and had to have a moderator remove.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2013)

Many thanks Catch, looks like I can trust the memory for a bit longer. I wonder what the impact was on its performance?


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 15, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. I never said they'd make good carrier fighters. I said they could easily have been configured as such.



Yeah? Well, I never said you said they would make good carrier fighters, so there. And all sorts of aircraft have been 'configured' as carrier aircraft and successfully launched and landed without ever having a practical future as a carrier based aircraft. The Mosquito springs to mind as a case in point.
Regarding the P 51, IIRC the main issue was the high landing speed dictated by the laminar flow wings. The inline engine probably counted against it too.


----------



## bob44 (Apr 15, 2013)

Here is a little more info on the carrier Mustang. Mustang! - Documents
I believe that the name of the Mustang in the article is wrong however, it should be FJ-1D Seahorse?


----------



## Catch22 (Apr 15, 2013)

Thanks for the link Bob, I'll have to have a look.

Yes, the US Navy didn't like having inline engines not just because they weren't quite as durable, but also because you have to store the coolant in an already limited space.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 15, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> ..........
> Yes, the US Navy didn't like having inline engines not just because they weren't quite as durable, but also because you have to store the coolant in an already limited space.



Not to speak of another dangerous and flammable liquid (Ethylene glycol) to have aboard of a Carrier, to be stored, replaced in possible leaking radiators etc ....


----------



## N4521U (Apr 15, 2013)

I didn't know the ETO needed as folding wing airplane?

Just sayin.


----------



## stona (Apr 15, 2013)

Elmas said:


> Not to speak of another dangerous and flammable liquid (Ethylene glycol) to have aboard of a Carrier, to be stored, replaced in possible leaking radiators etc ....



Ethylene Glycol at 100% concentration is difficult to set alight. It is technically flammable with a flashpoint of about 200 degrees centigrade. It's normal boiling point is 197.3 degrees C. It is not particularly dangerous otherwise. 
You wouldn't want to drink it but just take a look at any airport in winter to see how it is used as a de-iceing agent. It breaks down rapidly in the environment.
Compared to many other far more dangerous substances stored on an aircraft carrier I can't see anything but space being a consideration.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

Vision over the nose and stall speed (too high) were two 'downcheck' items for carrier suitability..


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Yeah? Well, I never said you said they would make good carrier fighters, so there. And all sorts of aircraft have been 'configured' as carrier aircraft and successfully launched and landed without ever having a practical future as a carrier based aircraft. The Mosquito springs to mind as a case in point.


My point was while the single-engine Ps could be rigged for carrier take-offs and landings that in itself hardly made them feasible for the type of combat operations we were facing in the PTO. I get your point specific to the P47.



drgondog said:


> Vision over the nose [...]


There actually wasn't any vision over the nose of the F6F, either. They, too, had to zig-zag into position, to avoid hitting anything in their path.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 15, 2013)

In my opinion, prior to the introduction of water injection on the F4U and F6F, approximately Jan '44, I think both would have been reasonably equal to the Fw 190A-3/4 in speed and climb at all altitudes, the F6F-3 was rather slow but made up for in in climb superiority. I think this is also true for the Bf 109G at low to medium altitudes. However at higher bomber altitudes of 20-25k, I think both would be at a disadvantage to the Bf 109, the F4U being roughly equal to the Bf in airspeed but with much less climbing ability and the F6F suffering both in airspeed, significantly, and climb. With good internal fuel, the F4U-1 could have performed the long range escort and deep interdiction missions in 1943 but the poorly protected wing tanks would be questionable. With 50 less gallons of internal fuel than the P-47C/early Ds, the F6Fs could not execute the long range escort or deep interdiction missions any better than the P-47s did. So, if the F4Us had been sent to ETO when available, bombers could possibly have been better protected. Both (the F6F was not available until mid '43) may have been effective in mid-range western Europe interdiction efforts. After Jan, '44, the AAF had P-51s and later model P-47s so the F4U-1D (w/water), and with reduced internal fuel, and F6F-3 (w/water) would have been superfluous.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 15, 2013)

David, the Fw-190s (A-3 to A-6 were in strength of the LW back then) in 1943 can do 410 mph, and the best figure I can find for the F4U in that year is 395 mph. The tests, involving the Fw, F4U and F6F (one is here), do show that Fw has both better RoC and climbing speed, and that it takes WER (not available in 1943) for the F4U to outpace the Fw, albeit only below 20000ft.

The wing tanks of the early F4Us can be put into a good use, if the Allies employ 'relay system' - the Spitfire IX can cover the bomb raid maybe until Belgium is reached, and by that time the F4U should use up the wing fuel and carry on with fuselage (protected) fuel. I agree that, once the P-47 historically got even the 108 gal tank, that makes much more sense as a best Allied fighter to go to Germany proper, though not as deep as the Merlin Mustang and late P-47Ds.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Chance-Cought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.
> 
> What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?


I don't know about you boys and girls, but this, above, is the question I tried to answer. The big problem as I see it the Allies faced was in the fresh Luftwaffe and fresh AA fire they encountered from the land bases the deeper into Germany they went in these heavy-bomber missions. The question asked, though, didn't regard whether the F4U and the F6F would have provided better limousine service in the ETO. Rather, it asked what impact they'd have likely had as against the Luftwaffe fighters. Again, I think they'd have given the Luftwaffe fighters double-trouble, in that they'd have added a serious dive-bombing dimension to the task of intercepting these heavy-bombers. Whether, as fighters, they'd have rated superior as against the Luftwaffe fighters, I have no idea, honestly. I'll submit, though, that our other fighters probably didn't rate all that shabby, there, either. Their problems rather were they were encountering fresh fire, and in larger and larger numbers, the deeper into Germany they went. Dive on those land bases in those F4Us and F6Fs, as they dove on the carriers and land bases in the PTO, while under fighter fire and AA. Send in bombing-fighting squadrons just for that purpose, and clear those land bases out of there, ahead of the heavy-bombers and their escorts. Put the Luftwaffe fighters to more than interception, put them to the defense of their land bases. In the F4Us and the F6Fs, we didn’t have just one or the other, we had both, a dive-bomber and a fighter. Utilize them, as such, as we had in the PTO. Do we rather want to rate them on their heavy-bomber escort capabilities? That's fine, but they faced the same constraints, there, as did the ETO fighters, and those mainly converged on range. Leave them in the PTO, if that’s all we want to utilize them for.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I don't know about you boys and girls, but this, above, is the question I tried to answer. The big problem as I see it the Allies faced was in the fresh Luftwaffe and fresh AA fire they encountered from the land bases the deeper into Germany they went in these heavy-bomber missions. The question asked, though, didn't regard whether the F4U and the F6F would have provided better limousine service in the ETO. Rather, it asked what impact they'd have likely had as against the Luftwaffe fighters. Again, I think they'd have given the Luftwaffe fighters double-trouble, in that they'd have added a serious dive-bombing dimension to the task of intercepting these heavy-bombers. Whether, as fighters, they'd have rated superior as against the Luftwaffe fighters, I have no idea, honestly. I'll submit, though, that our other fighters probably didn't rate all that shabby, there, either. Their problems rather were they were encountering fresh fire, and in larger and larger numbers, the deeper into Germany they went. Dive on those land bases in those F4Us and F6Fs, as they dove on the carriers and land bases in the PTO, while under fighter fire and AA. Send in bombing-fighting squadrons just for that purpose, and clear those land bases out of there, ahead of the heavy-bombers and their escorts. Put the Luftwaffe fighters to more than interception, put them to the defense of their land bases. In the F4Us and the F6Fs, we didn’t have just one or the other, we had both, a dive-bomber and a fighter. Utilize them, as such, as we had in the PTO. Do we rather want to rate them on their heavy-bomber escort capabilities? That's fine, but they faced the same constraints, there, as did the ETO fighters, and those mainly converged on range. Leave them in the PTO, if that’s all we want to utilize them for.



Three words - Not Enough Range to escort deep, then dive down to strafe like the P-51 - and to a lesser extent the P-38.

The R-2800 genre (P-47, F4U, F6F needed ~325+ gallons internal fuel to effectively escort B-17s to and from Berlin and ~ 375 gallonsd to go to Brux, Posnan line. Only the P-47N crossed the last threshold, although the F4U-1A had 360 for just a little more range than the P-47D. 

The F6F had 250 gallons and had less one way range than the P-47D. It could carry a lot more for ferry but once the xternals are gone you have to come home with what you have internally

The F6F did fight in the Med around the June-July 1944 timeframe in a few engagements with LW fighters and more or less came out with a draw.. but too small a sample to make judgments.


----------



## Glider (Apr 15, 2013)

I would stick to using them to escort the 1943 B17/B24 raids. They would stop the attacks by the German twin fighters, probably force the 109's to stay with the original weapons limiting their danger to the bombers and the 190 wasn't great at height.

Start going low and you are starting to operate in the 190's best altitudes. I amnot sayng that they would match the P51 for range but they could make a big difference


----------



## stug3 (Apr 15, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Send in bombing-fighting squadrons just for that purpose, and clear those land bases out of there, ahead of the heavy-bombers and their escorts. Put the Luftwaffe fighters to more than interception, put them to the defense of their land bases. In the F4Us and the F6Fs, we didn’t have just one or the other, we had both, a dive-bomber and a fighter.



Didnt the USAAF do this with 47s 51s medium bombers anyway?


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2013)

Hey VBF,

The F6F has tremendous visibility over the nose. You can even see the runway in front of you in the 3-point attitude.

Go sit in one and check it out.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

Greg, they had to taxi in a sidewinder fashion. In fact, the ground crews were taught that, so they wouldn't get in the way. There was a big accident on my Dad's base when the pilot "zigged" (or "zagged," as the case may be, lol) into a fuel truck because the driver wasn't paying attention to how the F6F was coming out.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Three words - Not Enough Range to escort deep, then dive down to strafe like the P-51 - and to a lesser extent the P-38.
> 
> The R-2800 genre (P-47, F4U, F6F needed ~325+ gallons internal fuel to effectively escort B-17s to and from Berlin and ~ 375 gallonsd to go to Brux, Posnan line. Only the P-47N crossed the last threshold, although the F4U-1A had 360 for just a little more range than the P-47D.
> 
> ...


The range was what made those escort missions problematic, at least until the P51s. But why not dive on the bases within range? Clear out that much of the trail in advance of the bombers and their escorts. The F4Us and F6Fs could have handled that and fought off the fighters at the same time. It would have meant less resistance encountered for the bombers and their escorts.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2013)

VBF, all conventional gear planes must weave when they taxi. You can see the runway in an F6F, but not immediately right in front of you ... I'd estimate you can see the runway about 200 feet in front on outward. My point is the Hellcat had much better forward visibility than the Corsair or the Thunderbolt, both similarly powered. Visibility on short final was positively wonderful compared with the Corsair.

Combat raduis for the F6F-5 is specified as 945 miles. That's enough for some serious escort work. It wasn't as far as the P-51 but, then again, nothing else was either. For comparison purposes, combat radius for the P-47D is listed as 800 miles. The combat radius of the Vought F4U-1A is something like 500 miles (1,015 mile range = about half for radius).

So, the Hellcat was pretty good, range-wise, compared with contemporaries.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

GregP said:


> VBF, all conventional gear planes must weave when they taxi.


You know, that's right. 

Oh well, what else do you want to know?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2013)

Glider said:


> I would stick to using them to escort the 1943 B17/B24 raids. They would stop the attacks by the German twin fighters, probably force the 109's to stay with the original weapons limiting their danger to the bombers and the 190 wasn't great at height.
> 
> Start going low and you are starting to operate in the 190's best altitudes. I amnot sayng that they would match the P51 for range but they could make a big difference



Glider IIRC the F6F was barely operaztion in Dec 1943, ditto F4U-1A.. so the numbers available are about the same as the P-51B in ETO.

Second consideration is that the F4U-1A has more internal fuel than the P-47D-11 which was in theatre in Dec 1943 but small numbers. Its range was greater than the F6F and less than F4U-1A. All three less than P-38/P-51. The LW was sparring over the Lowlands but all the twins were basically pulling back from Holland/France in Dec 1943 to roughly a line from Dummer Lake to Frankfurt - and waiting out the Jugs. By definition they would pull back perhaps to Hanover/Stuttgart line for F4U-1A.

The FW 190A-7 and me 109G5/6 would have been an equal adversary to F4U-1A as they were to the P-47 at B-17/B-24 altitudes.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2013)

I believe the Corsair would generally out-perform the P-47 as a fighter below 30,000 feet. I was also under the impression that the B-17's and B-24's moved down from their service ceilings over Europe (to increase bombing accuracy) and bombed from the mid-20's, where the Corsair or Hellcat would have done just fine versus Axis fighters.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 15, 2013)

GregP said:


> Combat raduis for the F6F-5 is specified as 945 miles. That's enough for some serious escort work. It wasn't as far as the P-51 but, then again, nothing else was either. For comparison purposes, combat radius for the P-47D is listed as 800 miles. The combat radius of the Vought F4U-1A is something like 500 miles (1,015 mile range = about half for radius).
> 
> So, the Hellcat was pretty good, range-wise, compared with contemporaries.


Greg, then if that’s the case, so much the better for the F6F-5s, in terms of how I’d utilize them in the ETO. I’d be looking to them to blaze the trail, so to speak. Why not utilize that capability? The bombers would find where the bases were through the fighters they’d draw to them. We could have sent whole squadrons of F6Fs after those bases in advance of the later missions to address that intercepting aircraft at their root. There would have been a number of ways we could have systematically incorporated that dive-bombing capability into those missions, were we of the mind for it. Instead, we let those bases alone, and the Luftwaffe fighters racked up ace after ace for it. That’s where I’m thinking on this question. The F6Fs wrecked the Japanese fleet while engaging and ducking that fire, and they could very well have done the same thing, here, I believe, with respect to those land bases, had they been available and so utilized.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2013)

We have been over this a number of times before. Range or radius figures are pretty much useless unless they include altitude and speed. 

According to the British Data card the F6F-5 was good for a _RANGE_ (not radius) of 1115 miles carrying 333 Imp gallons of gas after making the following deductions. 5min take-off, climb to 20,000ft, 15 minutes combat at 20,000ft, and 20minutes at M.E.C.S. (Most Economical Cruising Speed) at 2,000ft. Speed for cruise was 237mph at 20,000ft which is just about useless for escorting bombers or even surviving in European skies. 

Lets look at it another way, Hellcat takes-off on drop tanks (not really done) climbs to 20,000ft and heads into France for Germany. It gets bounced (or bounces the Germans) and drops tanks leaving FULL internal fuel of 250 US (208IMP) gallons. 15 minutes at Military power will burn about 70 US (59Imp?) gallons. Plane needs about 15-20 gallons reserve to find and land at home field. Our F6F has 160 US gallons to get home and it burns about 80-90 US gallons an hour at around 293mph at 20,000ft. 

Actual combat radius is under 600 miles in European conditions. Maybe way under depending on take-off allowance and cruise speed and altitude on the way in and out and how long the 150 US gallon drop tank lasts on the climb and cruise in.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2013)

C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.

I have several references that disagree with one another. One says combat radius was 945 miles. Two more, now that I checked it, say combat range was 945 miles. A couple of others say combat range was 945 mile and absolute ferry range was 1,530 miles. Looking at it logically, if the radius is 945 miles, then the range is twice that, and the 1,530 miles would be a LOT more for a one-way trip.

I believe the range naysayers are right on this one. From almost any standpoint it looks like the 945 miles is probably range, not radius. That changes things a bit as far as an escort goes, but I still think it would have fared just fine in Europe as a fighter. It's fighting qualities were VERY good.

In the real world, the Hellcat first saw action in September 1943, so decent numbers probably weren't available until early 1944. They probably could not have been successfully deployed to both the ETO and PTO at the same time. 

It would have been interesting though.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 15, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Yeah? Well, I never said you said they would make good carrier fighters, so there. And all sorts of aircraft have been 'configured' as carrier aircraft and successfully launched and landed without ever having a practical future as a carrier based aircraft. The Mosquito springs to mind as a case in point.



There were versions of the Mosquito for use on carriers. They arrived too late for WW2, and had their orders cut.

Size wise the Mosquito had the same wing span and was slightly longer than the Avenger. It did weigh quite a bit more, however.
It was much the same size and weight as the F7F.


----------



## FlakDancer (Apr 15, 2013)

This article here should shed some insight into the range -- radius issue with the F6F-5. I am not a real world pilot but I think this will help clarify the issue. Seems like some great info! http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2013)

GregP said:


> C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.



Yes they do. 

A lot of the Navy ranges are figured at 180-200mph at altitudes of 5,000-15,000ft. Cruising conditions that are not only useless for escorting bombers but guaranteed to set up the fighter flying that way to be bounced with the most possible benefit to the German attacker. Not to mention being a practice target for every flak battery in range. 
You can fly at those speeds and altitudes in the Pacific as there is nothing under you but water and the Japanese held Islands and air bases are pretty well known. 

Try checking the range chart here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf

over 900 N. miles at a cruising speed of 180 knots but at at 260kts the range has dropped to 600 N. miles. At 280 knts the range is under 500 N. Miles and that is with the 150 gallon drop tank and at 15,000ft. 

The Army figured combat radius at 25,000ft at 210mph IAS or a bit over 300 mph true airspeed.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 16, 2013)

Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it. 

How's that?


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

Nah, European conditions don't change range. And the bombers cruised at 180 - 200 mph. A Hellcat has NO problem cruising at 250 mph.

If the Hellcats were already at high altitude, they could see the enemy coming in and were MUCH faster accelerating than P-51's were.

It would have done just fine.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 16, 2013)

stona said:


> Ethylene Glycol at 100% concentration is difficult to set alight. .....
> Steve



But not if it happens that a bomb centers a tank ...... rarely seen on the airports nowadays, expecially in winter, I have to admit......


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 16, 2013)

The USN Naval Combat statistics gives a 19:1 aerial claims to loss ratio for the Hellcat and an 11:1 ratio for the Corsair. An exceptional performance. Even including losses to AAA does little to blunt their success. The Hellcat goes to better than 6 to 1, the Corsair to better than 4:1

I'd posit that these aircraft would have much reduced, but still positive, kill/loss rates over the ETO.

Here's my reasoning:

The Hellcat/Corsair's success in the PTO was the result of a number of exceptional circumstances.

1. The primary Japanese fighter types - the A6M and the Ki-43, Ki-61, Ki-44 - in 1943/1944 were significantly outperformed. The USN types had speed advantages of 30-40 mph at most heights, and generally even more significant margins of performance at higher altitudes.

2. When better Japanese fighters - Ki-84, J2M, N1K1-J - did become availabe, progressively through mid-1943 to the beginning of 1945, the Japanese had neither the necessary production capacity or the pilot cadre available to take advantage of this. In comparison, the USN may have produced the finest body of trained combat pilots of any air force of the war, with the possible caveat of the Germans in 1939-1941 and the Finns.

I present the FM-2 as evidence to support my case. This diminuitive and obsolescent (but not obsolete) fighter scored an impressive kill/loss ratio of 17.5 to 1, even though it was generally out-performed by the Japanese types.

3. The Japanese kamikazi fixation - while an effective tactic against ships - meant that a large number of non-defending targets were presented to USN aviators in the closing nine months of the war. This was so much the case that at battles such as Leyete, FM-1/2s reported running out of ammunition (430 rpg, or 35 seconds trigger time) when attacking kamikazes.

4. The lack of a dense AAA envelope in comparison to Europe. In shooting down 9291 Japanese aircraft, 1982 USN/Marine aircraft were lost to AAA, of which 988 lost were fighters, or just under half. This give us a rough ratio of nine claims per loss to AAA. 

In comparison, the USAAF lost 2,449 fighters to AAA in the ETO, in exchange for 7422 kills claimed. A ratio of three claims per loss to AAA. 

Even if we posit that the USN birds were significantly more rugged and resistant to ground fire than the P-51 and P-38, and roughly similar to the P-47, I still believe that there would have been significantly more losses to ground fire in Europe.

Pt 2 in next post


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 16, 2013)

Pt 2 - Operations in Europe

1. Unlike in the Pacific, the primary 1943-1945 German fighter types - the 190A5/6/8/9, the 190D9 and the 109G6/10/14 and 109K-4 - have little or no performance deficit to the USN types. At some altitude bands and in terms of some aircraft/flight characteristics, they have advantages over the USN types,

Therefore, the crushing superiority in speed, high speed acceleration, dive rate, controllability at high speeds, armament, communications technology, engine performance and build quality that the USN aircraft possessed through much of 1943-1945 evaporates.

2. The quality of German pilots, while declining through 1943/1944, never fell to the sort of low ebb that the Japanese experienced. There was a notable decline in German pilot training hours from early-ish 1944, but not to the extent that the Japanese were scrabbling for pilots.

3. Germany was able to mount strong numerical opposition through-out all of 1943 and most of 1944. Unlike the Japanese, they rarely hoarded fighters for single battles and provided heavy, continual opposition until mid to late 1944. Even after this, they were still capable of heavy blows.

4. The German air defence network was significantly more advanced than the Japanese network, allowing Luftwaffe pilots and commanders to gain local tactical advantages that their Japanese counterparts could only rarely possess. The German command and control set-up was also excellent.

Pt 3 in next post


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 16, 2013)

Ok, enough playing devil's advocate. 

I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes. 

They posses advantages when it comes to ruggedness and general maneouverability and control harmony (broadly tying with the P-47 in the last two categories). Have a look at the P-51B vs F4U-1 trials Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (Although the USN bent the rules a little by running the Corsair at higher than normal boost).

Firepower is broadly similar, although the gun setups in the Navy aircraft were slightly more reliable than in the P-51D and much more reliable than in the P-51B/C.

They possess a performance disadvantage compared to the USAAF types above about 25,000 ft. The Hellcat is generally a 390-395 mph bird, the early F4Us about a 400-410 mph bird. With the two-speed, two stage Merlin powered P-51 and the turbosupercharged engines in the P-38 and P-47, high altitude combat was tailor made to the USAAF fighters, to go alongside the high altitude bombing campaign.

At the high altitudes of the European air war, I feel that the Navy fighters may have been roughly comprable to the main German fighter types, while the USAAF types were generally superior, or a least had a greater margin of performance. Apart from the P-38, the USAAF types had better dive performance and high speed performance. 

I feel that the F6F could probably have subsitiuted for the P-38, and was probably a superior fighter bomber and fighter at medium altitudes. The F4U could have probably substituted for the P-47 - it would have made a better escort bomber and the two are within shades of each other in the fighter bomber stakes. The P-51B/C/D was probably the fighter of choice in Europe, particularly one the feed and wing/gear problems were fixed. I don't think either Navy type would have been a superior replacement in the long-range, high altitude escort role, which was the dominant mission type for about 18 months.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 16, 2013)

Okay, take this a step further and lose all extraneous carrier gear from the F4U and F6F. Redesign the wings without the wing fold mechanisms etc; possibly lighten the undercarriages slightly? Possibly cut down the rear fuselage and add blown canopies? How much weight would be saved? 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02155.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/FG-1A_14575.pdf

Performance test on cleaned up F4U-1 w/water injection:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf

F6F-3 and -5

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42874.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
> 
> How's that?



Not concluding that it is useless, just that it won't do what some people think it will. Hellcat holds 250 gallons of fuel for it's R-2800 while a P-47 holds 305 gallons to start with. The two planes are just about equal in speed at 5,000 ft or so ( or with in a couple %) on equal power so they have about the same drag. Why do people think the Hellcat can fly further?

If you fly the P-47 the same way the Navy flew the Hellcat for range you get about the same or better range. P-47 is supposed to fly 880 miles on 265 gallons of internal fuel at 200-205mph IAS at altitudes from sea level to 12,000ft. 
Since it was considered very short legged in Europe why would the Hellcat be considered longer ranged? 

We are also changing the game from what would happen if you _substituted_ the Hellcat for plane XXX in Europe to what would happen if you had hundreds of _extra_ fighters/fighter bombers in Europe at the time in question.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2013)

GregP said:


> C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.
> 
> I have several references that disagree with one another. One says combat radius was 945 miles. Two more, now that I checked it, say combat range was 945 miles. A couple of others say combat range was 945 mile and absolute ferry range was 1,530 miles. Looking at it logically, if the radius is 945 miles, then the range is twice that, and the 1,530 miles would be a LOT more for a one-way trip.
> 
> ...



Both the F6F and F4U-1A would have been excellent and I would have personally preferred the F4U-1A over any version of the P-47D until the -25, and definitely the F4U-4... but they wouldn't have been available to both the PTO and ETO/MTO in numbers of significance..

Just like the P-51B didn't flood the PTO to replace the P-40.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> Ok, enough playing devil's advocate.
> 
> I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes.
> 
> ...



The F4U-1A and F4U-4, IMO are superior choices over any F6F-3 and -5 for ETO. I'm not sure about MTO as altitudes tended lower because the B-24 was primary bomber for 15th on a 2:1 basis.

There is no question in my mind that these primary USN fighters, designed to protect the fleet, are outstanding fighter/fighter aircraft that would do just as well as the P-51 in ETO - but not as well at Berlin and Brux because they weren't coming home if they went there.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
> 
> How's that?



Won't happen any better than the P-47... They were flying the same escort profile, Namely Penetration and Withdrawal - then hand off to P-51/P-38. The P-47 ground scores were less than half of the P-51 in the ETO because the primary bases for LW were deep in Germany where they could fly to points within Germany in high numbers to R/V at the attack point with the bombers. The F6F doesn't get near them - only the Western defense line - which is where the P-47 lived and was superior in performance from 25000 and up.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2013)

Hopefully these tables can shed some light about the combat radius issues. The P-38J and P-51B are listed without the additional fuel tankage.

Please note that cruising altitudes and speeds (the USN specification) are far 'leaner' than USAF specifications applicable for ETO duties (25000 ft at 210 mph IAS, or circa 300 mph, as already noted by Shortround6, and as can be read at the war-time table found at pg. 599 of the book 'US Hundred thousands'). The USAF specification for the cruise altitude of 10000 ft also involves the 210 mph IAS, and, eg. the P-51 will make roughly 50 miles there than at 25K. The P-51B with 180+150 gals will have 460 miles combat radius at 25K, 500 miles at 10K, and, by USN specification, 550 miles. Again, SR6 is spot on ('European conditions make difference'), that should not surprise us 
The P-47 should do, by USN specification, 650 miles (305 + 300 USG), and by USAF specifications, only 425 miles at 25K. 
The F4U-1 (237+170 gals) does some 10% less than P-51B (on USN spec), so we might get only a tad above 400 miles @ 25000 ft for the F4U-1 on USAF spec?

edit: right-click at a picture and open it separately, in full size/hi res


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> ...
> The P-51B with 180+150 gals will have 460 miles combat radius at 25K, 500 miles at 10K, and, by USN specification, 550 miles. ...
> 
> The F4U-1 (237+170 gals) does some 10% less than P-51B (on USN spec), so we might get only *a tad above 400 miles* @ 25000 ft for the F4U-1 on USAF spec?



...or maybe not (the 400 miles radius for the F4U), once the R-2800 operates in Auto-rich, the fuel consumption skyrockets vs. the V-1650:











That kind of increase, 3-3.5 times more vs. consumption in Auto-lean is the factor that steeply reduces the radius of the P-47, USN vs. USAF cruising specs. And would surely hamper other R-2800 fighters, so anything above 350 miles (USAF specs, on 25K) would be a minor miracle.

edit: for the sake of completeness, here is the (or one of) engine data table for the P-47:


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

Hi Tomo, I can't read the report number. Could you provide the document numbers?


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

I have to laugh at the Merlin chart. We have operated these engines for 50 years and do so every weekend. We fly two P-51D Mustangs almost constantly. There are a total of 3 Mustangs that operate regularly out of Chino, and all run the same fuel consumption. They cruise at 60 gph after takeoff and climbout. When you get them much leaner, you are flirting with destroying the engine. On the upper end we only get to 150 gph since there is NO reason whatsoever to use WER in a private P-51.

We also operate quite a few R-2800's (Corsair, P-47, Bearcat, Flugwerke Fw 190, and the occasional Hellcat) and plan on 85 - 90 gph in Auto-Lean depending on cruise speed. Auto-Rich is for startup, takeoff and airshow mode ... and dogfighting for fun. As with the P-51, the R-2800' are never operated past military power settings since we aren't at war ... but we also don't mind using 2,000 hp for takeoff and initial climbout.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Tomo, I can'y read the report number. Could you provide the document numbers?



I've posted the F4U data here, the snapshots from the post 121 are from there.



GregP said:


> I have to laugh at the Merlin chart. We have operated these engines for 50 years and do so every weekend. We fly two P-51D Mustangs almost constantly. There are a total of 3 Mustangs that operate regularly out of Chino, and all run the same fuel consumption. They cruise at 60 gph after takeoff and climbout. When you get them much leaner, you are flirting with destroying the engine. On the upper end we only get to 150 gph since there is NO reason whatsoever to use WER in a private P-51.



Some of the engine data tables have the remark saying that figures printed in red are not flight tested, and the Merlin table is all-red??


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2013)

Understand peacetime but the 51 typically cruised at 39"/2400 (331 [email protected]) to 46"/2700 rpm ([email protected]) w 2/110 gallon tanks) fpr typical Berlin Mission and deep R/v like Brunswick.. pretty lean.

For max sfc w/2x110's it was 32"@2250 for 291mph TAS at 25K... almost 5 miles per gallon


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

Drgondog, the 32" at 2,250 rpm ... do you remember the fuel flow for that? I think it should be close to 55 - 60 gph.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 16, 2013)

I'm confused (a common situation). All the assertions that the Hellcat would have been a competitive fighter over Europe in 1945 (which is when it would have been available) seem to been just that - assertions. The best direct comparison we have of the F6F with a German fighter is against the Fw190, a fighter introduced in in 1843 which was still outperformed the Hellcat in most parameters. In practice the Hellcat would have been facing the likes of Fw 190Ds and A-8s. Sure it could outrun either, but so could the Spit V and that didn't prevent it being shot out of the sky in droves before the Brits came up with the IX, which could match the 190 in other performance parameters.
I don't think that would have happened to the Hellcat, but in most situations it would have been at inferior to late war German fighters.
In the fighter bomber role the F6F may have done well, but better than P-47, Typhoon or Tempest? It was arguably tougher than the latter two, but considerably slower and thus less able to avoid interception. The Tempest certainly would have outperformed it in low level combat.
To my mind the F6F was one of the great fighter WWII, and I doubt there would be one contributor to this forum who would disagree. It was perfect as a carrier fighter in the Pacific; tough as nails, relatively easy to fly and tailor-made for the kind of tactics that destroyed the air arm of the IJN. but the performance advantages that enabled it to dominate Ki-43s and Zeros would have disappeared over Europe. As an air superiority fighter at least it would have been second rate, and second rate is usually dead.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2013)

GregP said:


> Drgondog, the 32" at 2,250 rpm ... do you remember the fuel flow for that? I thuink it should be close to 55 - 60 gph.



It is ~ 57gallons per hour but with two 110 gallon externals- which reduced cruise speed by 47mph TAS from clean w/racks..


----------



## davparlr (Apr 16, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> David, the Fw-190s (A-3 to A-6 were in strength of the LW back then) in 1943 can do 410 mph, and the best figure I can find for the F4U in that year is 395 mph. The tests, involving the Fw, F4U and F6F (one is here), do show that Fw has both better RoC and climbing speed, and that it takes WER (not available in 1943) for the F4U to outpace the Fw, albeit only below 20000ft.


F4U airspeed analysis has always been a pain to me because of unusual inconsistency of data as my late forum friend Renrich, who will be sorely missed, would have agreed. In this case, max airspeed, as reported by Ray Wagner’s “American Combat Planes”, a usually reliable source, is 417 mph. This is also reflected in Navy test of the F4U-1 with water, which shows max airspeed in Mil power (no water) as about the same. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg

As you have noted, there is other data showing differently.

I do have a problem with the comparison test you referenced. The data on the F4U looks suspect. A max speed of 408 mph with water is quite low as shown by the above test and others. Information in the test may explain this. It stated that the F4U engine overheated during high power test, maybe due to too much leaning. This may indicate an engine problem or an improper setting. Also, the test of the two Navy birds was at overload fighter weight. Had the F4U been loaded at the same level as the Fw 190, that is, with 138 gallons of fuel, it would have weighed over 1000 lbs less! This would have a major impact on climb and a smaller one on airspeed. This comparison would provide a more accurate airframe to airframe test. I believe this weight difference also applies to the F6F.

All in all, I still believe that my comment is reasonable.


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

Many comparative tests are "fixed" one way or the other, depending on what they want to show. One that sitck out is a British test of a P-51 against a Spitfire where the P-51 was manifold pressure limited but the Spitfire wasn't. Naturally, the Spitfire came out looking just great. I've seen some test from the USA that are biased toward US types, some German-American tests biaed toward the German planes, etc.

It's tough to find tests where all the participants are loaded more or less equally and the engines are allowed to be used equally. When you can find them, they make interesting reading. 

I think it is quite interesting that so many different designers can come up with so many different planes that perform so closely to one another, despite widely differing power levels and configurations.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 16, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> In practice the Hellcat would have been facing the likes of Fw 190Ds and A-8s.


The F6F was operational in Mid '43, the A-8 was produced in early '44, the D was available in late '44.


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2013)

If the the Focke-Wulfs had caught some Hellcats, they might have wished they hadn't, But ... this is a "what if" thread and we all seem to have diffrent thoughts about it.

After 9 pages of replies, maybe it's time to get back to the real world and let this one go.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 16, 2013)

Spitfire VIII

2200rpm, +2lb > 40gph
2400rpm, +2lb > 45gph

2650rpm, +2lb > 49gph
2650rpm, +4lb > 55gph


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> Many comparative tests are "fixed" one way or the other, depending on what they want to show. One that sitck out is a British test of a P-51 against a Spitfire where the P-51 was manifold pressure limited but the Spitfire wasn't. Naturally, the Spitfire came out looking just great. I've seen some test from the USA that are biased toward US types, some German-American tests biaed toward the German planes, etc.
> 
> It's tough to find tests where all the participants are loaded more or less equally and the engines are allowed to be used equally. When you can find them, they make interesting reading.
> 
> I think it is quite interesting that so many different designers can come up with so many different planes that perform so closely to one another, despite widely differing power levels and configurations.


 
That's fine Greg, but as you mentioned the bias tends to be in favour of the planes belonging to the side doing the testing. nonetheless, the Fw190 A-5 consistently outperformed the F6F in an American test, so if bias existed you might expect it to be in favour of the Hellcat rather than against it. I would be very dubious of anyone (and I'm not suggesting you are doing this) who was happy to discount the results of this comparison by saying 'it might be wrong'.
Many people, not least the pilots who flew it, love the Hellcat. Why wouldn't they? But I find the premise that it could have matched contemporary German fighters over Europe in 1944 - 45 difficult to accept considering that the only direct comparison between the Hellcat and a German figher saw it being generraly outperformed by an Fw 190 that had already been superceded

davaprir - I believe the Hellcat entered service in November of 1943, so I'm considering how it might have fared against LW fighters from that time to the end of the war, the year 44-45. That's why I included Fw190A-8s and Bf109G 6 and 10s.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

Well Cobber, the Hellcat had the best air-to-air combat record of WWII by a WIDE margin over than next best fighter in US service, so it's possible that if met the Fw 190, the 190 pilot might get a surprise. Apparently we have different views on this one and, since it's a "what if," that's OK. I disagree that the Hellcat would have been other than very successful in Europe.

Since it never happened, we'll never know, will we? Most kills in WWII were ambush kills but, if a dogfight happened, methinks the Hellcat would have done just fine. It's OK if you feel otherwise. There wasn't a Bf 109 ever made that could turn with a Hellcat.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 17, 2013)

Bf 109G6 vs Hellcat (F6F-3):

I'd give speed, climb and roll advantages to the Messerschmitt.
Turn and controllability to the Grumman.
Dive was reportedly the same (based on second hand reports of 109 vs F6F tests by the Fleet Air Arm)
Armament is about equal.

Eric Brown loved the Hellcat and though it was a better fighter than the Bf 109, but thought the contest would be a difficult win for the big Grumman bird.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

I'd give speed and climb to the Bf 109 (F model onward) and do not know enough first-hand information to rate the roll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here until I find out for myself. Getting this stuff is hard, even when you know people who fly it, and the few reports you see seem to differ, but the F6F seems to have had a bit of a slow roll rate.

Anything with an R-2800 in it probably had great acceleration and a good dive capability. Once the Bf 109 got faster than 350 mph in a dive, I'd give the Hellcat the nod since it remained very controllable in a dive and the Bf 109 did not once it got fast.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'd give speed and climb to the Bf 109 (F model onward) and do not know enough first-hand information to rate the roll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here until I find out for myself. Getting this stuff is hard, even when you know people who fly it, and the few reports you see seem to differ, but the F6F seems to have ha da bit of a low roll rate.
> 
> Anything with an R-2800 in it probably had great acceleration and a good dive capability. Once the Bf 109 got faster than 350 mph in a dive, I'd give the Hellcat the nod since it remained very controllable in a dive and the Bf 109 did not once it got fast.



FAA tests on Hellcat rate of roll are available at WW2aircraftperformance.com

Best rate of roll was about 67 deg/sec at 180 mph (rolling to the right). That about bottom third as far as WW2 fighters go.

By comparison, the best rate of roll of the 109G was up at about 85-90 deg/sec, at about 240-250 mph.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> Well Cobber, the Hellcat had the best air-to-air combat record of WWII by a WIDE margin over than next best fighter in US service, so it's possible that if met the Fw 190, the 190 pilot might get a surprise. Apparently we have different views on this one and, since it's a "what if," that's OK. I disagree that the Hellcat would have been other than very successful in Europe.
> 
> Since it never happened, we'll never know, will we? Most kills in WWII were ambush kills but, if a dogfight happened, methinks the Hellcat would have done just fine. It's OK if you feel otherwise. There wasn't a Bf 109 ever made that could turn with a Hellcat.


 
Indeed the Hellcat had the best kill to loss record of any allied fighter, and that alone would cement it as one of the greats - just not in Europe. And certainly it could outurn any 109, or 190 for that matter I guess. So could a Spit V. But going on what has just been posted, and the USN test v the 190 A-5, the Hellcat would have been inferior to late war German fighters in climb, speed and roll. I can' t see any clear superiority other than turn radius. So I would ask a question; what WWII fighter ever consistently bested opposition that could outrun it, outclimb it and otherwise equal it in all areas bar turn?
Like you said, it's okay to feel otherwise, but wanting it to be don't make it so.
As a post script, I feel kind of like a Hellcat basher here, and that's not the case. It was a terrific fighter that did what it was meant to do superbly, but it was never meant to tangle with 109s or 190s over Europe, any more than they were meant to be launched off carriers in the Pacific.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2013)

davparlr said:


> F4U airspeed analysis has always been a pain to me because of unusual inconsistency of data as my late forum friend Renrich, who will be sorely missed, would have agreed. In this case, max airspeed, as reported by Ray Wagner’s “American Combat Planes”, a usually reliable source, is 417 mph. This is also reflected in Navy test of the F4U-1 with water, which shows max airspeed in Mil power (no water) as about the same.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance....ted, there is other data showing differently.



I do follow you thoughts - the 20-30mph airspeed difference for the planes that should be as similar/identical as possible does induce some head scratching  





> I do have a problem with the comparison test you referenced. The data on the F4U looks suspect. A max speed of 408 mph with water is quite low as shown by the above test and others. Information in the test may explain this. It stated that the F4U engine overheated during high power test, maybe due to too much leaning. This may indicate an engine problem or an improper setting. Also, the test of the two Navy birds was at overload fighter weight. *Had the F4U been loaded at the same level as the Fw 190, that is, with 138 gallons of fuel, it would have weighed over 1000 lbs less! This would have a major impact on climb and a smaller one on airspeed. This comparison would provide a more accurate airframe to airframe test. I believe this weight difference also applies to the F6F.*



Either that (the bolded part), or the comparison with planes executing tests with same fuel fraction? 



> All in all, I still believe that my comment is reasonable.



No sweat, your comments are reasonable and worth reading


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

Hi Jabberwocky,

I knew the Bf 109 had a decent roll rate at lower speeds, but the general statements in here make me think the posters were expecting the Bf 109 to come in faster. Above 280 mph the ailerons in the 109 get very stiff and at 350 - 400 mph are almost unmovable ... according to pilot reports and from talking with people I know who fly Ha.1112 Buchons. When you ask about high speed roll rate, they tell you that it takes two hands on the stick to get maybe a one fifth deflection of the ailerons at anything above 330 mph and that at any faster speeds, it it difficult to roll at all. What is the Bf 109 roll rate at 300 - 320 mph? Not very good.

Therein lies the rub. The Hellcats fought in the Pacific by NOT getting slow as the Zeros wanted then to, but by staying fast and using their strengths against the Zero's weaknesses. The Bf 109 was similar in that the 109 pilot wanted the fight to get slow, right in the middle of his best maneuvering range. The Hellcats pilots didn't let things get slow in the Pacific, so my take is they'd do the same in the ETO since the pilots fighting the Bf 109 in the ETO KNEW not to get slow against it. Surely they would not council the newly-arrived Hellcat pilots otherwise?

So if the Hellcats fought smart, they'd be coming in at 290 - 320 mph, right where the rolling advantage of the Bf 109 goes away. The speed also gives the much more maneuverable Hellcat a decent zoom climb for a good long burst or two before the better sustained climb rate of the Bf 109 could pull it out of range. So, I don't really believe the Bf 109 would have much of an advantage other than sustained climb and all out top speed (where the Bf 109 couldn't fight anyway). Using either of these advantages is breaking off combat, unles the 109 repositions and reattacks, leaving the Hellcat free to continue its mission. If it does reposition and reattack, the Hellcats are not caught unaware (so no ambush kills) and the dogfight, which should go to the Hellcat, is on.

Anyway, that is one take on it. Naturally there will be insiances of things going different ways in combat, but I think the Hellcat would have done fine as a fighter in the ETO, as I already said.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

looking at America's Hundred Thousand for comparative feel for diving, the F6F-5/P-38 and F4U-1D were all about 50-60mph slower in a dive compared to P-47D and P-51D - which means by implication that both the FW 190 and Bf 109 would out dive the USN fighters.

The Hellcat would be a handful in a manuevering close merge fight with both of those but in late 1943/early 1944 the a/c were F6F-3 and F4U-1 and 1A. In general, the Hellcat's Only advantage over the P-47 in middle altitudes to 25K is turning radius. Ditto P-51B - but not by a wide margin.

If either the 109 or 190 spot a Hellcat and chose to not engage - they don't, and the F6F can't force the fight. Conversely if the F6F gets caught - it can't out run or out dive the 109 and 190. 

Totally different situation than PTO environment against principal IJN fighters.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Not concluding that it is useless, just that it won't do what some people think it will. Hellcat holds 250 gallons of fuel for it's R-2800 while a P-47 holds 305 gallons to start with. The two planes are just about equal in speed at 5,000 ft or so ( or with in a couple %) on equal power so they have about the same drag. Why do people think the Hellcat can fly further?
> 
> If you fly the P-47 the same way the Navy flew the Hellcat for range you get about the same or better range. P-47 is supposed to fly 880 miles on 265 gallons of internal fuel at 200-205mph IAS at altitudes from sea level to 12,000ft.
> Since it was considered very short legged in Europe why would the Hellcat be considered longer ranged?
> ...


 


drgondog said:


> Won't happen any better than the P-47... They were flying the same escort profile, Namely Penetration and Withdrawal - then hand off to P-51/P-38. [...]


But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber. It was a hog and wasn't trimmed out for dive-bombing. It would have went crashing into the ground if it tried to do that. The F6Fs could have done more than just shoot up the ground with their .50s. They could have bombed the heck out of those bases. Those bases were launching at those bomber missions well before those missions reached their targets. Identify where they were and come in with squadrons of bomber-fighters and bomb them so they wouldn't be there to harass the next missions that went by. We didn't have anything constituted in the ETO to do that, and to take on the fighter-cover from those bases, while they were at it. That's where the F6Fs would have made an impact. Whatever their reach was, within that reach. They were no SBDs. They didn't need to be fighter-covered. They were fighters, in and of themselves. Take advantage of what they were built to do, and, for that matter, did. Utilize them just as fighters, understand, you're under-utilizing them. Systematically-incorporate both those capabilities, then figure how effective they'd be. Their training was split between gunnery and bombing, guys, for a reason.


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber.



But it could and did (at least in trials) bomb from a ninety degree dive. It was the USAAF's preferred CAS aircraft in the ETO,bombing typically from a sixty degree dive. If that's not dive bombing I'm not sure what is!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2013)

You don't need to dive bomb an airfield. Low level shallow dives will work just fine.

A lot of Japanese airfields got bombed and Strafed by B-25s and A-20s and they sure as heck were not dive bombing. 

Hellcats go into action for the first time at the end of August 1943. P-47s had gone into action in April. P-47s go on first bombing mission end of November 1943. Granted it is with a single 500lb bomb per plane and is group bombing but the Hellcats are not going to bring anything to Europe much quicker than the P-47 could. 

The US _could_ have not sent P-47s to the Pacific and used the extra planes as fighter bomber/airfield attack planes in Europe


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 17, 2013)

stona said:


> But it could and did (at least in trials) bomb from a ninety degree dive. It was the USAAF's preferred CAS aircraft in the ETO,bombing typically from a sixty degree dive. If that's not dive bombing I'm not sure what is!
> Cheers
> Steve


Steve, I know, and I'll credit you for informing me of those trials, as I didn't know about them. But, let's do a reality check. Is there any fighter that can't be rigged to dive-bomb? That doesn't make the fighter an effective dive-bomber, though, does it? And, I'll still maintain, that big aircraft would have had big problems trying to dive-bomb. That's why, in reality, all it did was shot up the ground. Seriously, what dive-bombing runs were the P47s put to? I don't know that they were seriously utilized in that aspect, at all.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The US _could_ have not sent P-47s to the Pacific and used the extra planes as fighter bomber/airfield attack planes in Europe


That's it, we took your P47s! 

Short, I love the P47, and I hate looking like I'm condemning it. I hear you, though. And, fighting over land, as opposed to over sea, wouldn't be a cake walk, as you also pointed out. I still think you could have used good bombing-fighting aircraft, there, though, and, systematically-incorporated into the strategy, they'd have systematically-obliterated those bases. I know that's conclusory, but I'm not as bright as you boys are to support that very much better than I already have. Suffice it to say, keep swinging away. I'm listening. With both ears.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber. It was a hog and wasn't trimmed out for dive-bombing. It would have went crashing into the ground if it tried to do that.
> 
> *???? I may agree that a P-47 was not as good a dive bomber as, say, an A-36, but it manged to 'do' a LOT of dive bombing in the MTO and ETO without crashing.. so what attributes do you think make the F6F more suited to ETO, particularly considering German Flak vs Japanese Flak?*
> 
> ...



The F6F could not do anything relative to strafing, bombing or air to air combat with German fighters (except turn) better than the P-47.. the 8th and 9th AF shot the hell out of German rail, barge and road traffic, harassed armor, crapped on airfields from the French Coast to Poland - with aircraft that operated far beyond the F6F's range - and defeated aircraft superior to the average F6F adversary above altitudes that the F6F typically operated.

I'm on record for appreciating the F6F but it was not a game changer for defeating Germany in the ETO or MTO.

BTW - airfields in occupied countries within F6F range were just that - Fields -. hard to obliterate sod. when and if you are successful, move your base of operations to the next field, and the next, etc. Even 'permanent bases like Templehof and Oberphaffenhofen with concrete runways and permanent buildings were impossible to knock out - even with bombers - and WAY beyond F6F range. Lots of slave labor to fill in the holes - today -.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

The F6F is a considerably better air-to-air dogfighter ... I'm sure you know the record.

When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> The F6F is a considerably better air-to-air dogfighter ... I'm sure you know the record.
> 
> *Yes. Suitably impressed but it wasn't going to score that well in ETO against 109 and 190... and the victory credit boards might be considerably more thorough in ETO than PTO.*
> 
> When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.



Carrier losses in North Sea? Baltic? The RN and USN wasn't keen on navigating carrier battle groups close enough for F6F and F4U to be valuable - at least not to my knowledge. Even in the med south of France during Dragoon, where the USN Hellcat Did engage LW, the Hellcat didn't impress as much as one might imagine... perhaps the LW didn't get the memo on 11:1?

Nobody I know is a detractor of the F6F. 

The debate is 'so what' when you move from A6M which is much slower, lightly armored and extremely flammable and only better in low speed combat- to the Bf 109 and Fw 190 which is faster than you, and both have several (not all) performance edges against the F6F.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 17, 2013)

drgondog said:


> *???? I may agree that a P-47 was not as good a dive bomber as, say, an A-36, but it manged to 'do' a LOT of dive bombing in the MTO and ETO without crashing.. so what attributes do you think make the F6F more suited to ETO, particularly considering German Flak vs Japanese Flak?*
> [...]
> *That goes back to my question above. You seem devoid of any operational history knowledge of ETO and MTO Fighter Command operations of 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF. Do yourself a wee favor and go to AAF Statistical Digest and look up the bomb tonnage dropped by each of those commands - by fighter aircraft.*


I'd think the differential would be in putting those bombs on the pitcher’s mound as opposed to just somewhere in the ballpark or parking lot. The tonnage of bombs dropped isn't necessarily going to tell you that. To find that out you're going to have to look at what they trained on. I'm going to maintain no P47 is going to hit anything even as big as a carrier, unless by accident, while the record is the F6Fs hit those size targets in the PTO as a matter of course. You’re just under-appreciating that record, it seems. The P47s didn’t train anywhere near as exacting as did the F6Fs in dive-bombing, if, indeed, they had any such training in that, at all. Contrasted with the F6Fs, besides the gunnery training the F6Fs had, they trained as hard in dive-bombing as did the SBDs. Just get out a month of training log on the P47s, and I trust you'll see that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2013)

P-47s did manage to hit a lot of things. Granted there is a lot of over claiming just like air to air but P-47s from D-day to VE day claimed 86,000 railroad coaches, 9,000 locomotives, 68,000 motor vehicles and 6,000 armored vehicles. Cut that to 1/3 if you want, it doesn't matter. If they can hit trains and vehicles on roads they can hit not only air fields but planes, trucks, hangers and building on the airfields. 

The P-47 pilots may have gotten OJT. They were allowed to return on the deck from some escort missions and shoot up targets of opportunity. 

The F6F pilots may have been better but to claim that the P-47s couldn't hit an airfield that measured hundreds of yds by hundreds of yds and wasn't moving (unlike the carrier) is rather degrading to both the P-47 and it's pilots.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.

Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 17, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> davaprir - I believe the Hellcat entered service in November of 1943, so I'm considering how it might have fared against LW fighters from that time to the end of the war, the year 44-45. That's why I included Fw190A-8s and Bf109G 6 and 10s.



According to America’s Hundred Thousand, the British Hellcat I entered service on July 1st, 1943.



Tomo pauk said:


> I do follow you thoughts - the 20-30mph airspeed difference for the planes that should be as similar/identical as possible does induce some head scratching


I do a lot of head scratching when I research the F4U.



> Either that (the bolded part), or the comparison with planes executing tests with same fuel fraction?


Fraction (I assume you are talking about fuel as a percent of aircraft weight) makes no sense to me as it doesn’t really relate to combat capability and doesn’t take in aircraft efficiency (the P-51 is very efficient and can do more with less fuel than any other fighter I know of). I am more interested in performance comparison of aircraft on the same mission profile, eg., climb to altitude, combat equal times using equal firing times (potency of armament could be a complexing variable), return to base, and using fuel and ammo weight required by each aircraft as the base weight for comparison. For example, the F4U empty weight is some 2000 lbs heavier than the Fw 190 and would most likely use more fuel to perform same mission, in this case, maybe 190 gallons (based on weight percentage in this particular instance since both aircraft are similar and radial powered?). Another method that I think would be appropriate would be the expected weight at reasonable combat circumstances. How much weight would a P-51 be at after flying 600 miles and jettison external tanks against how much weight a Bf 109 would be at after climb to altitude and flight to battle area, and jettisoning any tanks? This is has more variables that would make comparison complex.



GregP said:


> When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.



The pilots flying F6F at the Joint Conference were not overly impressed with the F6F-5 listing it 5th on the list of best all-around fighter below 25 thousand feet behind, in order, F8F, P-51,F4U-1, and F7F.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

Yeah, I know ... but none of the ones preferred did better in the crucible of combat.

The fuel fraction (fuel as a fraction of overall weight) is widely used as a comparative parameter. It is one of the chief weaknesses of the F-35 ...


----------



## Milosh (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.
> 
> Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.



But a logical deduction can be made as the German fighters were a lot more robust and had a performance advantage over the Japanese fighters.


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

So you may think. The Zero was fragile, but many later Japanese types were not and the Hellcat did just fine ... best in the PTO, actaully, aginst ALL comers, not just the fragile ones. Sorry, in a what if, there are no right answers that can be final. It's a "what if." Good arguments, but they can go both ways.

The discussion is neat, but it didn't happen, so it's just discussion.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.
> 
> *Greg - can you point me to documented VCB for USN? or documented claims review process?*
> 
> Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.



See above - if the process existed, and demonstrated to be followed you get a 'tie'. The ETO metric was a.) did you see it destroyed? and b.) did a witness attest to what you saw or did your film show it? If a. and b. are not Yes, the ETO fighter pilot was not awarded a victory credit.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

davparlr said:


> The pilots flying F6F at the Joint Conference were not overly impressed with the F6F-5 listing it 5th on the list of best all-around fighter below 25 thousand feet behind, in order, F8F, P-51,F4U-1, and F7F.



Dave - the P-51D was ranked 1 below 25K and the P-47 1 above 25K. Page 606 The F8F wasn't included in the survey.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 17, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yeah, I know ... but none of the ones preferred did better in the crucible of combat.
> 
> *Hmm, lets think about that. P-51 fought in North Africa, CBI, PTO, MTO, ETO (every theatre except Aleutians). F6F fought PTO plus some token engagements in MTO.
> 
> P-51 destroyed more a/c in the air, many, many more on the ground. F6F dominated Naval Air operations in the Pacific campaign, and ????*



So perhaps, 'None except the P-51" did better in combat?


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 17, 2013)

davparlr said:


> According to America’s Hundred Thousand, the British Hellcat I entered service on July 1st, 1943..


 
Fair enough, though whether we take the date of our theoretical introduction of the F6F as mid or late 43 makes little difference to the opposition it would have faced - still late war 109s and 190s, which held a performance advantage against it. Remembering too that the Hellcat saw remarkably little in the way of upgrades throughout its career, so unless we speculate as to what might have been done to it in order to match the likes of the 190 A-8 and D as they were introduced (not much, I think) it would have had to face these challenges in largely unchanged form.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 17, 2013)

probably the multitude of combat reports and stories i have heard from ww2 vets included the line "then he split-S'ed and headed towrds the deck. i gave chase and followed him down...". if your plane is 50-60 mph slower you are 1) what they called meat on the table for the EA following you down and 2) SOL trying to score a kill on a faster enemy. you only have a limited amount of ammo....and if you are deep over europe your "get-away" speed is what gets you home. if it is true and the f6f and f4u are that much slower i dont see them being as successful in the eto. you had planes in the eto chasing each other into compressibility....did that happen in the PTO??


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2013)

The Hellcat could probably have given a pretty good account of itself. 

That doesn't make it a game changer however. It shows up after the P-47, it is shorter ranged, it is slower at altitude, and once the P-47 is given wing racks the bomb load is about the same. 

Doing "OK" or "holding it's own" is no reason to deploy a new type of fighter in the ETO in the Fall/Winter of 1943/44.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> P-47s did manage to hit a lot of things. Granted there is a lot of over claiming just like air to air but P-47s from D-day to VE day claimed 86,000 railroad coaches, 9,000 locomotives, 68,000 motor vehicles and 6,000 armored vehicles. Cut that to 1/3 if you want, it doesn't matter. If they can hit trains and vehicles on roads they can hit not only air fields but planes, trucks, hangers and building on the airfields.
> 
> The P-47 pilots may have gotten OJT. They were allowed to return on the deck from some escort missions and shoot up targets of opportunity.
> 
> The F6F pilots may have been better but to claim that the P-47s couldn't hit an airfield that measured hundreds of yds by hundreds of yds and wasn't moving (unlike the carrier) is rather degrading to both the P-47 and it's pilots.


OK, let's just get this clear. If you're looking for somebody to short-change the contributions of these P47s and their pilots, you're looking to the wrong person. Those contributions, however, weren't due to any precision-bombing capacity, and, it's really as simple as that. Now, maybe one may suggest that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. However, I believe, that would be naive. All these fighter-type aircraft were limited in their bomb loads. That meant, they miss the bulls-eye, that's it, there's no second chance. That's where the F6Fs, I believe, outperform these P47s. The F6Fs are dropping on what they're going in to drop on. In most cases, they're hitting what they're aiming at. The P47s, if they were anything, were make-shift dive-bombers. They could bomb. They just weren't constituted to be all that precise. And, let’s be clear on this, they weren't bombing _moving _trains and motor vehicles. Heck, not even a precision dive-bomber could do that. But, they were otherwise utilized with bomb loads. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? What better bomber-fighters did we have? I'm talking about precision-bombing, while taking on the Luftwaffe fighters, at the same time. We had one or the other, but not really both rolled into one.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 17, 2013)

Why is it assumed that the 109 and 190 can outdive a Hellcat? There is a combat report buried somewhere on this website from a German ace in a 109 saying he rolled over and tried to dive away from an F4F, confident he could escape this way like he did from Spitfires and Hurricanes, when he looked over his shoulder in horror as the Wildcat followed him down shooting the whole time. He said the only thing that saved him was that the guy in the Wildcat couldn't shoot. He couldn't escape from a Wildcat in a dive, why would he be able to escape from a Hellcat in a dive?

The Hellcat as it sits would not have been my 1st choice as a fighter against 109's and 190's. But it could have been improved. It wasn't improved historically because it didn't need to be. It crushed the Japanese without needing any or many modifications. The US tested a higher performing F6F, but it simply wasn't needed. If it had been deployed in Europe I'm sure the US would have put the new modifications, 4 blade prop etc, into production.

Personally, I think the F4U would have done just fine against the 109 and 190.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2013)

pinsog said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GregP (Apr 17, 2013)

Drgondog,

I don't have to point you to anything. You have all the references. The F6F was the best air-to-air fighter in kill-to-loss ratio the allies had. What? It's suddenly going to go bad just because it moves to Europe? In this what if, that won't wash in my living room. If it does in yours, that's fine. 

The facts to real combat are pretty clear to me, as are the official US Navy victory lists and loss lists. If they aren't to you, then OK ... we disagree like I've been saying all along. That's never happened before, huh?

For me the F6F would do just fine in the ETO ... for you, less well. We can't exactly go back and fight it, can we?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Dave - the P-51D was ranked 1 below 25K and the P-47 1 above 25K. Page 606 The F8F wasn't included in the survey.


 
Boy, I'm confused. I was referencing the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference", dated 16-23 Oct., 1944. It is a hardback book and only has 356 pages and on page 319, it definitely compares the F8F to the others.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

You noticed , huh? He has a lot of knowledge, but doesn't like other opinions, only his own ... anything else is utter nonsense.

I've tended toward that myself (sorry for past indiscretions), but have tried to mellow and have found moderation to be much more fun. All the WWII fighers were thought by SOMEONE to be pretty damned good or they would never have been produced. I tend to think they all have their good points these days, now that I'm up close and personal with them every week. Most are quite innovative, even if in not the same ways. Some are more efficient than others, but they all have some good fighting qualities. They didn't make the ones that didn't have good qualities ...

The closest I've come to flying them is 25+ hours in a T-6 ... but the T-6 and P-51 owners say that's close enough to be realistic. Also went dogfighting in a Beech T-34 and won ... 2 of 3.

Drgondog has flown a P-51 for some hours (good on you, DG, I wish I had!) but unless he has time in other fighters, he has no basis for comparison other than the same reports we read. I respect his opinion greatly until and unless it conflicts with the facts as stated in government reports. I read the reports and see if his opinon could fit with within the report. Many times it can, sometimes I think not ... could be wrong. But hey, my own opinions, despite 30 years as a pilot and 8+ as a volunteer on warbirds, aren't exactly unimpeachable fact either, so the truth is probably somehwhere in between.

As one of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. said, I might not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

He is a very productive and knowledgeable member of the forum and I'd hate to be enemies. All we really disagree on are some rather different opinions of some WWII fighers. In the relative scheme of things, that's mouse nuts since it is 70 years past. I bet we'd get along just fine in a face-to-face discussion instead of internet banter back and forth. Sometimes talking it back and forth is MUCH better than letters, email, texting, or fourm chat. In fact, ALL the time ...

And, in the end, he might be right ... and I might be wrong. Unless we get rich, become friends, buy fighters of our choice, and dogfight one another ... we'll never really know. And if HE wins, he might just be a better pilot than me instead of the plane being better. I'm trained ... but not by the military as a fighter pilot.

It's MUCH more likely we'll meet, have a good steak and drink some beer ... and continue to banter about these neat aircraft from so long ago.

Hey Drgondog, cheers to you, really. I'm glad you are both interested and a participant. Hope we can swap some stories sometime and maybe meet. If you are inclinded to travel, our airshow is May 4-5 at Chiino, CA. I'll be cooking at the volunteer tent both days. Welcome ... I'll feed you even if you aren't a volunteer. Hope to see you there, no kidding. Warbird flying is always neat, and dedicated warbird aerobatics is WAY fun to watch. The theme this year is "Lightning Strikes" and we hope to have 5 P-38's there ... assuming no mechanical gremlins. But there'll be lots of other warbirds ... we usually have 28 - 35 WWII birds there plus 3 - 4 korean war and SOME modern figher or two flying a demo. With the sequester, maybe nothing official from DOD ... too bad. An F-22 would be wonderful ... but unlikely in the extreme this year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> So you may think. The Zero was fragile, but many later Japanese types were not and the Hellcat did just fine ... best in the PTO, actaully, aginst ALL comers, not just the fragile ones. Sorry, in a what if, there are no right answers that can be final. It's a "what if." Good arguments, but they can go both ways.
> 
> The discussion is neat, but it didn't happen, so it's just discussion.



I would wager that 2 or maybe 3 of that 11:1 were late war Japanese a/c.

Wasn't there a Japanese pilot (Muto??) in a _George_ that kicked some F6F butt.

Not hard to be the best when it is basically the only a/c in large numbers in the PTO.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 18, 2013)

> The F6F was the best air-to-air fighter in kill-to-loss ratio the allies had. What? It's suddenly going to go bad just because it moves to Europe? In this what if, that won't wash in my living room.



I'm going to pull you up on this Greg. That's a couple of times you've tendered the Hellcat's kill/loss ratio in the Pacific as support for an assertion that it would do well in the ETO. Sorry, but as has been pointed out the Hellcat would be moving from a situation where it enjoyed a performance advantage over its oppononents to one where the advantage was with the enemy. Extrapolating the Hellcats results against Zeros and Oscars in the PTO to similar results against 109s and 190s in the ETO doesn't make sense. While the Hellcat was racking up its formidable record against Japanese aircraft the RNZAF was getting similar kill ratios against the same aircraft using the P40. Does that mean the P40 could have done well in late war Europe? Much as I love the Kittyhawk, oF course not- the figures show it would have been at a major disadvantage to the German fighters. The Hellcat would not have been giving that much away, but no amount of shouting "11:1 in the PTO!" is going to dissolve the fact that the advantages it had in the Pacific - being able to outrun, outdive and fly higher than the opposition - would no longer exist if it were transposed to Europe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2013)

Well put, Cobber.

The LW fighters have enjoyed about the same performance advantage vs. the VVS fighters, and racked impressive kill ratios at the eastern front. Similar thing happened at the 'Kanalfront' in 1941/42 - RAF loosed far more planes than LW. In all the cases the LW was fighting out-numbered - contrary to that, Hellcat units were outnumbering their opponent most of the times.
However, once LW was pitted vs. the enemy that was able to out-perform their fighters, while denying them breathing space in the same time, the writing was at the wall. Hellcat, no matter how good it was (and it was good), was never able to outperform LW fighters, let alone deny them airspace in Germany proper.


----------



## stug3 (Apr 18, 2013)

For clarification-

Hellcat Kill>Loss Ratio: 19-1
Corsair Kill>Loss Ratio: 11-1


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2013)

Would that be' kill ratio' or 'claim ratio'?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2013)

davparlr said:


> Boy, I'm confused. I was referencing the "Report of Joint Fighter Conference", dated 16-23 Oct., 1944. It is a hardback book and only has 356 pages and on page 319, it definitely compares the F8F to the others.



You don't have to be confused - you are right. I was referencing America's One Hundred Thousand line up extracted from the Fighter Conference - which ignored the Fighter Conference results on page 319 of the XF8F-1 because it was not yet deployed? 

The Bearcat flown at Patuxent River Fighter Conference, on Pg 262-264, has the write ups for the XF8F-1 which was the only one (of 2) at Patuxent River. The first production version rolled out four months later and operational in first squadron in late May 1945.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Would that be' kill ratio' or 'claim ratio'?


I'll clear that up for you. It's the same ratio every other aircraft is rated on.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

Cobber,
The Hellcat DID fight against Zeros and Oscars, but it also fought against Ki-84's, Ki-100's, and N1KJ's. Didn't seem to have much trouble with any of them. You're not going to try to tell me these Japanese planes were "low performance" are you? They matched up well against the best we had at the end of the war in all the anaysses I have read.

Sorry, we disagree here, but that's OK. Consensus is not required ... it is just a what if. There are no real data to fall back on for the Hellcat in the ETO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I'll clear that up for you. It's the same ratio every other aircraft is rated on.



Nah, no clearing up here. 
Attaching the claim ratio to the type of the aircraft makes great injustice to the US pilots, ground/CV crews, command control officers etc. Especially if the main opponent cannot bring to the table anything like (in terms of those neglected attributes of an air force). And, no, every other aircraft is not rated by claim ratio.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

The official US Navy victory list are awards by the U.S.A., not claims. The claims have been gone through and vetted. It isn't a claim ratio, it is a victory ratio recognized by the Department of Defense, and the victories have been carefullty scrutinized. 

If you disagree with it, then there is no list or document in the world that will satisfy you ... so there wouldn't be anything for you to fall back on for comparison. Hey, you have to start somewhere and the original documents are not an easy thing to find or gain access to. 

But, if you have copies of the original documents, maybe you could share them in here and we could come up with a list of our own.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> The official US Navy victory list are awards by the U.S.A., *not claims*. The claims have been gone through and vetted. It isn't a claim ratio, it is a victory ratio recognized by the Department of Defense, and the victories have been carefullty scrutinized.



On the page 6 of the document titled "Naval aviation combat statistic, ww2", one can read:
_ENEMY AIRCRAFT DESTROYED IN COMBAT - Airborne enemy aircraft claimed destroyedby naval aircraft, in aerial combat only_ (sorry for the caps, it was written that way)
No need to try to include big guns in the attempt for me to bow down (ie. 'this or that was recognised by a Government agency'), since all belligerents were functioning along the similar lines when it was about aerial victories. As for the victories being carefully scrutinized - the USN claims were not corroborated with Japanese loss lists, at least the report mentioned above does not say so.



> If you disagree with it, then there is no list or document in the world that will satisfy you ... so there wouldn't be anything for you to fall back on for comparison. Hey, you have to start somewhere and the original documents are not an easy thing to find or gain access to.



A corroborated document would certainly satisfy me. 



> But, if you have copies of the roiginal documents, maybe you could share them in here and we could come up with a list of our own.



Now that is a great thing to say. 
Greg, whenever I was asking you to provide a document (in electronic form), whether it was about a turbo P-40, or about the P-51 being the Curtiss brainchild, or about the Soviet arming the P-39s with their cannons, and several more, you never, ever, have provided at least a glimpse of an original document to back up your claim. And now I should provide a document, since you've asked for it? 
I've posted the original document in this forum, BTW.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

Tomo,

I can't post a book ... just a title. If a doc is available online, such as at ww2aircraftperformance.org, then you can download as easily as I can. You are being disingenuous here toward me. I have posted document titles, book titles, and document numbers on many occasions.

And the document from the US Navy that recognizes victories is a US Navy study. If that doesn't count to you then so be it. It counts to me. Since this is a forum, everyones opinion is welcome and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Have a nice day.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2013)

Tomo P - this could be the reason Greg is having a little trouble with USN Aerial Victory Credits

Naval Aviation Aces.

"*The Navy Department has never officially compiled or issued a list of "Aces". During World War II, the war period with the largest number of aerial shoot downs for naval flyers, the Navy did not keep an overall record of individual scores in aerial combat, hence, there is no official list of confirmed shoot-downs.

The most comprehensive work done on Navy and Marine Corps World War II Aces was written and published by Mr. Frank Olynyk. His two books are USN Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War 2, Victory List No. 2, published in 1982, and USMC Credits for the Destruction of Enemy Aircraft in Air-to-Air Combat World War 2. 

In 1986 the Naval Aviation News magazine published a list of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Aces that had been compiled by Mr. Olynyk. The following list of Aces, as published by the magazine in 1986, includes Mr. Olynyk's World War II list and also those from World War I, Korea, and Vietnam:* "

Frank Olynyk is the only one that went to the trouble of compiling claims by USN/USMC as the USN Never officially kept a record of victory credits by pilot during WWII.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> Cobber,
> The Hellcat DID fight against Zeros and Oscars, but it also fought against Ki-84's, Ki-100's, and N1KJ's. Didn't seem to have much trouble with any of them. You're not going to try to tell me these Japanese planes were "low performance" are you? They matched up well against the best we had at the end of the war in all the anaysses I have read.
> 
> Sorry, we disagree here, but that's OK. Consensus is not required ... it is just a what if. There are no real data to fall back on for the Hellcat in the ETO.


 
Will you stop apologising for disagreeing with me! Everyone is allowed to, except my wife - she has to do what she's told.
I wish.
Re Hellcat!s kill record: yes it flew against George's, Franks but I don't suppose we will ever know how it went against those fighters speciffically. Just fine, I suspect, given the disparity in numbers and pilot quality by that time of the war, but again, that advantage would not have existed were it deployed over Germany, at least not for some time. And the George, Frank et al were last gasp fighters that were never deployed in large numbers relative to the Oscars and Zeros the Hellcats encountered far more frequently.
Another thing to consider is that a large portion of the Hellcats kills were not unarmoured and obsolescent fighters, but unarmoured and obsolescent bombers. Had it been over Europe it would have been facing almost entirely fighters, and up to date ones at that.
In respect to kill ratios, I don't really see how it matters whether the 19:1 figure is claims or confirmed kills, except in the academic sense. Even allowing for over claiming or error it is obvious the Hellcat utterly dominated it's opposition in the PTO. But as mentioned earlier, so did RNZAF P40s in the south Pacific, and for that matter the Finnish Buffalos during the continuation war. The question is how relevant those figures would be if the fighters were transposed to a different theatre, facing different enemies and a different tactical situation.
An open question: I suggested before that on paper the Hellcat seems to have roughly equivilant performance to mid war fighters like the the Spit VB. Is that a bad call? And if not, what performance advantages would the Hellcat have that would enable it to be succesful in the Late ETO when the Spitfire was so comprehensively outclassed by even early models of the Fw190?

Cheers,
Cobber.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2013)

Milosh said:


> I would wager that 2 or maybe 3 of that 11:1 were late war Japanese a/c.
> 
> Wasn't there a Japanese pilot (Muto??) in a _George_ that kicked some F6F butt.
> 
> Not hard to be the best when it is basically the only a/c in large numbers in the PTO.



Milosh - I would tend to think that until Okinawa timeframe when the USN was close to Japan, that virtually All of the F6F engagements were with IJN 'equipment' (Zeros, Vals, etc) attacking the fleet...specifically a/c that were below par for the F6F.

I don't have facts in this case, just opinions based on facts - namely that the Raidens and Ki 84's and Jack's were not numerous in and around the campaigns toward capturing Iwo jima.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 18, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Will you stop apologising for disagreeing with me! Everyone is allowed to, except my wife - she has to do what she's told.
> 
> *You live in a different world from me...*
> 
> ...



A great question as the F6F-3 couldn't climb, turn or accelerate withe the VB on paper and the VB was pounded by the FW-190A5... Begs the question about ETO value of the F6F in 1943/1944

Even though there were many Naval Aviators in the aforementioned Fighter Conference at Patuxent River the F6F TIED (at 2%) with the Mosquito, F7F, F4U-4 and F2G as lowest of the Best Fighter Under 25K, and had 3% of vote, beating out F4U-4, Seafire and P-38, for lowest of Best Above 25K.


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 18, 2013)

> I don't have facts in this case, just opinions based on facts - namely that the Raidens and Ki 84's and Jack's were not numerous in and around the campaigns toward capturing Iwo jima.



And they had a number of issues which made them lose many of the advantages they could have had against Hellcats. In the last phase of the war the Japanese suffered massive attrition combined with poor availability. There issues with fuel, engines and materials.It is simply not a match against well flown Hellcats deployed in superior numbers.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 18, 2013)

drgondog said:


> A great question as the F6F-3 couldn't climb, turn or accelerate withe the VB on paper and the VB was pounded by the FW-190A5... Begs the question about ETO value of the F6F in 1943/1944.



Comparison report Fw 190A-4 v F6F-3 v F4U-1:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Some interesting comments and conclusion.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

Tomo,

I forgot to add the document number, so ... it is: 

OPNAV-P23V No. A129, dated 17 June 1946. 

I believe you can still find it online, I did ... but some time ago. The authors were a group of some 30 men led by Lieutenant Commander Stuart B. Barber. It was done for Air Branch, Office of Naval Intelligence, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department.

This document doesn't cover any USAAF operations, but does cover all the US Navy aerial actions in WWII. Wish the USAAF had done a similarly complete study and published it ... but the government seems to want to keep data like these to themselves for some reason.

- Greg

p.s. Thanks for posting that, Aozora! I had read it before, but failed to save a copy on my PC (rectified that), and couldn't remember the report number. It basically says what I thought. While the Fw 190 was slightly faster than the F6F, it wasn't by much at all. The Fw 190 and F4U both have great rates of roll, and the maneuverability of the Fw 190 is nothing to write home about. 

Ah well, pilot reports are only as good as the skill level of the pilots combined with their familiarity of the aircraft being evaluated. I think they had a relatively standard evaluation test card to fly, so most pilot reports in WWII (from the USA, anyway) will have more or less similar data points. I'd bet British, German, Japanes, Italian, etc. evaluations were also somewhat "standardized," though probably with different data points. Every side was capable of flying a test card and recording the data.

Oh yeah, I went back and found the report. If you are interested, you can download it at: 

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf


----------



## Milosh (Apr 18, 2013)

How many Fw190A-4s were around when the F6F would have appeared in European skies?


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

I believe the Hellcat was deployed in Aug 1943 while the Fw 190A-4 was starting deployment in July 1942. 

They made 976 Fw 190A-4's between June 1942 and March 1943, so they would have been around in general squadrom service, but many were probably on the Eastern front by Sep 1943. How many, I couldn't say. Maybe someone who reads German and has the reports could tell us ...


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

Started looking into the F6F-5 Hellcat a bit.

Empty weight was 9,238 pounds. Internal fuel was 250 gallons (US gal) and it could carry up to 3 external tanks of 150 US gal each. That gives it a total potential fuel capacity of 700 gallons (6.01 pounds per US gallon). At a cruise fuel consumption of 85 gal per hour, (auto lean) the F6F-5 could stay airborne for nearly 8.25 hours (actually 8.23 hours). Lean it back to 75 gph and you can stay airborne for over nine hours if required. Put in 2,400 rounds of 50-cal and you get a takeoff weight of 14,569 pounds including plane, fuel, ammunition, and a 160-pound pilot. That is under the max allowable takeoff weight of 15,415 pounds.

If the Hellcat takes off and climbs to 1,500 feet on the main tanks and then switches to external fuel … and if he gets, say within 100 miles of Berlin and then has to drop the external tanks, his weight drops to around 11,800 pounds, give or take a little, and the combat range SHOULD allow the Hellcat to finish the mission and return to base.

So maybe escort duty isn’t quite so unlikely as was supposed earlier in this thread. I’d say was a real possibility. If the Luftwaffe starts intercepting earlier in the mission, simply assign some shorter range fighters to fly ahead, take on the first wave of defenders, and then return home.

That being said, I never DID say I thought the F6F or the F4U should have deployed to Europe ... it was just a "what if" that got carried away a bit ... I real life, I tink they were deployed correctly.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Nah, no clearing up here.
> Attaching the claim ratio to the type of the aircraft makes great injustice to the US pilots, ground/CV crews, command control officers etc. Especially if the main opponent cannot bring to the table anything like (in terms of those neglected attributes of an air force). And, no, every other aircraft is not rated by claim ratio.


Tomo, how were the other aircraft rated? What do you know about that? I understand why not all aircraft were rated. Take the Japanese vs. the Hellcat, for example. What are they going to say, really?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2013)

It doesn't matter how much fuel the Hellcat carries on the way in. Let's say the Hellcat takes off, forms up and flies to Magdeburg, about 80 miles short of Berlin. Let us also say that it has been able to refill the internal tank/s from the drop tanks (dubious) so it has 250 gallons. Now the fight starts, the Hellcat drops the externals and has the full 250 gallons. 15 minutes at Military power will burn about 70 gallons (1943 no WEP-no water injection) Leaving 180 gallons, How much reserve do you want? Absolute minimum fuel burn seems to be a bit over 40 gallons an hour? Call it 20 gallons to find home airfield an land at minimum fuel. consumption speed. Now let's say you are based at Ipswich. It is 445 miles from Magdeburg to Ipswich. 

The question is _how fast _ do you want to egress Germany? 
If you slow down to 200mph or so you have plenty of fuel to get home (160 gallons) but if you slow down to 200mph you are sitting duck for any German fighters and it is 200 miles from Magdeburg to the Dutch border let alone the English channel. 
If you fly at about 285-290 mph you may be able to use the 85 gal per hour figure and still get home with fuel to spare. IF you are not bounced, If there is not a 40-50mph head wind, IF??? 
MAYBE you can go faster over Germany and slow down a bit over Holland and way down once over water? 

And if you can't fill the fuselage tank/s from the drop tanks after warm up and take-off?


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

Well Shortround, I guess 8 hours duration just won't do it for you, so maybe we should never have tried it with the Mustang either? With a 945 mile combat range, it will do just fine (unless you are going to say the Navy's specs on it are just plain wrong), and NOBODY can make it home fighting and flying at combat power all the way. Hell, the ENGINES wouldn't make that a good deal of the time. Since the vast majority DID make it home, it follows that they didn't fight their way home very often. 

The Germans never had the aircrfaft or pilots to attack the average bomber stream continuously on their return to base.

After looking at it, I say the Hellcat COULD have been used as an escort without much trouble. I think you're just stirring the pot ... If an 8-hour mission won't do, abandon the war effort, it's a lost cause. Might as well surrender ... to the guys flying a fighter than has only 10 - 15 minutes over England flying from bases right across the channel.

Ya' think? Naaaa ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> p.s. Thanks for posting that, Aozora! I had read it before, but failed to save a copy on my PC (rectified that), and couldn't remember the report number. It basically says what I thought. While the Fw 190 was slightly faster than the F6F, it wasn't by much at all. The Fw 190 and F4U both have great rates of roll, and the maneuverability of the Fw 190 is nothing to write home about.


 
Greg, the alierons on the 190A in that test were incorrectly adjusted, and so the aircraft wasn't rolling nearly as quickly as it should have been. There is correspondence between the RAF and the US on the tests relating to the rate of roll, including a side by side list of relative rolling rates. The USN tests were down by about 30% at some points. 

The British also have some documentation on Corsair II (F4U-1D) on FW 190 roll rates 

150 mph
'Corsair II' roll (Vought figures): 81 deg/sec FW190 (RAF tests): 108 deg/sec

200 mph:
Corsair II: 97 FW190: 119

250 mph: 
Corsair II: 88 FW190: 160

300 mph: 
Corsair II: 84 FW190: 128

350 mph: 
Corsair II: 75 FW190: 96

400 mph
Corsair II: 64 FW190: 75



USN tests of a F4U-1 vs various USAAF fighters in August 1943 reports that the aircraft had the same rate of roll as a P-47*C* up to 300 mph (indicated), above which the P-47C is better and "remains better as the diving speed increases".

Same tests report that F4U-1 has a better rate of roll than the P-51 (type not given) "at all level flight speeds", but at 280 mph ASI the P-51 becomes better and remains better as diving speeds increase.

Against a stripped down ("light weight" is the exact wording) P-38G the F4U-1 "may have a slight edge" in rate of roll at slow speeds, but the P-38G has "the better rate of roll because of the high stick forces and ineffective ailerons" on the F4U-1.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

We all know the Fw was a great roller, and I'm not surprised it out-rolls the F4U. You wouldn't have any URL's for the docs, would you?

As for the escort mission for the Hellcat, it might be wise for us to remember that in WWII, nay-sayers were shoved aside and the "can do" guys were promoted. The task was to figure out how to get the job done, not to find a way to cancel the mission. That's why they came up with paper drop tanks for the P-51 that the factory said would never work ... but did. If the P-51 had not arrived when it did, then the task would probably be to figure out how to escort the bombers to Berlin and back with the assets on hand.

When I suggested the Hellcat, it was a casual "what if," but if the P-51 had NOT showed up when it did, then what would have been the fate of daylight precision bombing by the Eighth Air Force? How could we have DONE it with the available assets minus the P-51?

I know it never really happened, but if the P-51 turned out not to be an option, then what WERE the options for daylight escort for the heavies?

I think the British didn't have enough Spitfires to free up a sufficient number for regular escort duty ... IF they could have increased the fuel quantity to allow it. Recall that at the start of precision daylight bombing, the Germans were still raiding the British Isles on a regular basis, and Fighter Command would not leave home plate undefended. So, the assets that were available would have to be somehow deployed to support the daylight mission, or it would have to be abandoned.

The real question for this "what if" would be, how are we going to get the escort job done without P-51's? 

The answer cannot be, we have a Hellcat with an 8 - 9 hour mission capability, but that's not long enough. We have to be better than that or we'd be replaced as war planners.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2013)

It is not the TOTAL duration that matters. It is the duration on internal fuel after you subtract the fuel for combat (unless you keep the drop tanks on during combat) and keep a reserve to help find your home field.

Why was the Mustang so good?

Figures from a 1954 Manual for the *F-51D* 1850rpm full throttle at 25,000ft burns 59 gallons an hour for a true airspeed of 335mph. Range of 445miles needs 80 gallons of fuel. This from the chart for 8,000- 10,200lbs and empty wing racks. 

The P-51 was also supposed to do 397mph true airspeed at 25,000ft using 42in MAP at 2400RPM Burning 89 gallons an hour. 100 gallons will do nicely for 445 miles. 

Sticking 3 or even 2 150 gallon drop tanks on a Hellcat just gets it into Germany further than it can get out. 

The USAAF figured a P-47D with 670 gallons of fuel had a combat radius of 600 miles. That is two 150 gallon drop tanks and 370 gallons internal. Hellcat has 67-68% of the internal fuel, what do you think the radius would be? 

Except it is not really 67-68% is it? lets say both planes use 20 gallons for warm up and take-off before switching to drop tanks, Lets say both planes use 70 gallons in combat after dropping tanks and lets say both planes keep 20 gallons reserve for bad weather and finding home field. Late model P-47 now has 280 gallons and the Hellcat 160 gallons. Hellcat has 57% of the fuel the P-47 does to get home. 
The difference between an early P-47 with 605 gallons and the late one with 670 gallons was 175 miles of combat radius. That extra 65 gallons was worth 175 miles on the way out, radius 425 miles even with two 150 gallon drop tanks. Hellcat is 55 gallon down on the early P-47. IF it gets the same miles per gallon at the same speeds that 55 gallons was worth 148 miles. Lets round up. Combat radius 280 miles for the Hellcat. Or about what a P-38J would do WITHOUT drop tanks. 

The F6F just doesn't bring anything to the table in the ETO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> If the P-51 had not arrived when it did, then the task would probably be to figure out how to escort the bombers to Berlin and back with the assets on hand.
> 
> When I suggested the Hellcat, it was a casual "what if," but if the P-51 had NOT showed up when it did, then what would have been the fate of daylight precision bombing by the Eighth Air Force? How could we have DONE it with the available assets minus the P-51?
> 
> ...



The answer is real simple, Use P-47s with 370 gallons of internal fuel and use P-38s. It's about 580 miles from London to Berlin and 510 miles from Norwich to Berlin. 

P-47with 370 gallons internal and 300 external was good for 600 mile radius. P-38 with 410 internal and 330 external was good for a 650 mile radius. P-51 with 269 internal and 150 external was good for 700 mile radius. ALL using the same speeds, altitudes, conditions. 



GregP said:


> The answer cannot be, we have a Hellcat with an 8 - 9 hour mission capability, but that's not long enough. We have to be better than that or we'd be replaced as war planners.



the answer is _ precisely_ "we cannot use the Hellcat" we have two planes that can out range the Hellcat. They are faster, they can climb better at altitude. Using Hellcats gains nothing. Anybody who actually thinks the Hellcat could perform deep penetration escort missions should be replaced as a war planner.


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2013)

We have a completely different take on this one, Shortround, go figure.

Max range on a clean F6F-5 was 1,130 miles. Combat range was 945 miles, CLEAN. They're not my figures, they come from Grumman. In my experience, Grumman is reliable when it comes to product data. Berlin is 580 air miles from London, so the F6F-5 can almost make it CLEAN (within 50 - 125 miles). With ONE 150 -gallon drop tank, the max range was 1,650 miles and combat range was 1,500 miles. That's more than it needs with a good reserve. 

I'd say offhand that THREE 150-gallon drop tanks would MORE than get it there and back, maybe there, back to home base, and back to Berlin again. I don't see where you are coming from at all, and I'd plan it and FLY it with no trouble ... by the Grumman book on the F6F-5. You maybe aren't looking at a Navy manual with typical performance charts used for mission planning or you might change your tune. 

Look at NAVAER 1335A (Standard Aircraft Flight Characteristics for the F6F-5 Hellcat) and you can do the calculations for yourself.

It would work just fine and might have been used unless someone could come up with a better solution. That is certainly possible ... I haven't examined the potential candidates and arrived at a "top 3" list for trial missions. 

This IS just a "what if" after all. And coming up with potential solutions rarely gets you replaced ... NOT coming up with them does, and that comes from my experience in US Military. They may or may not try your plan, but presenting one when it is needed is a good thing. 

A G3 has to make it happen, not find a way not to do it. And you don't always get to choose your assets, your job is to take the assets available and do the job. The Hellcat would work if you plan by the book. Might not be the best choice, but that isn't a unit commander's call.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> I think the British didn't have enough Spitfires to free up a sufficient number for regular escort duty ... IF they could have increased the fuel quantity to allow it. Recall that at the start of precision daylight bombing, the Germans were still raiding the British Isles on a regular basis, and Fighter Command would not leave home plate undefended. So, the assets that were available would have to be somehow deployed to support the daylight mission, or it would have to be abandoned.


 
Greg, the RAF was escorting LOTS of daylight missions with Spitfires. Escort missions generally fell in two types: Ramrods, which were daylight bombing missions with distinct targets and a reasonably strong bomber force, and Circuses, which were generally pinprick raids with LOTS of fighters (20-30 squadrons at some points) and not many bombers, typically less than 20 light/medium bombers. By the end of 1942, the RAF had performed better than 400 Circus/Ramrod missions.

I dont think aircraft numbers were the RAF's problem, more the losses it was sustaining (it was getting spanked at a loss rate of about 2.5-3 to 1) and pilot training. 

Still, by June 1942 Fighter Command had 50 squadrons of Spitfires - all Mk V or Mk IV bar one squadron with Mk IIs - seven squadrons of P-51s, four of Typhoons and two Whirlwind squadrons. There were also seven Tomahawk/Kittyhawk squadrons and 11 Hurricane squadrons (two converting to Typhoons), although neither really did much cross-Channel stuff apart from some bombing. 

It had another 22 Hurricane squadrons in the MTO and CBI theatres, seven Spitfire squadrons overseas (four in Malta) and another 5 or six miscellaneous squadrons (including one Galdiator squadron still on strenght... )

The RAF's problem was the Spitfire simply didn't have the necessary range, while the P-51 and Typhoon didn't have the necessary altitude performance (or reliability in the Tiffie's case). A Spitfire Mk V with a 30 gal slipper tank had a combat radius of about 200-220 miles, more realistically about 175-200 miles, given the higher cruise power settings used over France (fear of getting jumped by 190s). With a 45 gal slipper tank, radius was still no better than 250 miles. 

That's enough to get you into central France and the low Countries, but not much more. The RAF decided that night bombing was a much more sensible option for them, and so concentrated on that. 

All this is getting well off topic though.

I wonder would of happened if the RAF had got scads of Corsairs while the USN waited to get the thing deck certified? The Marine corps started flying them off land bases in February or March 1943. The FAA got their first examples in June 1943.

Suppose the USN and FAA examples went to the RAF instead?


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2013)

I'm thinking that IF the Spitfire needed the range for the war to not be lost, some fuselage and possibly wing tanks could have been added. I know they escorted some short-range missions, but it is possible the only reason why the fuel capacity was NOT increased substantially was because other options were available, namely the P-51. If it had not been there, something would have taken the P-51's place in US production. 

The Hellcat would not have been a bad choice, but also maybe not have been optimal.

The thing is political decisions are not always predictable, so we don't know what might have been if the P-51 didn't make the show ... it DID. The range figures from Grumman show clearly it could have done the job, and that is all I'm saying ... and am getting people arguing that the BOOK on the F6F Hellcat that the Navy used to plan missions is somehow wrong and it couldn't have done it.

I say bunk. It COULD have, and without difficulty .. unless the book really IS wrong and they didn't really fly all those WWII missions without knowing the real range performance of the aircraft they employed. And the probability of that is? In reality, Grumman and the US Navy are right and the Hellcat DID have the capability to perform escort missons in Europe. It just wasn't called upon for that task.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> We have a completely different take on this one, Shortround, go figure.
> 
> Max range on a clean F6F-5 was 1,130 miles. Combat range was 945 miles, CLEAN. They're not my figures, they come from Grumman. In my experience, Grumman is reliable when it comes to product data. Berlin is 580 air miles from London, so the F6F-5 can almost make it CLEAN (within 50 - 125 miles). With ONE 150 -gallon drop tank, the max range was 1,650 miles and combat range was 1,500 miles. That's more than it needs with a good reserve.
> 
> ...


 
NAVAIR 1519A (rev 9/44): http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf 1,170 statute miles w/1 x 1,000 lb bomb and 150 gal external tank - combat radius = 310 NM, 357 miles: w/ 2x 100 gal external tanks + 11.75 in rocket = 1,270 st miules; combat radius = 365 NM, 420 miles


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2013)

I seriously doubt the Hellcat would have been configured with either bombs or rockets for an escort mission, and the range with 1 drop tank is almost sufficient without the bombs or rockets. Add another drop tank and it is MUCH more than sucfficient.

For me the link doesn't work ... but a 1,170 mile range and 357 miles radius seems absurdly conservative. Land bases don't sail away from you at 35 knots into the distance and make you find them, they are usually right where you left them. You should not need more than about a 150 mile reserve ... I'd figure 45 - 60 minutes, and I'd use 150-gallon drop tanks since they were sort of standard. The Hellcat our museum used to have had the 150-gal variety. My range figures are from the Grumman manual ... using 150-gal drop tanks ... but if you're looking for a way to nix the mission, the 100-gallon tanks might do it. Soultion? Don't use 100-gallon tanks and NO escort had rockets or bombs fitted, it's not realistic ... you're escorting, not doing a ground attack. Even if you figure max continuous cruise (I didn't in the posts above), with three 150-gal drop tanks, you can expect a 1,450 - 1,500 mile range with 20 minutes combat thrown in plus a 60 minute reserve. If they were forced to drop tanks too early, they might have to turn back and get into that reserve, but it is certainly a possible mission. Hey, we pulled off the Yamamoto interception at the maximum possible range for the P-38 in the Pacific. Why not one with a MUCH better chance of success in the ETO?

An escort was a clean aircraft with full ammunition and whatever external fuel tanks were required ... and damned well better top up the oil tank.

The negativity is amazing ... no G3 would approach the mission from how it can't be done or he wouldn't retain the job long. The task is to DO it, not how NOT to do it ... give me a "can do" G3 please.

Come up with a configuration that would work and you succeed. I did. Three 150-gal tanks with full ammo and that's all. It'll work and could be flown easily. Get a manual, some European charts, an E-6B, and plan the flight. I did and it works. You can do the same for a P-47 and a P-38, but that isn't the "what if." Yes, I know it never happened in the ETO.

I'm not seeing much in the way of aeronautical flight planning here. You pilots out there, plan it and chime in here ... or not. Figure startup and taxi, takeoff, 20 minutes joinup, and economy cruise to and from the target (faster than the B-17's anyway) with 20 minutes combat. Typical mission for WWII. Full internal fuel (250 US gal) plus three external 150 US gal drop tanks and full ammunition (2,400 rounds). 

It ain't rocket science and it ain't all that difficult with the manual in hand. When I fly (Cessna), I usually get there within ±2 gallons of planned fuel ... using the book from Cessna and I make my checkpoint ±30 seconds as a rule. Grumman's manuals were as good or better. The only variables are wind and the amount of combat you fly but, with 3 external tanks, it simply isn't an issue if you use the book, even if combat is doubled ... and there are no reports I have ever seen of 40 minutes of combat. The ammo would run out and you would both disengage if able. If not, the mission is terminated by death, forced landing, or nylon letdown.

I like George C. Scott's line from the movie Patton, "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 19, 2013)

I wouldn't be too bothered about then Hellcats range in any case, because for the previously mentioned reasons I don't think it could have done as good a job as an escort fighter against the 109G-6 or 190 A-5 in mid 1943 (when it became available) than could the P 47 and P 38 of that time - and they were struggling. If it was going to be used I think it should have been doing much the same job as the Typhoon - fighter-bomber. It was a lot slower than the Tiffie- a serious drawback - but more reliable, and I think a better low level fighter than the pre paddle-pop prop/water injection thunderbolt or the pre boosted control Lightning. But come those developments it would have lost any advantage it had there too.
Post D-day there were still plenty of Spit Vs optimised for low level performance and doing useful work. Maybe the Hellcat could have fit in there.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Well Shortround, I guess 8 hours duration just won't do it for you, so maybe we should never have tried it with the Mustang either? With a 945 mile combat range, it will do just fine (unless you are going to say the Navy's specs on it are just plain wrong), and NOBODY can make it home fighting and flying at combat power all the way. Hell, the ENGINES wouldn't make that a good deal of the time. Since the vast majority DID make it home, it follows that they didn't fight their way home very often.
> 
> *You're not listening - and you aren't on topic with the premise 1943/1944. The -5 seems to arrived in the fleet for the Mariana's campaign in Sept 1944. McCampbell is the first that I can find of navy aces that scored in the -5 and that was mid September 1944.
> 
> ...



Greg, as a pilot you should be more aware of the operational aspects of flight planning than you display in your childish comments to Shortround...

If you invest the time to read some ETO 8th AF Operational Squadron Histories you will find many recounts in which flights had to return early from a target escort because they engaged before consuming drop tank fuel. And these explanations are coming from Mustang pilots that a.) Started with more internal fuel, b.) consumed less fuel at military power, and c.) consumed less fuel per mile than any version of any R-2800 powered airplane - specifically far less than the P-47/F6F and F4U.

But rather than think it out and look at a typical mission profile for deep target escort. you throw "After looking at it, I say the Hellcat COULD have been used as an escort without much trouble. I think you're just stirring the pot ..." at Shortround when he clearly is patiently trying to explain the obvious - and HISTORICALLY CORRECT 'Problem to be Solved.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> I seriously doubt the Hellcat would have been configured with either bombs or rockets for an escort mission, and the range with 1 drop tank is almost sufficient without the bombs or rockets. Add another drop tank and it is MUCH more than sucfficient.
> 
> For me the link doesn't work ... but a 1,170 mile range and 357 miles radius seems absurdly conservative. Land bases don't sail away from you at 35 knots into the distance and make you find them, they are usually right where you left them. You should not need more than about a 150 mile reserve ... I'd figure 45 - 60 minutes, and I'd use 150-gallon drop tanks since they were sort of standard. The Hellcat our museum used to have had the 150-gal variety. My range figures are from the Grumman manual ... using 150-gal drop tanks ... but if you're looking for a way to nix the mission, the 100-gallon tanks might do it. Soultion? Don't use 100-gallon tanks and NO escort had rockets or bombs fitted, it's not realistic ... you're escorting, not doing a ground attack. Even if you figure max continuous cruise (I didn't in the posts above), with three 150-gal drop tanks, you can expect a 1,450 - 1,500 mile range with 20 minutes combat thrown in plus a 60 minute reserve. If they were forced to drop tanks too early, they might have to turn back and get into that reserve, but it is certainly a possible mission. Hey, we pulled off the Yamamoto interception at the maximum possible range for the P-38 in the Pacific. Why not one with a MUCH better chance of success in the ETO?
> 
> An escort was a clean aircraft with full ammunition and whatever external fuel tanks were required ... and damned well better top up the oil tank.


 
Calm down! I'm not disagreeing here, just adding some documentary material which included different weapons loads: I don't have access to the Grumman info quoted. I presume the ranges are conservative because a 1,000 lb bomb added some drag, as did the (presume) "Tiny Tim" - I'm assuming this was mounted on the hard point under the fuselage, which meant the 150 gal tank couldn't be used. It can also be assumed that a clean Hellcat, without external ordnance and with drop tanks was capable of easily reaching the ranges quoted by GregP:











CobberKane says the P-47 was "struggling" against the Fw 190 and Bf 109 but that was only in the first six months or so, while 8th Fighter Command was insisting on using the wrong tactics - for some reason they were sending the P-47s in at over 30,000 feet on non-productive sweeps and poorly planned and executed escort missions, which allowed the German fighters to pick and choose when and where to attack the USAAF bombers.- ditto the p-38s, which were also struggling with mechanical difficulties brought about through the cold and wet conditions experienced at high altitudes over Europe. Once Doolittle took over and changed tactics to force the Luftwaffe fighters into combat that was when conditions started going rapidly downhill for the Luftwaffe - by then the P-51 had arrived and the P-47s P-38s started being transferred to the 9th AF and used as fighter-bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> We have a completely different take on this one, Shortround, go figure.
> 
> Max range on a clean F6F-5 was 1,130 miles. Combat range was 945 miles, CLEAN. They're not my figures, they come from Grumman. In my experience, Grumman is reliable when it comes to product data. Berlin is 580 air miles from London, so the F6F-5 can almost make it CLEAN (within 50 - 125 miles). With ONE 150 -gallon drop tank, the max range was 1,650 miles and combat range was 1,500 miles. That's more than it needs with a good reserve.
> 
> ...



The problem is NOT flying a Hellcat to Berlin and back in undefended airspace at a speed an altitude f your own choosing. It is flying a Hellcat somewhere into Germany, Dumping all that marvelous extra fuel, engaging enemy fighters and getting back to base WHILE flying at speeds and altitudes that allow you respond QUICKLY to enemy attacks. 

I have absolutely NO DOUBT the Grumman range figures are correct. They are also useless for the mission required. You keep talking about using drop tanks to get home, WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Once you engage you have internal fuel _only_, it does _NOT_ matter how much fuel was in the tanks you dropped. 

I have looked at NAVAER 1335A (Standard Aircraft Flight Characteristics for the F6F-5 Hellcat) that gives a combat radius of 340 Nautical miles with a 150 gallon drop tank. Perhaps you should look at it again.

Condition's include.

1. Warm up, 20 min at 50% normal rated RPM. Take-off 1 minute. //maybe you can cut the warm-up to save a bit of fuel. 

2. Rendezvous, 20 minutes at sea level at 60% N.S.P. auto lean. //This could probably be cut short as take-offs from fields are probably closer spaced than carrier take-offs. 

3. Climb to 15,000ft at 60% N.S.P. auto lean. //Here is the first big hitch. USAAF figured for 25,000ft. A P-47 at 12,500lbs takes 30 gallons to climb from 15,000ft to 25,000ft using a ferry power setting. Granted the plane is moving forward at the time and is operating of drop tanks. 

4. Cruise out. At 15,000ft Vel. for max range auto lean. // Now max range is 180 knots at 15,000 ft which is useless for escorting bombers. It is way too low and too slow to allow quick response, Bomber escorts cruised faster to allow for less acceleration time and quicker response. Hellcat is going to take a hit on the range for this one even if fuel is coming from the drop tank ( may be second tank?) 

5. Combat. 20 minutes at 15,000ft. 10 minutes at combat rating and 10 minutes at Military power and descend. // OK, a bit different than the USAAF standard. but not bad. 

6. Cruise back, 1,500 ft at 170knts. // Well, if you think that cruising back over Germany and France at the speed and altitude of a fast Cessna on a sight seeing trip is perfectly safe, go for it. 

7. Reserve. 60 minutes at speed for max range. // perhaps this can be cut a bit. You are not looking for a carrier in between rain squalls. 

The big hang up is the speed and altitude used to egress the combat area. The USAAF figures are THEIR _yardstick_, actual speeds and altitudes would depend a bit on each operation but fuel burn at 25,000ft and 210mph IAS is going to be a lot higher per hour hour than 170kts just off the deck. 

"Patton, "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

Sending you pilots out on one way missions is NOT making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem is NOT flying a Hellcat to Berlin and back in undefended airspace at a speed an altitude f your own choosing. It is flying a Hellcat somewhere into Germany, Dumping all that marvelous extra fuel, engaging enemy fighters and getting back to base WHILE flying at speeds and altitudes that allow you respond QUICKLY to enemy attacks.
> 
> I have absolutely NO DOUBT the Grumman range figures are correct. They are also useless for the mission required. You keep talking about using drop tanks to get home, WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Once you engage you have internal fuel _only_, it does _NOT_ matter how much fuel was in the tanks you dropped.
> 
> ...



Unless you are a Group CO of a Hellcat org in ETO


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 19, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> I wonder would of happened if the RAF had got scads of Corsairs while the USN waited to get the thing deck certified? The Marine corps started flying them off land bases in February or March 1943. The FAA got their first examples in June 1943.


Just one observation on that, Jabber. I believe the Hellcats within their depth or reach could have done whatever the Corsairs could have done for us in the ETO. The Corsairs' carrier-issues hit a brick wall when we came out with the Hellcats. Had we not come out with the Hellcats I believe the Corsairs would have been on those carriers in 1943. The need to carrier-fit the Corsairs was gone by the time we came out with the Hellcats. Thus, take one or the other, really. Either could have done the same thing for us, I'm saying.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 19, 2013)

I don't know what the F6F would have added to the capability that was already there. It has already been pointed out that the P-47 had 50 gallons of more internal fuel than the F6F. Also, the contemporary P-47s were faster at SL than the F6F with basically the same engine and is therefore cleaner so there is no reason that the F6F could out perform the P-47 in range, if drop tanks were available. The performance of the P-47 at bomber altitudes, above 15k, was much better in speed, up to 40 mph, and similar in climb. The high altitude performance of the P-47 gave it a significant advantage over the contemporary German defensive fighters something the F6F and F4U did not have until much later. I just don't see the what the F6F could do better as an escort. The F4U-1 did have more internal fuel than the P-47 and could have performed the long range escort, however, with the concern of the poorly protected wing tanks.


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2013)

Well,

I am fully aware that many missions turned back when they had to drop tanks early and, I believe I even mentioned sending a flight of shorter range fighters in front to take on the first wave. I wasn't upset or excited when I wrote it and there is nothing whatsoever childish about asking someone to come up with a way to use an asset in an unfamiliar way. It happened all the time in the air, on the ground, and in the ocean.

I suppose I have my answer. If I had to use Hellcat assets for escort I couldn't use some people in here as the mission planners ... thinking outside the box is apparently something just not done. It was an unlikely situation to happen anyway and didn't in real life. We'll have to disagree here since I can see the flight planning would work if pressed into service, even though there are scenarios where the escort would have to turn back ... just as they did using other aircraft in the war, and even in the face of a comparative flight report stating the authors would choose the F4U and F6F over the Fw 190 in combat.

Enough. Cheers, and continue or not.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 19, 2013)

drgondog said:


> You don't have to be confused - you are right. I was referencing America's One Hundred Thousand line up extracted from the Fighter Conference - which ignored the Fighter Conference results on page 319 of the XF8F-1 because it was not yet deployed?


No problem. I was just copying the book. I should have omitted the reference to the F8F since it was a non player and more of a contemporary to the P-51H, which most of the naval air aficionados tend to ignore and always compare the F8F and F4U-4/5 to the previous generation P-51D.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> I wasn't upset or excited when I wrote it and there is nothing whatsoever childish about asking someone to come up with a way to use an asset in an unfamiliar way. It happened all the time in the air, on the ground, and in the ocean......................If I had to use Hellcat assets for escort I couldn't use some people in here as the mission planners ... thinking outside the box is apparently something just not done



Thinking outside the box does not change the fuel consumption figures. 
Thinking outside the box requires real solutions, not wishful thinking or ignoring facts. 

Could the F6F have done useful work in Europe, YES. 
Could it have done anything that the P-47, P-38 and P-51 could not do? NO. 
Could it have been used as a long range escort in 1943/early 44. NO. 

If you have a crap load of F6Fs and can fly even more relays than the the P-47s and P-38s did in 1943/early 44 and if you could use some of your fighters to fly escort for some of your other fighters so they don't have to drop their tanks until later maybe you can get further in. And maybe if you have some fighter groups escort the low on fuel fighters back across western Germany, France and low countys you may get more of your pilots back but that is a lot of extra fighters to use. it is a lot of extra fuel, it is a lot of rendezvous to go wrong.

And flying at 1500ft at 170kts past AA positions isn't thinking outside the box but in may very well but the pilots in boxes.


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2013)

Since you feel that way, why did you choose to participate in a thread about Corsairs and Hellcats in Europe? Why not just abstain? 

Just because the Navy cruised home at 1,500 feet over open ocean doesn't mean it would happen that on an escort mission! Can't you wrap your head around that? A different mission ... makbe say it slowly. It seems you are confusing replacement of existing resources (not something I suggested) with a "what if" where you had Hellcats available and needed to use them for some reason in Europe, in lieu of P-51's somewhat later in the thread.

This is funny. When I try to stick with what happened in the real war, I see tons of "what ifs" that go for pages. When I try a "what if," I get "didn't happen that way in the real war and couldn't ... here's why." That's the whole reason for a "what if," investigate something that didn't happen but might have. Glad you didn't ever get put in the position of having to scramble for a response to something unexpected in war.

I suppose the Japanese didn't fly a large displacement radial fighter on some long missions maybe except for the Kawanishi N1K-J (range 1,066 miles internal, 1,488 miles with drop tank) and Nakajima Ki-84 (range 1,339 miles) to name but two that flew some long missions. Good thing they didn't know they couldn't go that far. 

The Hellcat could have been made to work if it had proved necessary, with some caveats. When we fly our Corsair or a Bearcat or a Hellcat, the fuel burn is very predictable, but not in 1944? Ah well, time to sign out of this thread and go do a flight plan. Mine have been working fine since 1982 but, I guess I'd have just run out of fuel in 1944, huh? Right ...


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2013)

davparlr said:


> I don't know what the F6F would have added to the capability that was already there. It has already been pointed out that the P-47 had 50 gallons of more internal fuel than the F6F. Also, the contemporary P-47s were faster at SL than the F6F with basically the same engine and is therefore cleaner so there is no reason that the F6F could out perform the P-47 in range, if drop tanks were available.
> 
> *Also important is that the P-47D is about 1,000 pounds heavier which means higher AoA and more induced drag at the same altitude if the two wings have about the same CL *
> 
> The performance of the P-47 at bomber altitudes, above 15k, was much better in speed, up to 40 mph, and similar in climb. The high altitude performance of the P-47 gave it a significant advantage over the contemporary German defensive fighters something the F6F and F4U did not have until much later. I just don't see the what the F6F could do better as an escort. The F4U-1 did have more internal fuel than the P-47 and could have performed the long range escort, however, with the concern of the poorly protected wing tanks.



The F4U-1 and 1A had 361 gal of internal fuel which was more than the pre-June 1944 P-47D by 56 gallons but less than the P-47D-25 and subsequent versions. I suppose the -1A could go to Brunswick, Kassel and maybe Augsburg but still won't make Berlin, Leipzig, Schweinfurt or Munich..


----------



## drgondog (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Since you feel that way, why did you choose to participate in a thread about Corsairs and Hellcats in Europe? Why not just abstain?
> 
> *Just because. The facts are a.) Hellcat and Corsair were great fighters, b.) their mission profile was to protect the fleet and be able to range out for both escort and CAS to some 300 miles with reserver to get home if engaged in a fight. Well that is about like the P-47C and D mission profile in 1943 - and it didn't get 'er done.*
> 
> ...



Darn it - you ARE being sarcastic.. Ok.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Since you feel that way, why did you choose to participate in a thread about Corsairs and Hellcats in Europe? Why not just abstain?
> 
> Just because the Navy cruised home at 1,500 feet over open ocean doesn't mean it would happen that on an escort mission! Can't you wrap your head around that? A different mission ... makbe say it slowly.



A....Dif...fer....ent.......mis.....sion...

Slow enough???

The bomber escort mission in Europe was _different_ than the missions the Navy flew or planned or put out mission radius's for, Yeah, I think I got that. Doesn't mean the Navy or Grumman's figures are _wrong_, just that some people try to misapply them. 




GregP said:


> I suppose the Japanese didn't fly a large displacement radial fighter on some long missions maybe except for the Kawanishi N1K-J (range 1,066 miles internal, 1,488 miles with drop tank) and Nakajima Ki-84 (range 1,339 miles) to name but two that flew some long missions. Good thing they didn't know they couldn't go that far.



Un....der.......what........con.....di.....tions........???

Slow enough for you?

A range estimate for P-47 that included 10 minutes allowance at normal power for warm up, taxi, take off and landing. Allowance for climb to 10,000ft with an on course climb and allows 10% of range for other factors comes out at 835 miles flying at 10,000ft at the most economical cruising speed with 305 gallons of fuel. 
Yet the P-47 with 305 gallons internal fuel ONLY, was rated at a 125 mile combat radius by USAAF planners. These are guideline combat radius and might be stretched a bit on certain missions. 

Yet the Hellcat with less fuel and more drag will fly further???




GregP said:


> The Hellcat could have been made to work if it had proved necessary, with some caveats.



What caveats?

Anti-gravity paint?

Special "GO JUICE"?

Tail winds both ways? 




GregP said:


> When we fly our Corsair or a Bearcat or a Hellcat, the fuel burn is very predictable, but not in 1944? Ah well, time to sign out of this thread and go do a flight plan. Mine have been working fine since 1982 but, I guess I'd have just run out of fuel in 1944, huh? Right ...



And that has what to do with what we are talking about?? 
The fuel burns are in the charts and manuals. Just use the correct speed and altitudes for the mission that needs to be flown. Use the fuel burn number for 200mph at 1500-8,000ft at 20-25,000ft and 310mph and tell me how you make out on your next flight. 
British learned the hard way in 1941/42 that puttering around over Europe at best economical speed even in a Spitfire was a good way to get dead.


----------



## GregP (Apr 19, 2013)

I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out how to take a fighter with 8 - 9 hours of fuel and get from London to Berlin and back in a hypothetical "what if" situation. Never said it was ever going to be the best approach, but a challenge isn't apparently what you're up for, so sit back and relax. It didn't happen, and you aren't the operations officers who have to make it happen ...

Suppose we use these same Hellcats and Corsairs that just can't be made to work in Europe in the Pacific theater? Think they might work there? At least it isn't a "what if," so we have some actual data to support the possibility. On the other hand ... I can read a history book and see how they did. Two of the most successful in the PTO just couldn't make it in the ETO. Go figure. I'd never have suspected it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out how to take a fighter with 8 - 9 hours of fuel and get from London to Berlin and back in a hypothetical "what if" situation..



I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out that to take a fighter with 2-3 hours of internal fuel (or 1.5 hours after combat allowance and reserve allowance ) and get from Berlin back to London in a hypothetical "what if" situation AFTER dropping the external fuel tanks can't be done. 

If it could you wouldn't need Hellcats. Spitfires could do the job. A Spitfire MK V could (just possibly) fly at 225mph at 10,000ft using 29 IMP gallons an hour. Slap a 90 gallon IMP tank underneath. Allow 26 Imp gallons for take-off and climb and even rounding up to 30 IMP gallons an hour you get an endurance of 5 hours and a "range" of 1125 miles. OK maybe not London to Berlin and back but Chelmsford to Berlin and back. All the British had to do was think outside the box 

No Mustangs needed.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 19, 2013)

Could additional internal fuel tanks have been fitted to the F6F? Did it have the space for them like the aft fuselage tank on the Mustang?


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 19, 2013)

davparlr said:


> I don't know what the F6F would have added to the capability that was already there. It has already been pointed out that the P-47 had 50 gallons of more internal fuel than the F6F. Also, the contemporary P-47s were faster at SL than the F6F with basically the same engine and is therefore cleaner so there is no reason that the F6F could out perform the P-47 in range, if drop tanks were available. The performance of the P-47 at bomber altitudes, above 15k, was much better in speed, up to 40 mph, and similar in climb. The high altitude performance of the P-47 gave it a significant advantage over the contemporary German defensive fighters something the F6F and F4U did not have until much later. I just don't see the what the F6F could do better as an escort. The F4U-1 did have more internal fuel than the P-47 and could have performed the long range escort, however, with the concern of the poorly protected wing tanks.


Find a picture of an F6F carrying a full bomb load. Take a look at where those bombs are and at how snugly they're fit off the fuselage. That's the reason that aircraft was a bombing-fighting aircraft. By design it was as fit a fighter while carrying its full bomb load. The P47s and other such fighters were handicapped as fighters while carrying their bomb loads. The F6Fs were at the same time precision-bombers and fighters. That's, in a nutshell, the difference they'd have brought.


----------



## GregP (Apr 20, 2013)

Hi VBF,

These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean). All that means is the ones who escort the bombers and engage before Berlin must turn around and fly home, just like the P-38's did. The rest can make the escort with no problem, even with combat on the way home. Guess they never heard of tactics.

I figure about half would engage before Berlin (on purpose) and the rest on the way home (also on purpose). Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could. And that was the entire point of the escort what if. 

The banter about it not being possible is claptrap. That's what they told Lindberg, but he came back with fuel to spare when the rest didn't. Changed the whole Pacific war picture. Fly smart. It ain't optimal, but it IS possible. I wouldn't even recommend it but, if you HAD to, you could do it.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 20, 2013)

Aozora said:


> CobberKane says the P-47 was "struggling" against the Fw 190 and Bf 109 but that was only in the first six months or so, while 8th Fighter Command was insisting on using the wrong tactics - for some reason they were sending the P-47s in at over 30,000 feet on non-productive sweeps and poorly planned and executed escort missions, which allowed the German fighters to pick and choose when and where to attack the USAAF bombers.- ditto the p-38s, which were also struggling with mechanical difficulties brought about through the cold and wet conditions experienced at high altitudes over Europe. Once Doolittle took over and changed tactics to force the Luftwaffe fighters into combat that was when conditions started going rapidly downhill for the Luftwaffe - by then the P-51 had arrived and the P-47s P-38s started being transferred to the 9th AF and used as fighter-bombers.


 
Yep, for sure much of the difficulties the P-47 and P-38 experienced in the ETO in 1943 were the result of lousy tactics, or more generally that the USAAF as a whole were finding their feet against probably the toughest opposition in the world. But the aircraft too had their faults. I would maintain that from mid 1943 to 1944 neither of them could match the contemporary LW fighters at mid to low levels. I recently read an account from a USAF P-47 pilot who explained his action in bugging out of a low level dogfight over Europe in 1943 by saying that the Thunderbolt without water injection and a paddle prop (I think that was it) was no match for a 109 at low level. I can find the exact quote if anyone is interested. 
Thing is of course, the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't meant to be engaged at low level in 1943, even though the fortunes of war might have dragged them there. My thoughts were that if the USAF wanted a dedicated fighter bomber from mid 1943 to 1944 the Hellcat might have been a good option. I think it would have been more effective against the 109 and 190 at low level, where it's performance deficit in speed was less and its superior turning ability more useful, than either the P-47 or P-38 of that time. Plus it was rugged. Kind of like a very tough Spit V LF with more payload (as I mentioned earlier, the Spit five was still a very useful fighter at this time) On the other hand, the defficencies of the Thunderbolt and Lightning at low level were soon overcome, ant the Typhoon was probably doing the job better than the Hellcat could have anyway, so was that six month window of opportunity for the Hellcat sufficient to make it worthwhile deploying in the ETO? I suspect not.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi VBF,
> 
> These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean).



Yet col 4 says the *combat radius* is 335nm (385mi) with 1 x 150gal drop tank. 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi VBF,
> 
> These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean).



Why, yes it can, if it flies loooow and slooooow. 



GregP said:


> The rest can make the escort with no problem, even with combat on the way home. Guess they never heard of tactics.



Would you care to provide the figures for this.



GregP said:


> I figure about half would engage before Berlin (on purpose) and the rest on the way home (also on purpose). Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could. And that was the entire point of the escort what if.



Reality check. "Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could" 
Lets see, Engage at Magdeburg, drop whatever tanks, 15 gallons down because of warm-up, taxi and take-off before switching to drop tanks. 15 minutes combat (not 20) at 4 gallons a minute. Leaves 175 gallons to get home. F6F gets about 2 N. Miles to the gallon at 270mph (max lean cruise) at 15,000ft or about 402.5 miles. _Unfortunatly_ it is 440 miles from Magdeburg to Harwich (the coast) so this does not look like an option. If we slow down to 248-250mph we can just make Harwich, If we slow down to around 170mph once we can see the Dutch coast and the channel we _MIGHT_ even have enough fuel to find an airfield (ANY airfield) and land. 



GregP said:


> The banter about it not being possible is claptrap. That's what they told Lindberg, but he came back with fuel to spare when the rest didn't.



Was Lindberg being shot at by AA guns? Did Lindberg have to pass by _active enemy_ fighter fields? 

Lindberg did a great service to the US but then so did Tony Levier, P-38 pilots were flying their planes wrong for a while too. British were Instructing Spitfire pilots in long range cruise (low rpm and high boost) in August of 1942. flying slow in enemy airspace is a good way to contribute to the the enemy score book. 
From the British instructions. 
" Don't wait until you see the Hun before you decide to get a move on. It will take a couple of minutes for your Spitfire to respond after you open up, and by that time anything you do will be irrelevant."

But I guess they had NO idea of tactics 2 years after the BoB?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi VBF,
> 
> These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean). All that means is the ones who escort the bombers and engage before Berlin must turn around and fly home, just like the P-38's did. The rest can make the escort with no problem, even with combat on the way home. Guess they never heard of tactics.
> 
> ...



The Attrition of Pilots and aircraft that proceed past Brunswick would approach 100% - BUT you could 'do it' until you ran out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2013)

There is a difference between the R-2800s used in the P-47 and the ones used in the F6F and F4U for these high altitude, high speed cruises high speed and that is the turbo charger. 

At 25,000ft the R-2800 in the P-47 can provide 1100hp at 2150rpm and 31in MAP while using 95 gallons an hour. There may or may not be other combinations that do better. The _turbo_ is doing what it does best. recovering energy from the exhaust to power the the first stage of the supercharger system. 

The Navy engines will cruise every bit as good as a P-47 down low, their engines are by passing the first stage of the supercharger and powering ONLY the second stage (engine or main blower). but a R-2800-10 is only going to give about 650hp at 25,000ft in "neutral" blower and that is by winding it up to 2550rpm. Engine friction goes up with the square of the speed so this option both doesn't give the needed power and the SPC isn't too good. 
Next step is to engage "low" blower (commonly done around 15,500ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1150hp at 25,000ft at 2550rpm and about 35.5in pressure. The higher RPM and higher manifold pressures are indicators of power (gasoline) being used that is NOT going to the propeller. 
Next step is using "high" Blower. (commonly done around 22,000ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1080hp at 25,000ft at 2250rpm and about 35.5in pressure. A bit better fuel consumption than low blower? What ever extra power is going into the supercharger is offset by the lower RPM of the engine. But still using more rpm and more manifold pressure than the P-47 for similar power to the propeller. 

There are a couple of reasons most of the navy ranges are given for altitudes under 15,000ft. 1. It suited their combat needs. 2. It suited their engines.



Going up or down in power should show a similar relationship.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 20, 2013)

Note the combat range calculations on page six for 15,000 feet and Comabt load including 150 gallon external tank
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf

The F6F cruise model has Radius = Climb to 15000 + Cruise Out (@170kts 15,000 feet 'Lean') = Cruise back @170kts 1,500 feet "lean'.

The chart has the plot on page 5.

Neither the plot nor the Equation includes Warm Up or Take Off or Rendezvous (20min @50%, 1 @Max, 20 @60%)
The Chart doesn't address 26000-28000 foot fuel consumption at 280kts to reflect ETO requirements.

Perhaps you could comment on the difference Greg?


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 20, 2013)

I wonder if anyone would have liked to have flown a Hellcat from Capa Sata across Japan to Tokyo (very roughly the same as London to Berlin) and back again at 15,000 ft and 170 knots. 

Nope didnt think so. Might as well have lined up the pilots and shot them before take off. At least the planes wouldnt have gone down with them.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 20, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> [..] the Typhoon was probably doing the job better than the Hellcat could have anyway, so was that six month window of opportunity for the Hellcat sufficient to make it worthwhile deploying in the ETO? I suspect not.


Ah, the Tiffy. That's in the shoe-size I'm talking about, and it was a good one, agreed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2013)

The F6F did what it did very well, it was a very good performing _CARRIER_ aircraft that was easy to fly and land on carriers, or about as easy as it gets with planes that big and powerful. 

It may not have been the "best" carrier fighter performance wise but when you have to put up CAPs for most hours of daylight ( and some even at night) on _every_ day that has flyable weather for weeks on end AND you are WEEKS away from getting replacement aircraft and pilots a plane that is easy to take-off and land from the carrier deck may take preference over the last few % of performance. 

Having 20 fighters to escort the bombers/torpedo planes on a strike several weeks into a voyage may be be better than having 16 slightly high performing planes because you lost 4 more due to operational accidents before the "BIG" strike. 

The T-bolt, good as it was at _some_ of the things it did, would have been an absolutely terrible carrier plane even if they did manage to fly them off carriers to a shore base at times. 

One plane can rarely, if ever, do it all. Although congressmen (governments) keep buying the salesman's pitch and trying to buy a single aircraft (or common airframe) that is _supposed_ to do it *ALL* 60-70 years after WW II.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 20, 2013)

I think the F6F could have proved very useful for escort operations in Europe.

Like Greg, I would take an F6F and bolt on 3 drop tanks. He suggests 3 x 150 USG...I suppose they were the biggest available.

Unlike Greg I wouldn't load up with ammo. I would have no ammo, and would probably dump the guns too.

Then I would bolt a Spitfire F.XIV to the top, like a Mistel combination, and plumb it to the Hellcat's tanks. For takeoff and climb both the Spit and Hellcat would be powered, and both would be using fuel from the Hellcat. Once up to a sufficient altitude the Spitfire would cut its engine and the combination would fly on the Hellcat's motor only.

At some point the Hellcat pilot would wake up the Spitfire pilot. The Spit pilot would then start up and warm up his Griffon, again using fuel from its self propelled flying gas tank! Then he would separate and go to rendezvous with the bombers to be escorted....or, more likely, go do some mischief.

Spitfire IXs and P-47s would be used to protect the combinations until separation. Alternatively they would fly unescorted, betting that the Luftwaffe would be more interested in the big bomber contingent coming up at them.

Out of the box thinking, just as Greg asked!

Göring was a bit down when he saw P-51s over Berlin. How depressed would he be if the RAF somehow managed to get Spitfires there?


----------



## GregP (Apr 21, 2013)

Checked wityh Hel;lcat pilots at the Planes of Fame and THEY say it could be done, but wasn't the primary mission ... so I suppose it is possible. If YOU don't, that's OK ... I do. Since this a what if, I say let's terminate it with each having his or her own opinion.

600+ miles on internal fuel, including some combat, so if they had to engage before Berlin, they'd have to turn back, and the ones that didn't engage would continue. Go talk to the guys that fly it ...

Good luck Wuzak ...

Outta' here and bye.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 21, 2013)

I suppose the F6F could have been used to escort bombers in one of the first stages of the relay, if it couldn't do the final leg to target.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> Checked wityh Hel;lcat pilots at the Planes of Fame and THEY say it could be done, but wasn't the primary mission ... so I suppose it is possible. If YOU don't, that's OK ... I do. Since this a what if, I say let's terminate it with each having his or her own opinion.
> 
> *Yo Greg. The Hellcat pilots at Planes of Fame never escorted B-17s at 26K+ and had to run fast cruise fuel consumption at 28K. So, if you aren't asking the right questions you aren't getting all the facts - just opinions based on 15K cruise at 170KT because they never had to consider the tactical mission debated here.*
> 
> ...



You always fall back on some nebulous 'Planes of Fame' pilot group - whether its a debate about pilot's combat preferences between P-51D and P-51B - and you reference Bud Mahurin as an expert witness (who never flew either in combat) - or now a Hellcat pilot or pilots regarding a mission profile they never planned or flew. 

When you name names they are usually those that are not connected to subject matter expertise for the Question to be answered.

So Who did you ask, and Which ones have subject matter expertise regarding the Questions to be answered relative to factual data?

Good - now you can ask 'them' to point you to sfc data for high altitude/fast cruise fuel consumption?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I suppose the F6F could have been used to escort bombers in one of the first stages of the relay, if it couldn't do the final leg to target.



It could but why bother. Above 20,000ft it is slower than a P-47, it doesn't climb as well and it is shorter ranged (combat radius) than even the early P-47s *IF* it tries to act like P-47 and "escort" from 24-28,000ft. 

A "use" could have been found for it but since it won't do what the P-47s and P-38s would do, escort wise, it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. 

A Typhoon could "fly" 1000 miles with a pair of drop tanks but nobody tried using them for long range escorts.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 21, 2013)

I have often wondered if another big cat would have been of use over Europe as a bomber escort. The Grumman Tigercat one of my favourite didnt quite make it aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> A Typhoon could "fly" 1000 miles with a pair of drop tanks but nobody tried using them for long range escorts.



I bet the Tiffy pilot would have spent most of his time nervously staring at the oil pressure warning light.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2013)

See:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_Airplane_Characteristics_Performance.pdf

Combat radius 435 N miles_with 300 gallon drop tank_ using "standard" Navy conditions which are way different than the USAAF Bomber escort conditions. 

Zero wind and everything "perfect" you might be able to fly one from Cambridge to Warsaw and back but that is at 180mph and a rather low altitude


----------



## Njaco (Apr 21, 2013)

wuzak said:


> .....
> 
> Göring was a bit down when he saw P-51s over Berlin. How depressed would he be if the RAF somehow managed to get Spitfires there?



Extremely - especially after RAF Mossie's ruined his "I am the Greatest" speech at the Sportsplatz!


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The F6F did what it did very well, it was a very good performing _CARRIER_ aircraft that was easy to fly and land on carriers, or about as easy as it gets with planes that big and powerful.
> 
> It may not have been the "best" carrier fighter performance wise but when you have to put up CAPs for most hours of daylight ( and some even at night) on _every_ day that has flyable weather for weeks on end AND you are WEEKS away from getting replacement aircraft and pilots a plane that is easy to take-off and land from the carrier deck may take preference over the last few % of performance.
> 
> ...


That's not a bad synopsis of some of these carrier-constraints and the reason these Grumman machines won out on those carriers. Let me just use this big opportunity to suggest we get our heads out of the sand, in a manner of speaking. These F6Fs were never figured for 1000-mile round trips. They were figured for bombing-fighting in maybe half that range. If they're long-range escorts, they're that, if anything, by accident, not by design. As such, I wouldn't even figure them for long-range escorting. I'd rather figure them for what they could do, and did, and very well, that being, shot up the skies, and precision-bombed, at one in the same time. Utilized in that manner, the Japanese had nothing that could stop them. What makes one think the Germans had anything that could stop them? I just don't see that. I rather see whatever Luftwaffe bases within the range of these F6Fs gone, kaput, done for, out of there, and I see it on the basis of the track record of these F6Fs when deployed to that same type of operation in the PTO, over, and over, again. Otherwise, I'd say, keep them in the PTO, we've got enough in an escort-fighter in the P51. Whatever the history in the ETO, those Luftwaffe bases weren't neutralized. All the F6Fs did in large part in the PTO was neutralize the Japanese launching bases. Take out the manufacturing, too, it was right there. Precision-bomb that, too. That's what these F6Fs were good for. Let the other machines handle what they were good for. Even if the F6Fs did have the fuel-range to escort and engage when necessary in fighter-combat, that would have been under-utilization, in my opinion. Sub-in the F4Us for the F6Fs, they were equally as fit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2013)

They were supposed to escort bombers, but the bombers they were supposed to escort were Grumman Avengers and Curtiss Helldivers, not turbo charged B-17s. 

AS for blasting German airfields, that would take a bit of work:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-b.jpg

British figured the "range" with a pair of 500lb bombs was 705 miles but after you figure in take-off, climb, 20 minute reserve and that fuel sucking 15 minutes at military power in the target area "range" fell to 423 miles or 210 mile of radius. 

It is about 110-130 miles from the COAST of England to the COAST of Holland or 211 miles from Ipswich to Zwolle, Holland. 

In the Pacific the F6F could play fighter bomber from it's carriers at close range to it's targets. Unless you plunk Carriers in the Channel or North Sea the F6F has a bit of a range problem. That is OK as so did a lot of other planes in the ETO. Typhoons were even shorter ranged when carrying a pair of bombs. 

Fun web site for distances. 

Distance.to - Distance calculator worldwide


----------



## stona (Apr 21, 2013)

We seem to be losing our grasp on reality here!

Can anyone explain to me, with hard facts and figures, why the Hellcat or Corsair might be any better at attacking ground targets than P-47s or any other allied aircraft of the time? Did they have some wonderful weapon or device unavailable in the ETO? Maybe a superior rocket or bomb/gun sight? Maybe some kind of wonder cannon or machine gun ammunition? _They did not._

There's a lot of supposition and assumption with little evidence as far as I can see.

On a more practical level,comparing Luftwaffe bases and infrastructure in Europe to the Japanese force structure, their parlous state of supply and isolation across the Pacific Islands is like comparing chalk and cheese. 
The naval aircraft may indeed have destroyed a lot of Japanese aircraft in the Pacific. Unlike in the case of the Luftwaffe these could not be replaced.Take a look at German single engine fighter production in 1944. These aircraft did not subsequently have to be shipped hundreds/thousands of miles across the Pacific. They could be easily flown directly to the front. It's a ridiculous comparison.

In any case aircraft did not for the most part neutralise those Japanese bases, Marines, boots on the ground did (along with the rest of the USN).

Cheers

Steve


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 21, 2013)

They had a track record, Steve. That's what they had. They had a track record of getting in and out through fighter and AA resistance while precision-bombing the targets they were put after. What's so difficult to accept about that? 

The question related to how they'd be utilized. How would they fit? What difference, if any, would they have brought? I think they'd have brought getting anything they went after, I think that's what their track record says they'd have brought, and they'd have brought it while shaking off the Luftwaffe and AA and packing 2000 pounds of bombs under their bellies. We'll never _know_, though. Will we?


----------



## nincomp (Apr 21, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> We'll never _know_, though. Will we?



Don't be silly. All we need to do is borrow someone's Hellcat, find some drop tanks and get 2000lbs of bombs, then ...


----------



## stona (Apr 21, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> They had a track record, Steve. That's what they had. They had a track record of getting in and out through fighter and AA resistance while precision-bombing the targets they were put after. What's so difficult to accept about that?



They wouldn't have achieved anything that the types in the ETO already did. The 8th AF and their RAF allies had a track record too. 

Bombing and strafing a Pacific island airstrip, destroying its irreplaceable aircraft is quite different from the task facing allied air forces in Europe. Airfields are easily repaired, given the man power and machinery, both of which the Germans had. Cratering a runway will put an airfield out of action for hours at best. I know just how quickly things could be patched up from the RAF experience in the BoB and particularly Malta.
If the USN destroyed the Japanese aircraft on an island airstrip then it ceased to function as such. In the ETO, at least until early 1945, this was not the case. Replacement aircraft would be picked up and flown in from the relevant air park. To defeat the Luftwaffe you had to kill its pilots, not destroy its aircraft on the ground.

Whether the Hellcat would have been able to compete with its mid/late war adversaries is something we'll never know for sure. That's why I have not expressed an opinion. It was a very good aeroplane, but so were those flown by the opposition. 

There is no evidence at all that they would have been any more effective in a ground attack role.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 21, 2013)

I agree. I never entered into the debate about whether the Hellcat's range was adequate for escort wort in the ETO because I don' t know enough about such things, but transposing the Hellcats fighter bomber success into the ETO seems to run into the same problem as transposing its record as a fighter: proponents say 'it did this against the Japanese therefore it could do it against the Germans' without explanation as to why the Hellcat would do so much better than type actually tasked with the job that had similar or better performance. 
Japanese airfields were almost completely cut off from supplies. Destroy fuel or aircraft and they could not be replaced. history shows that even when subjected to an enormous strategic bombing and interdiction campaign the Germans still continued to repair and use airfields until they were overrun.
A while back I posed a question to enthusiasts of the Hellcat over Europe in the air superiority role: what did the Hellcat have that would have enabled it to compete when than Spit V, which would appear to have similar performance, was outclassed? To extrapolate: what did the Hellcat have that would have made it so much better than the P47 or Typhoon in the fighter bomber role - unless being considerably slower than either was somehow a help.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 21, 2013)

Steve, if I had the F6Fs in Europe, I wouldn't be escorting with them. That, in my humble opinion, would be under-utilizing them. Neither, however, would I simply be bombing grass with them. Those Luftwaffe bases would be an immediate objective so as to provide some breathing room for the heavy-bomber missions, but that would just be the start of it. Get the manufacturing and ferrying-out of those fighters to those land bases, that's where that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to shine. The RAF and AF had twice the bombing capacity as the F6Fs in the P38s and their other larger-sized bomber-fighters, but what did those do, as regards those factories? The heavy-bombers got one of them, once, I think, but how precisely, given it was back up in a matter of weeks or so? I think that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to get what they're going after, and against all odds. Now, sure, let's digress and point out that ratio is likely claims-based and biased. I’d think it a fair reply to that, what such ratios aren't? You factor in that home-team bias with respect to those F6F claims, you factor it in, everywhere, across the board, and you end up the same, comparatively. The F6Fs had easy pickings in the Pacific? I don’t know that I'm too persuaded on that, either. There were P38s out there and attrition doesn’t seem to explain why they never achieved the ratio the F6Fs achieved. I know, the Japanese just threw their worst pilots at the F6Fs? With the kind of attrition some of you boys go on and on about it’s a wonder every Allied aircraft in the Pacific didn’t achieve that 19:1. 

But, I digress...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Steve, if I had the F6Fs in Europe, I wouldn't be escorting with them. That, in my humble opinion, would be under-utilizing them. Neither, however, would I simply be bombing grass with them. Those Luftwaffe bases would be an immediate objective so as to provide some breathing room for the heavy-bomber missions, but that would just be the start of it. Get the manufacturing and ferrying-out of those fighters to those land bases, that's where that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to shine. The RAF and AF had twice the bombing capacity as the F6Fs in the P38s and their other larger-sized bomber-fighters, but what did those do, as regards those factories?



Lets see if I under stand this right. 

F6F doesn't have enough fuel carrying a 150 gallon drop tank to accompany the bombers to targets in Germany and return *BUT* it can carry bombs to targets in Germany and return to England on internal fuel only? 

Please look at a map. Look at the documents available at : F6F Performance Trials

Or any where else you can find and show HOW a F6F could fly from England and hit (bomb) Factories in Germany and *NOT* have it be a one way trip?

This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it. 

*NO* single engine ( or even most twin engine) fighter/s could fly 4-500 miles ONE WAY carrying 2000lbs of bombs and then turn around and fly home at _survivable_ speeds and altitudes. 

Even an F7F Tigercat had a "combat" radius of 435 N miles carrying TWO 1000lb bombs AND a 300 gallon belly tank. AND it needs to fly home at 1500 ft (yes fifteen hundred feet) at 170knts. A speed that could be matched by a good Beechcraft Bonanza.

F6F could fly 433 mile Radius with TWO 500lb bombs and a 150 gallon belly tank but it has to cruise at power settings that would give about 232 mph _clean_ at 20,000ft. 

If the Luftwaffe can force teh plane to drop either the bombs OR the drop tank before it is empty it is a "mission kill" even if not one bullet hits the F6F.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look at a map. Look at the documents available at : F6F Performance Trials


OK, Sherlock, I wasn't thinking about running out of gas in those operations. That would finish me. Unless it was possible to launch from closer. 



Shortround6 said:


> This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it.


You're two-for-two. That would explain that.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 21, 2013)

watch the sarcastic name calling, please.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 22, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Steve, if I had the F6Fs in Europe, I wouldn't be escorting with them. That, in my humble opinion, would be under-utilizing them. Neither, however, would I simply be bombing grass with them. Those Luftwaffe bases would be an immediate objective so as to provide some breathing room for the heavy-bomber missions, but that would just be the start of it. Get the manufacturing and ferrying-out of those fighters to those land bases, that's where that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to shine. The RAF and AF had twice the bombing capacity as the F6Fs in the P38s and their other larger-sized bomber-fighters, but what did those do, as regards those factories? The heavy-bombers got one of them, once, I think, but how precisely, given it was back up in a matter of weeks or so? I think that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to get what they're going after, and against all odds. Now, sure, let's digress and point out that ratio is likely claims-based and biased. I’d think it a fair reply to that, what such ratios aren't? You factor in that home-team bias with respect to those F6F claims, you factor it in, everywhere, across the board, and you end up the same, comparatively. The F6Fs had easy pickings in the Pacific? I don’t know that I'm too persuaded on that, either. There were P38s out there and attrition doesn’t seem to explain why they never achieved the ratio the F6Fs achieved. I know, the Japanese just threw their worst pilots at the F6Fs? With the kind of attrition some of you boys go on and on about it’s a wonder every Allied aircraft in the Pacific didn’t achieve that 19:1.
> 
> But, I digress...



I'm feeling ignored and rejected, and you guys are supposed to be my friends, not my wife. Every time I ask perfectly reasonable questions like 'what performance characteristic of the Hellcat would have enabled it to succeed as an air superiority fighter against the late war German fighters when aircraft like the Spitfire V, with apparently similar performance, did not?' or 'What was it about the Hellcat would make it an equal or better fighter bomber than aircraft like the Typhoon or P-47 that were faster, could carry as much and had better firepower?' All I hear are chants of 'nineteen to one in the PTO, nineteen to one in the PTO!'
Honestly, I'm here to be convinced. But if kill ratios and results in an entirely different theatre with different opposition and different circumstances are all you have, why not leave the Hellcats where they are and bring in a bunch of P40s flown by New Zealanders? They were getting great kill ratios in the PTO at much the same time - no doubt they would dominate the LW over Northern Europe as well. 
What's that I hear? 'Nineteen to one in the PTO...'


----------



## GregP (Apr 22, 2013)

The internal fuel in the Hellcat, with 20 minutes combat is 625 miles. With a 150 gal droptank that get to 945 - 950 miles, depending on whom you believe. The Navy combat radius was with 1 hour reserve fuel.

That means if the Hellcat could drop tank OVER Berlin, it could make it home.

Some escorts had to drop tanks in combat before reaching Berlin ... but not all. The guys in FRONT dropped tanks and entered combat and turned back, the guys in the back or higher and not in front may not have done so due to the limited number of aircraft and good pilots the Luftwaffe had. When WE put up 1,000 fighters in waves, the Luftwaffe did NOT. 200 opposed by 25 - 75 is not a good fight. If not, then the guys who dropped tanks would turn around and the other guys would continue the escort. It's not all that complicated, and most likely worked similary for the escorts who DID the job in the actual war.

In any case, what they DID worked ... we won.


----------



## stona (Apr 22, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Every time I ask perfectly reasonable questions like 'what performance characteristic of the Hellcat would have enabled it to succeed as an air superiority fighter against the late war German fighters when aircraft like the Spitfire V, with apparently similar performance, did not?' or 'What was it about the Hellcat would make it an equal or better fighter bomber than aircraft like the Typhoon or P-47 that were faster, could carry as much and had better firepower?' .......... I hear.... 'Nineteen to one in the PTO...'



I know how you feel! (with apologies for mangling the quote, though not to change the sense  )

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 22, 2013)

...but that said, I reckon I can make one statement on which everyone will agree: the Grumman Hellcat was one hell of an airplane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> The internal fuel in the Hellcat, with 20 minutes combat is 625 miles. With a 150 gal droptank that get to 945 - 950 miles, depending on whom you believe. The Navy combat radius was with 1 hour reserve fuel.
> 
> That means if the Hellcat could drop tank OVER Berlin, it could make it home.
> .




You keep ignoring the the fact that while it could _make it home_, it would only do so by flying at a speed and altitude that would make it a sitting duck for ANY 109 _including_ the "E" model and ANY anti-aircraft gun bigger than a 9mm MP-38.

O, according to the British:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-a.jpg

It could NOT make it home IF it engaged in combat. Range 297 miles at 232mph at 20,000ft on internal fuel after subtracting a 105 IMP gallon "combat allowance" of take-off, climb to 20,000ft, *15 min* combat, and a 20 min reserve at the end of the flight.

It is 360 miles from Berlin to Amsterdam.

Granted you can trade the take-off and climb fuel for more range. 

it is 132 miles from Amsterdam to Lowestoft and it doesn't get any better than that. 

"it could make it home" depending on how well it _glides_


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> ...but that said, I reckon I can make one statement on which everyone will agree: the Grumman Hellcat was one hell of an airplane.



It was "one hell of an airplane" and I agree with you on the rest, a few more facts would be nice and not a chant of 19:1 and a lot of pom-pom waving.


----------



## stona (Apr 22, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> ...but that said, I reckon I can make one statement on which everyone will agree: the Grumman Hellcat was one hell of an airplane.



Yes indeed

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2013)

GregP said:


> The internal fuel in the Hellcat, with 20 minutes combat is 625 miles. With a 150 gal droptank that get to 945 - 950 miles, depending on whom you believe. The Navy combat radius was with 1 hour reserve fuel.
> 
> That means if the Hellcat could drop tank OVER Berlin, it could make it home.
> 
> ...



Yea! 
FYI - here is a Range data summary for the P-47C with R-2800-21 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-tactical-inc2.jpg

Note several points for Combat Radius of this Jug with 305 gallons and no external tank @25000 feet.
*170 miles with 20 minutes of combat, and 15 gallons of reserve. 
190 miles @15000 feet.*
Combat @ 100% MP, !00%RPM
Cruise @60%MP and 84%RPM
Key points - similar to same engine with similar sfc for auto rich and auto lean.
No calculations for forming up large formation and climbing to 25000 feet in formation.
No Single 150 gallon tank Drag (approximately 20mph for either P-47 or F6F) to reduce range/gallon while external tank is attached

*Note: Max Range @54%MP and 63%RPM = 650 miles w/o Tank and 25 gallons reserve
Max Range calcs do not include formation take of times nor formation assembly times nor combat.
This would be approximately 650/280 = 2.3 miles per gallon absolute best case with no provision of burning 50 plus minutes warming up, taking off and assembling or using 20 minutes of combat power.*

So let's do a 'Hypothetical F6F-3 Escort to Berlin with F6F-3 and 150 gallon external tank"

Assumptions - Fuel consumption of F6F w/R2800-10 about the same as the P-47C with R2800-21; That Cruise altitude and airspeed must be 25,000 feet and 300mph TAS with whatever throttle conditions are required for max range at that airspeed.

I'm speculating (absent valid data from you) that auto lean fuel consumption for F6F at 300mph is close to the Jug at 25000 feet - or approximately 2.2mi/gallon to maybe 2.5 mi per gallon - which is Jug consumption w/o tank in auto lean for max range at 25K per the link above

Average warmup before the 1st pair trundle to Active = 5 minutes 
Average take off for 48 ships at 2 every 30 seconds = 24 minutes
Average time to complete formation assembly of last several ships off the runway = 5 minutes
Average climb in auto lean to 25,000 feet = 14 minutes on external fuel tank

Miles to get to R/V, say Brunswick, at 300mph (not sure the F6F can get 300mph in Auto Lean so this is Best case fuel consumption) - 400+ = 1 hour 20 minutes = 80 minutes at increased power to achieve 300 mpg with drag of 150 gallon tank until drop.. throttle and rpm setting as required to do 320mph w/o tank.
Miles to Ess above Bombers to Berlin and back to Brunswick = 250 miles at bomber speed 200 mph while F6F weaving at 300mph = 1 hour 15 minutes
Combat 20 minutes full Combat = 20 minutes full rich
Cruise 400 miles at 25,000 feet at 300 mph = 1 hour 20 minutes
Descend and land all 48 ships - one ship every 30 seconds (no weather) = 24 minutes
USN Standard = 1 Hour reserve.



So let's use 120 gallons per hour in auto lean as a high range to start with. (300 mph/2.5gph = 120 gallons every hour)

1.) 48 minutes from SE to 25,000 feet over English Coast. = 48/60 x 125 = .8x120= 96 gallons. 30 minutes internal = 60 gallons and 18 minutes internal = 36 gallons drop tank. 114 gallons left in drop tank, 190 gallons internal left
2.) Cruise 114g/120gph = .95 x 60 minutes = 57 minutes x 300 mph = Drop tanks @ 285mi from English Coast - 300 miles left to go to get to Berlin, 115mi to get to Brunswick with 190 gallons remaining internally.
3.) Cruise 115/300 = .38 hours to get to R/V = .37 x 120gph = 46 more gallons internal fuel to get to Brunswick and meet bombers. 144 gallons left for the mission.
4.) Cruise with bombers 250 miles. Bomber travel at 200mph TAS so 1 hour 15 minutes to bomb Berlin and return to Brunswick. 1.25 hours times 120 gph = 150 gallons. but you only have 144 left.

F6F starts long glide home west of Berlin and east of Brunswick. German fighters ignore gliding F6F's. 
USN Fighter base waits for new replacements.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 22, 2013)

Njaco said:


> watch the sarcastic name calling, please.


Sorry, Chris. Everybody, really. Short, you too. You caught me napping, big time. And my tongue got stuck in my cheek!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Lets see if I under stand this right.
> 
> Or any where else you can find and show HOW a F6F could fly from England and hit (bomb) Factories in Germany and *NOT* have it be a one way trip?
> 
> This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it.


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_AppendixB.pdf
Curiously enough - a P-51D had a fuel flow rate that yielded 5.91 miles per gallon at 308mph at 25000 feet clean, 4.9 mpg w 2x110 tanks at 281mph TAS, 5.58 mpg w 2x500# bombs at 307mph and 5.61mpg w 2x250# . It could go deep into Germany and return. 

Net - half the fuel consumption with 2x500 pound bombs in P-51D than of Hellcat with just the centerline 150 gallon tank.

I know the 355th FG flew several missions with one 110 gallon fuel tank and one 500# bomb to attack truck depots south of Stendal, nne of Magdeburg ~ 50 miles from Berlin - in spring 1945.

Roughly, the drag of the 1000 pound bomb was less than the 11o gallon tank but 250 more GW. You could figure the gallons per per mile while the P51D was carrying one 110 gal tank and one 1000# would be slightly below 4.91 (@ 307 w/2/110's) but have a slightly greater cruise speed (say 315mph) so it would be close to 4.8 miles per gallon.

Say 20 gallons to take off assemble and climb to 25000 feet. 269-25 = 244 gallons remaining - 92 each in mains, and 60 in fuse tank plus 110 gallons in drop tank.

Fly 400 miles and bomb Brunswick x 4.8 miles per gallon = 84 gallons of external burned down at Brunswick, 25+ remaining plus 244 internal.

Fly (from Table B above link) 125 of the 400 remaining and drop external tank.

Fly 275 miles @2100 rpm, 53gph @[email protected] 5.8 gallons per mile after climbing back to 15000 feet. 275/5.8 = 47 gallons internal to English Coast. = 197 gallons remaining 

If you fly a straight mission to Berlin at 15000 feet with no external load and fly CAP for an airborne drop on Berlin with loiter at 15000 feet then return to Steeple Morden..

18 gallons to SE, TO and form up at 15000.. 

Cruise 600 miles at 303TAS to Berlin at 5.8 miles per gallon = 103 gallons. 269-18-103=128 gallons. Burn 28 gallons goofing off and then return on 100 gallons

Make an emergency landing at Manston


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2013)

Thank you. 

By the Spring of 1945 the Germans _may_ have been running a little short of airplanes/pilots/fuel leaving the escorts a little less occupied than before? 

I know that a lot of "bombing" missions were done by fighters flying in formation and letting go on signal from a lead bombardier, but I didn't think they did much in way of deep penetrations. 

Conditions in the Spring of 1945 being a lot different than the summer of 1944 let alone the summer/fall of 1943.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 22, 2013)

no one seems to have mentioned the weather over Europe. Wing icing, winds, rain, snow and fogged in airfields all mean you will burn fuel a lot faster than the book figures.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2013)

Thank you, it is also a reason that the "nominal" combat radius figures did NOT include distance covered in climb OR any increase in range due to dropping 20-25,000ft of altitude or several other factors. Sort of extra built in reserves. 

These were not single plane missions but formation flights. Planning had to be for the _WORST_ plane in the squadron/group. Dropping 20% of your returning aircraft in the Channel was NOT good planning.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> By the Spring of 1945 the Germans _may_ have been running a little short of airplanes/pilots/fuel leaving the escorts a little less occupied than before?
> 
> ...



amen - not to mention RAF TAC and 9th AF being based on cntinent in France, Belgium and Holland.. making range cals superfluous. F6F would have done just fine in fighter bomber role.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 22, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> no one seems to have mentioned the weather over Europe. Wing icing, winds, rain, snow and fogged in airfields all mean you will burn fuel a lot faster than the book figures.


That's a factor, too, yeah. Europe isn't exactly the South Pacific. 

I'm starting to see fuel constraints and geography played a big part, here, too, overall. Those evidently explain a lot in terms of why we did this and for that matter didn't do that.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 22, 2013)

Did the escorting fighters always start from England and return to the start base even late 1944 and 1945 or used the fighters bases in France? At least they could use the bases in France for refueling on the way back to England.
cimmex


----------



## drgondog (Apr 22, 2013)

One 8th AF FG, 352nd flew from Belgium for several months from December through March - returning to Bodney in early April. 

No group in 9th or RAF flew escort for US heavy daylight bombers in late 1944 through end of war.


----------



## VBF-13 (Apr 22, 2013)

drgondog said:


> [...] France, Belgium and Holland.. making range calls superfluous. F6F would have done just fine in fighter bomber role.


This would be about Fall 1944 on?


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 22, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Lets see if I under stand this right.
> 
> F6F doesn't have enough fuel carrying a 150 gallon drop tank to accompany the bombers to targets in Germany and return *BUT* it can carry bombs to targets in Germany and return to England on internal fuel only?
> 
> ...



The P-47N could carry a 2,000 lb. bomb load 400-500 miles. P-47 flew some amazing loads from Ie Shima to Kyushu. SInce the P-47N wasn't available for combat when the war in Europe ended, Your statement is still true for all practical purposes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2013)

I would also say that since most of the flying was done over open water (the islands could be avoided) the speeds and altitudes could be a bit lower than flying over Europe thus extending range. 

Good call though. The P-47N Might have done the job in Europe. Somebody will have to look into the actual flight profiles.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 23, 2013)

> The P-47N might have done the job in Europe.



I think this has been mentioned before; it was an impressive performer, but its appearance late in the precedings meant that it was of better use in the PTO, and existing types in the ETO could do the job more than adequately under the circumstances at that time. An argument against the Hellcat raised earleir in the thread.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2013)

The appearance of the P-47N in the ETO never occurred because the plane was too late to matter there - the 1st P-47Ns were available, in strength, some time in Spring of 1945. During that time the LW ceased to exist as a viable force, and the late P-47Ds have had more than enough range to cover any patch of Germany not yet occupied.
Comparing the P-47N with F6F will quickly show the 'N' as having 3 (three) times greater combat radius, 1000 vs ~330-350 miles. It was also some 70 - 100 mph faster than F6F-5, from 25-30000 ft, even the XF6F-6 was some 50 miles slower at those altitudes.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 25, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> The appearance of the P-47N in the ETO never occurred



According to, if I recall, Francis Gabreski's autobiography that is somewhat incorrect. P-47N's were first sent to the 56th, but not used on missions and torn back apart and sent off to the Pacific.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2013)

MikeGazdik said:


> According to, if I recall, Francis Gabreski's autobiography that is somewhat incorrect. P-47N's were first sent to the 56th, but not used on missions and torn back apart and sent off to the Pacific.



Gabreski was shot down in a P-47D-23 about 7 months before the first P-47M appearerd at 56th FG (with same engine as P-47N) in Dec 1944. he would have Zero notion when the first P-47N appeared in PTO in February 1945.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Apr 25, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Gabreski was shot down in a P-47D-23 about 7 months before the first P-47M appearerd at 56th FG (with same engine as P-47N) in Dec 1944. he would have Zero notion when the first P-47N appeared in PTO in February 1945.



I believe you are correct. However, I believe I am also in that they were first sent to the 56th. Cannot recall where I read that.?????


----------



## eagledad (Apr 25, 2013)

According to Roger Freeman in Mighty Eighth War Manual, a small batch of P-47N's arrived in the UK in April of 1945, but were never issued to any units.

Eagledad


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 15, 2018)

Resurrecting this old thread to discuss how much of a performance gain the two naval fighters would have experienced if they too where using 104/150 fuel, like all the other fighters performing combat ops in the ETO by the summer of 1944. I would expect an increase of up to 40 mph at various altitudes, as was experienced with the Thunderbolt (from a military setting of 52" Hg increased to a 65" Hg combat setting and ADI). Climb rates were significantly improved as well.

Seeing that they were all equipped with the same basic R-2800 engine and were of similar size and overall aerodynamic drag, I would expect similar results for the Corsair and Hellcat. The only difference would be that actual engine output would vary with altitude, affecting speed accordingly (unlike the Thunderbolt which had the benefit of turbocharging, keeping sea level horsepower fairly constant as altitude increased).

What do you "experts" here think?







_P-47D-22 Airplane. 
Speed increase from military power of fifty-two inches Hg. to the test war emergency rating of sixty-five inches without water averaged approximately twenty-five m.p.h. true air speed from sea level to about twenty thousand feet. Over the same altitude range, water injection at sixty-five inches Hg. gave a further speed increase of about ten to fifteen m.p.h., *so that the total speed gain from military power to sixty-five inches Hg. with water was about forty m.p.h.* A considerable amount of scatter was present in the obtained speed data, possibly due to varying induction losses. Engine temperatures and operating characteristics were normal in level flight runs at sixty-five inches Hg., both with and without water._

Source: 150 Grade Fuel


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Resurrecting this old thread to discuss how much of a performance gain the two naval fighters would have experienced if they too where using 104/150 fuel, like all the other fighters performing combat ops in the ETO by the summer of 1944. I would expect an increase of up to 40 mph at various altitudes, as was experienced with the Thunderbolt (from a military setting of 52" Hg increased to a 65" Hg combat setting and ADI). Climb rates were significantly improved as well.
> 
> Seeing that they were all equipped with the same basic R-2800 engine and were of similar size and overall aerodynamic drag, I would expect similar results for the Corsair and Hellcat. The only difference would be that actual engine output would vary with altitude, affecting speed accordingly (unlike the Thunderbolt which had the benefit of turbocharging, keeping sea level horsepower fairly constant as altitude increased).
> 
> What do you "experts" here think?



See: 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/kd227-level.jpg

Plane using 60in and water injection. 

Improved performance would be under 18,500ft even in high gear as the supercharger can't supply any more air above that altitude regardless of the fuel used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 15, 2018)

The Hellcat was optimized for lower altitude performance than either the Merlin P-51 or any P-47, simply because high altitude bombers had a hard enough time hitting a stationary target, let alone a moving ship.

That said, the Hellcat did serve in the ETO, but wasn't involved in air combat to any significant degree. It would most certainly be competitive; several aircraft noted as failures in the Pacific did quite well in Europe, and the Hellcat and Corsair were successful there.

The P-51, in all the reports I have seen, has quite the lowest zero-lift drag coefficient of any single piston engine fighter, about 0.017, vs almost all others, between 0.022 and 0.025. In other words, it was probably the most efficient single-engine fighter with pistons banging back and forth.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Improved performance would be under 18,500ft even in high gear as the supercharger can't supply any more air above that altitude regardless of the fuel used.



Good point SR6. I actually noticed this while examining special WEP flight tests of the Hellcat, where boost pressures were raised to 64" Hg, using 100/130 fuel and ADI. Critical altitude in high blower was reduced to about 15,000 feet and to around 10,000 feet in low blower settings. 

The Mustang also fell victim to this. Here's a chart which shows a critical altitude drop of over 2,000 feet in both supercharger settings, when boost pressures were increased by some 8" Hg, using 150 octane fuel:







Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-level.jpg

I also noticed that top speed was 445 mph @ 23,000 feet, independent of manifold pressures.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Hellcat was optimized for lower altitude performance than either the Merlin P-51 or any P-47, simply because high altitude bombers had a hard enough time hitting a stationary target, let alone a moving ship.



That's a very unique perspective and one that never dawned on me before....


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 15, 2018)

Good example for 60 to 65"hg manifold pressure.

case of F4U-1.






The maximum speed improvement was not great, and the most distant altitude was about 17,000 ft with a speed increase of approx 18 mph. the reduction in critical altitude was about 2,000 ft. One model had low-type cabin(birdcage canopy), so this could have had some effect.

Special overboosting by improved water injector was tested by F6F-3 and F4U-1 until 1945. The reports on both models did not specify a definite manifold pressure(reports used the carburetor impact pressure instead), but likewise the top speed improvements were not large.

I think the P-47 is more advantageous because it uses a turbocharger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 15, 2018)

You can see on that graph that the critical altitude for the engine with extra boost and ADI was at or below 0ft when the auxiliary supercharger was in neutral..


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You can see on that graph that the critical altitude for the engine with extra boost and ADI was at or below 0ft when the auxiliary supercharger was in neutral..



That's right. In that case, the manifold pressure will not reach 65 "hg, although a turbocharged model would be possible.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 15, 2018)

Two USN light carriers were equipped with nothing but F6F's and supported Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France. They did the P-47 style mission, bombing and strafing to support the invading forces. There was an article entitled "Hellcats over France" in a 1945 issue of Flying magazine. I have an electronic copy on disk but it refused to print out properly so I could post it here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 15, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> Good example for 60 to 65"hg manifold pressure.
> 
> case of F4U-1.
> 
> ...



Thanks Dawncaster, you've provided compelling evidence that overall maximum speed seems to just shift to lower altitudes, with no appreciable increase to speak of but a paltry 5 mph. To me this example shows that using the higher octane fuel would not have helped either naval fighter perform better at altitude, and thus would not have improved their ability to provide high-altitude escort for the strategic bombing campaign. Maybe some speed advantage would be gained however if they were used in the fighter-bomber role, and the climb rates of the two aircraft most certainly improved when manifold pressures were increased beyond 60" Hg.

On a minor note, I believe that I've read those same over-boosting reports that you speak of and manifold pressures are indeed discussed along side water impact pressures (the Hellcat was tested at 58", 60", 62", and 64" respectively). But just as you said maximum level speed did not increase by appreciable amounts during these tests.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 15, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Two USN light carriers were equipped with nothing but F6F's and supported Operation Dragoon, the invasion of Southern France. They did the P-47 style mission, bombing and strafing to support the invading forces. There was an article entitled "Hellcats over France" in a 1945 issue of Flying magazine. I have an electronic copy on disk but it refused to print out properly so I could post it here.



I would very much like to read this article, if you find a way to post it.


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 16, 2018)

Jabberwocky said:


> Greg, the alierons on the 190A in that test were incorrectly adjusted, and so the aircraft wasn't rolling nearly as quickly as it should have been. There is correspondence between the RAF and the US on the tests relating to the rate of roll, including a side by side list of relative rolling rates. The USN tests were down by about 30% at some points.
> 
> The British also have some documentation on Corsair II (F4U-1D) on FW 190 roll rates
> 
> ...



Early Corsairs did not have boost tabs on ailerons. A good example is the first batch(BuNo 21xx) of Corsairs as shown in the USAAF report you mentioned. Corsair's aileron boost tab was appeared with birdcage Corsairs in mid or late 1943. with boost tabs, Corsair's steady roll rate rises up to 300 knots. The first boost tab was the balance tab and was installed to eliminate wing heaviness in flight. Later, it became a spring type balance tap, and it got more additonal performance in high speed.



(Feb 1943, Guadalcanal - Henderson Field)



(Sep 1943, Espiritu Santo)

For case of F4U-1 vs Fw 190 report, Perhaps Corsair has benefited from the boost tab at the start of the roll, and USN pilots might have evaluated it. If full ailerons deflection situation, Fw 190 would have been faster. The roll rate could vary considerably depending on the measurement conditions. A good example is FM-2.






Unlike the 90 degree roll rate, 360 degree roll rate was poor, due to included starting and stopping time and extra control to maintain the ball centered position while complete roll.

with boost tabs, Corsair was better in this problem, so 'felt' of the roll was pretty fast.





(F3A-1, 90 degree)





(F4U-1D, 270 degree)





(Corsair IV, 360 degree)





(FG-1, 360 degree)

So there was a 'possibility' that F4U actually got good results for instant roll rate in ACM against Fw 190.

And I am interested in the roll rate of that Corsair II that you wrote. At low speeds, it is superior to the figures in the US inspection report for various Corsairs. Perhaps that seems to be the roll rate of the Corsair without the boost tab.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2018)

The two formations that supported the landings were TG 80.2 and TG80.6 built around 6 x RN CVEs and 2 x USN CVEs. There were no light carriers fielded for operation Dragoon. There were a further 3 RN CVEs acting as the floating reserves.

The major aircraft utilised in the invasion was not the hellcat, it was the seafire. Whichever way you want to cut this, the major effort in support of this operation was provided by the RN and its equipment



RN

Emperor: Hellcat
Pursuer – Wildcat
Searcher – Wildcat
Attacker – Seafire
Khedive – Seafire
Hunter – Seafire
Stalker – Seafire

USN

Tulagi – Hellcat
Kasaan Bay - Hellcat

Seafires performed better than they had over salerno, though the insistence they carry 500lb bombs in this operation and the still air condition were not ideal for them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I would very much like to read this article, if you find a way to post it.



DarrenW, I am unable to get the article to print properly either to paper for scanning or direct to PDF. But you can go over to ebay and buy a disc as I did for $7.99. It has all of the Flying Magazines from 1945 to 1963. It is called "Popular Aviation Magazines Volume 2"


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 16, 2018)

The Hellcat, like the F4F and the F4U were not optimized for lower altitudes due to the inability of bombers to hit ships from high altitude. When they designed those airplanes, especially the F4F they had no practical knowledge of that experience. The F4F and the F6F and F4U that came after it used the less efficient two stage mechanical supercharging approach because it was available and easier to implement than the USAAC favored approach of using a turbosupercharger for the 1st stage. The F4F's high altitude engine was inspired by the USN's fear of the Y1B-17 and its ability to defeat them in the budget battles in DC. When Gen Billy Mitchell sank those German ships off the VA coast the Washington Times headlines screamed that battleships were worthless and airplanes were a cheaper and more effective defense. The USN's response was the aircraft carrier, which would defend the fleet from the heavy bomber in war games.and thus protect the Navy budget in DC. 

The YIB-17 combined with the YB-17 interception of the Italian Liner Roma far out at sea showed the USN the jig was up! The Y1B-17 had virtually the same top speed as the USN's new highly advanced F2A monoplane fighter - but 10,000 ft higher! Given the lack or radar the probability of intercepting turbosupercharged B-17's was zero with an F2A as defense. As a first step they rushed to get the US Army to prohibit flying its bombers far offshore. Meanwhile, the USAAC had tried out the XP-41 with two stage mechanical supercharging but found they much preferred the turbo equipped version, Seversky's privately financed AP-4, which led to the P-43 and P-47. But the mechanically supercharged R-1830 was already available and was easier to implement in the revised F4F. The result was that the USN put high altitude fighters in service before the USAAF, which was the real promoter of the idea, because the USN's approach was easier to implement than the higher performance turbo approach. Turbos blowing up in flight were all too common in the late 30's and early 40's, among other things.

In reality in WWII the USN found that the only high altitude bombers were the USAAF's - and the Navy even bought some for their own use. The F7F and F8F had single stage superchargers, since there was no real threat either on the high seas or in DC..

Forgive my soapbox approach, but I had planned to write an article on this for Wings/Airpower had they not gone out of business, and did research at the Air and Space Museum as part of that effort. . .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 16, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> DarrenW, I am unable to get the article to print properly either to paper for scanning or direct to PDF. But you can go over to ebay and buy a disc as I did for $7.99. It has all of the Flying Magazines from 1945 to 1963. It is called "Popular Aviation Magazines Volume 2"



Sounds like a pretty good deal!


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 16, 2018)

So let me see if I have this straight. The Hellcat and Corsair, by virtue of their supercharged R-2800, could not benefit as much as the Thunderbolt from the increased octane ratings because their engines didn't "breathe" as effectively as a turbo system in order to improve the fuel/air mixture necessary for similar increases in horsepower. That's why we only see minor increases in overall maximum speed from what was realized at the critical altitudes while using 100/130 fuel (maybe 5 mph or less). On the other hand, the Thunderbolt experienced double digit gains in maximum speed while using 100/150 because it's turbocharger was more efficient.

Please let me know if I'm way wrong here....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2018)

What you have is that most of the increase in the power in the cylinders in the P-47 was used to power the propeller. 
Since the turbo was powered by the exhaust gases the only "loss" or minus to the "theoretical" power (going from 54in to 65in in theory is a 20% increase in power in the cylinders)going to the prop is the loss caused by increased back pressure at the exhaust ports. Not quite as much burnt gases leaving so a bit less fresh mixture gets in. But more mixture going in means a high mass leaving which means more power for the turbo.

For the Navy engines the power to run the compressor comes from the crankshaft. You want to move 20% more in? you need to put more power (around 20%????) into the supercharger drive even at the same rpm. (Throttle is part closed at anything other than the critical height so the volume/weight of the air can change even at the same RPM.) 
This very simple theory takes no account of the higher intake mixture temperatures (less actual charge density) or the effectiveness or capacity (one way or the other) of the inter-coolers involved. 

Hope that helps.
Hope I am right

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> What you have is that most of the increase in the power in the cylinders in the P-47 was used to power the propeller.
> Since the turbo was powered by the exhaust gases the only "loss" or minus to the "theoretical" power (going from 54in to 65in in theory is a 20% increase in power in the cylinders)going to the prop is the loss caused by increased back pressure at the exhaust ports. Not quite as much burnt gases leaving so a bit less fresh mixture gets in. But more mixture going in means a high mass leaving which means more power for the turbo.
> 
> For the Navy engines the power to run the compressor comes from the crankshaft. You want to move 20% more in? you need to put more power (around 20%????) into the supercharger drive even at the same rpm. (Throttle is part closed at anything other than the critical height so the volume/weight of the air can change even at the same RPM.)
> ...



It definitely helps. I can now clearly see why the turbocharger gets the most benefit from the higher octane fuel. My next question is why critical altitude decreases with increased boost pressures, when using higher octane fuels and water injection on supercharged aircraft? Is there some correlation between the denseness of the surrounding air and how it relates to the higher pressures developed within the cylinders?

Lastly, with what you know about these Navy engines and their ancillary equipment, would they have been able to operate at 70" Hg (using 104/150 and ADI), and if so would there be any appreciable performance benefit as a result (other than further lowering the critical altitude)?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> It definitely helps. I can now clearly see why the turbocharger gets the most benefit from the higher octane fuel. My next question is why critical altitude decreases with increased boost pressures, when using higher octane fuels and water injection on supercharged aircraft? Is there some correlation between the denseness of the surrounding air and how it relates to the higher pressures developed within the cylinders?
> 
> Lastly, with what you know about these Navy engines and their ancillary equipment, would they have been able to operate at 70" Hg (using 104/150 and ADI), and if so would there be any appreciable performance benefit as a result (other than further lowering the critical altitude)?



Boost my dear boy.

In an altitude rated supercharged engine, such as Merlins, V-1710s and the R-2800-8/10, boost is controlled by the throttle. 

At low altitudes, below critical altitude, the supercharger can deliver more boost. But since this is usually more boost than the engine can handle, the throttle is closed to limit the mass air flow, and thus control the boost to the engine. 

Critical altitude is the altitude at which the throttle is completely open. Critical altitude is not just one number, though - there is one for each level of boost.

That is the maximum boost the supercharger can deliver at that altitude, engine speed and supercharger gear. From that point on the boost, and power, reduces. If that is low gear or neutral (as P&W auxiliary superchargers had), the pilot or control system can change up to the next gear at some point after that critical altitude.

Higher octane/PN fuel and ADI allows the engine to use more boost. The only way to get more boost is to open the throttle earlier, at lower altitude, given the same rpm and supercharger gear.

The new boost level will have a lower critical altitude. Once that is achieved, boost falls, until it reaches the previous boost level at the critical altitude for that boost.

* critical altitude is called Full Throttle Height in British engines
** Boost is pressure above standard sea level pressure

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 17, 2018)

Wuzak,

If I understand you correctly going up in octane lowers FTH, however the engine will still make more power at all altitudes than with the lower octane fuel?...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Boost my dear boy.
> 
> In an altitude rated supercharged engine, such as Merlins, V-1710s and the R-2800-8/10, boost is controlled by the throttle.
> 
> ...



Excellent stuff Wuzak. What you say to Biff's question?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> 
> If I understand you correctly going up in octane lowers FTH, however the engine will still make more power at all altitudes than with the lower octane fuel?...
> 
> ...



Between the new and old FTH the power will be increased. Above the old FTH the power is the same.

Let's use an example of a Merlin cleared for +21psi boost on 100/150 fuel. Let's say its full throttle height is X ft.

Normal max power on 100/130 fuel is +18psi boost at Y ft.

Operating with 100/150 fuel boost can be kept at +21psi boost to X ft. Power increases as the altitude increases because there are less pumping losses as the throttle opens. Peak power is at FTH.

Above FTH, the boost will drop, and will continue to drop until it is +18psi at Y ft. So, between X and Y altitude, more boost is available and more power. From Y ft upwards, the power is the same whether the fuel is 100/150 or 100/130, and ADi does not help.

On 100/130 fuel the throttle is still part closed between X and Y altitude, as it is still maintaining +18psi boost.

Hope that helps?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2018)

This chart shows it graphically.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

The diagonal lines rising from left to right are constant boost. The diagonal lines decreasing from left to right are the full throttle lines.

You can see that in S (fully supercharged/hi) gear the FTH for +25psi boost is ~14,000ft. From there the boost (and power) falls until it meets the +18psi line at ~20,000ft.

Similarly for +28psi boost and MS (medium supercharged/lo) gear.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 17, 2018)

Wuzak,

I think I’ve got it but one or three more questions to confirm. Assuming an engine could handle the power (is strong enough) and your fuel was of such a high octane you could theoretically have FTH of sea level correct? And if so power above it’s lower octane FTH would remain the same? And the reason is the engines limitation is not octane but airflow?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Wuzak,
> 
> I think I’ve got it but one or three more questions to confirm. Assuming an engine could handle the power (is strong enough) and your fuel was of such a high octane you could theoretically have FTH of sea level correct? And if so power above it’s lower octane FTH would remain the same? And the reason is the engines limitation is not octane but airflow?
> 
> ...



Yes, you certainly can have sea level FTH. 

You could even have a FTH below sea level - the supercharger can't produce the boost at sea level.

And, yes, the power above the FTH would remain the same. 

This post earlier in this thread is a good example.

The R-2800 in the F6F and F4U is called a 2 speed 2 stage engine, but in effect it is 3 speed. The main supercharger has a fixed gearing ratio to the engine. The Auxiliary supercharger has neutral, low gear and high gear.

On the blue line (60inHg MAP), you can see the speed increases with altitude from 0ft to 1,000ft, then decreases to 3,000ft. This is with the Auxiliary stage in neutral.

On the red line (65inHg MAP), the speed is decreasing from 0ft to 2,000ft. This suggests that the FTH with the auxiliary supercharger in neutral is 0ft at 65inHg MAP. 



Dawncaster said:


> Good example for 60 to 65"hg manifold pressure.
> 
> case of F4U-1.
> 
> ...




The limitation is the performance characteristics of the supercharger - that is the mass air flow and the pressure ratio.

Here is a post by SR6 a couple of years ago with a compressor map.

What was the problem with the allison engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2018)

wow!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 17, 2018)

GregP said:


> Yeah, the old A-6 was a very good aircraft. Basically all it lacked in my mind was some forward firing weapon(s)


I felt the same thing


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 17, 2018)

Here's a chart shown in Bill Gunston's book on the development of piston aero engines that helps show why a turbosupercharger can be so useful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 17, 2018)

Just when I thought I understood...

Thanks Wuzak and SR6!


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 19, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Didn't some F6Fs take on some Luftwaffe a/c? Med and/or off Norway, iirc.


Resp:
I read that during the MTO landings of Allied forces in Southern France (not Italy), US Navy Hellcats were flown inland for Photo-Recon duties, but were fired upon by Allied forces due to their similarity in profile (and dark paint scheme) to the FW-190. Not sure how many sorties were flown or whether there was any air-to-air engagements.


----------



## Drphloxx (Jul 19, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Chance-Cought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.
> 
> What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?
> 
> ...







* 
*


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 19, 2018)

Capt Eric Brown was of the opinion that the F4U would have fared poorly against the FW-190. And he had plenty of experience with both.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 19, 2018)

Last Fleet Air Atrm kills in the ETO were by by Wildcats supporting anti shipping strikes off Norway on 26 March 1945. 4 Wildcats. Vs 8 Bf109Gs. 3 109s shot down for no loss.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 19, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Capt Eric Brown was of the opinion that the F4U would have fared poorly against the FW-190. And he had plenty of experience with both.


Resp:
I want to say the report was dated Jan 1944, that an F4U (likely an -1A) was flown against a captured FW190. Keep in mind that both were using the latest octane fuel in the US. In these tests, the F4U outmaneuvered the 190 in almost all areas. The one thing I do remember is that the F4U could snap roll and easily get on the 190's tail. The report also advised pilots both the attributes and 'no go' traits in dealing the 190. I cannot recall the maximum altitudes these tests flights were made, but likely were below the higher altitudes of the ETO.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 19, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I read that during the MTO landings of Allied forces in Italy (or sometime later), US Navy Hellcats were flown inland for Photo-Recon duties, but were fired upon by Allied forces due to their similarity in profile (and dark paint scheme) to the FW-190. Not sure how many sorties were flown or whether there was any air-to-air engagements.



Why re-invent the wheel??? Read what R. Leonard and others had to say about the Hellcat's contributions in Europe (I recommend it):

American Hellcats vs the LW

The only service the Hellcat saw outside of the PTO was off Norway with the FAA and during the Allied landings in Southern France during 1944. While there were Hellcats based out of Corsica during this operation, they didn't fly missions into Italy. The Wildcat however did see action in the MTO.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2018)

Macandy said:


> Last Fleet Air Atrm kills in the ETO were by by Wildcats supporting anti shipping strikes off Norway on 26 March 1945. 4 Wildcats. Vs 8 Bf109Gs. 3 109s shot down for no loss.



A good example of the importance of the quality of the pilots.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> A good example of the importance of the quality of the pilots.




....and that the Wildcat was probably not quite so outmatched by anything with a _Balkenkreuz _as some would have everyone believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 19, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> ....and that the Wildcat was probably not quite so outmatched by anything with a _Balkenkreuz _as some would have everyone believe.



4 Wildcats _should_ have been outmatched by 8 Bf 109s.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 4 Wildcats _should_ have been outmatched by 8 Bf 109s.



They should also have been able to break off combat.

I'll stand by my statement that the Bf109s weren't as much better as some people claim.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 20, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Capt Eric Brown was of the opinion that the F4U would have fared poorly against the FW-190. And he had plenty of experience with both.



In another book(Wings of the Navy) he said he had an uncomfortable experience with Corsair. He was a test pilot for the Corsair I JT118 in early 1944. he said because of his short stature of 170 cm, Corsair's wide cockpit - tailored to Vought's 193 cm chief test pilot, gave him poor vision and control. and the 'Corsair I' was also a model with a Birdcage canopy that offered the lowest and deepest cockpit position and poor visibility among the all Corsairs. (meanwhile another British pilots who boarded the 'Corsair II' praised the Corsair's wide cockpit.)

Brown also said that the aileron was moderately light and the elevator was heavy, and Corsair had poor control harmony. extremely light stick force for aileron/elevator with good control harmony that the USN's inspection reports and other pilots pointed out were not found in his book. His small body has sometime resulted in low test results compared to other test pilots as was the case in other book(Wings on my Sleeve). perhaps he would not have used the Corsair's full agility.

His 'verdict' in 'Duels in the Sky' was seems based on his mind for Corsair in 'Wings of the Navy'.

"I was *never *to achieve *any *Sort of rapport"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 20, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> In another book(Wings of the Navy) he said he had an uncomfortable experience with Corsair. He was a test pilot for the Corsair I JT118 in early 1944. he said because of his short stature of 170 cm, Corsair's wide cockpit - tailored to Vought's 193 cm chief test pilot, gave him poor vision and control. and the 'Corsair I' was also a model with a Birdcage canopy that offered the lowest and deepest cockpit position and poor visibility among the all Corsairs. (meanwhile another British pilots who boarded the 'Corsair II' praised the Corsair's wide cockpit.)
> 
> Brown also said that the aileron was moderately light and the elevator was heavy, and Corsair had poor control harmony. extremely light stick force for aileron/elevator with good control harmony that the USN's inspection reports and other pilots pointed out were not found in his book. His small body has sometime resulted in low test results compared to other test pilots as was the case in other book(Wings on my Sleeve). perhaps he would not have used the Corsair's full agility.
> 
> ...


Resp:
A friend of mine's Dad flew Wildcats as a Marine Aviator in 1943 as fleet CAP. He returned to the States in Jan 1944 where he instructed cadets for 12 mos on the Corsair, flying every variant (F4U-1, -1A, FG-1, and F3A). He never had a problem with any Corsair variant, nor did any of his fellow instructors. He returned to the Pacific flying CAP for the Fleet, where he shot down two Kamikazes in the F4U-1D/FG-1D. He was recalled to Korea the first few mos of the conflict, where he flew the F4U-4. He never had to abort due to mechanical issues. He later flew the Hellcat and Tigercat (in training following WWII) and thought both excellent, but still favored the Corsair.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2018)

The Corsair’s cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren’t well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time. 

It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don’t design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don’t fit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 20, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Corsair’s cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren’t well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.
> 
> It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don’t design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don’t fit.


Resp:
I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 20, 2018)

Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.

They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.

This wasn't the Pacific where you could cruise along forever at 5000' at 150mph. If you were going over the continent in 1943 you had better be cruising as fast and high as you can. Say 250gal internal plus a 150gal drop tank gives 400gal less reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' 40gal less 15 minutes of combat at 275gph (69gal) and a 20 minute reserve for landing at 75gph (25gal) leaves just 266 gallons total at 250gph makes for a one hour escort mission.

The P-47 held 300gal internal and it had a really short Euro combat radius. Corsair and Hellcat were great planes in the Pacific but would have been on a very short leash in Europe.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.



I’m relying on reports from people who flew them, as are you.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 20, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Corsair’s cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren’t well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.
> 
> It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don’t design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don’t fit.



The book shows that Brown did, but that does not mean that most other pilots do. Brown had less than average stature. It is inappropriate to evaluate his opinion as an average pilot. It only demonstrates that a pilot with a below average stature could fall into trouble with Corsair's wide cockpit - not for average or above stature. even when he was on the Spitfire IX, he had lower results than other test pilots. I would like to see data that Corsair's cockpit size did not acceptable *most average *pilots, If that's true.

In the case of a British pilot, I have only two evaluations.

Ronnie Hay, an ace of Royal Marines, praised Corsair's cockpit size.

_"With the Corsair you felt as if you were literally strappcd into an armchair in your sitting room, the cockpit was that large. You honestly felt like a 'king' sitting up there, with virtually unlimited visibility through the bubble canopy of the Mark II."_

Norman Hanson, one of the pilots who received the Corsair for the first time in the FAA units, rated the cockpit of Corsair as:

_"The cockpit was meticulously arranged with all dials readily visible, and every lever and switch comfortably and conveniently to hand, without any need to search or grope (Intinitly superior, I may say, to the cockpits of British aircraft of that time - which by comparison suggested they had been designed by the administrative office charwoman)."
_
No information on the difficulty of control by cockpit size was found in their evaluation.



Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.



One good example.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 20, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.
> 
> They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Your assessment is pretty much correct. However, the F4U-1/-1A did carry more internal fuel than the P-47 in mid-1943. However, the wing tanks were non-self sealing.
- Internal fuel; defines the distance home. Once engaged by enemy, drop tanks are dropped . . . so the air combat and the trip home MUST be calculated on internal fuel (this was explained to me by another member). So even though it got its second drop tank in April 1943, it still would not have outdistanced the P-47. 
- Engine rated for optimum performance at Medium altitudes, although Corsair can go to 30,000 + ft.
- Cruise speeds are lower (than heavy bombers in ETO) to conserve fuel. Essentially, true fuel consumption rates would have to be re-calculated for increase cruising speed and increased altitude of ETO operations.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 20, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.
> 
> They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.
> 
> ...



What flight operations chart are you using for the 250 gph figure? The figures that I have for the Hellcat show a maximum of 213 gph while traveling at a TAS of 351 mph at 25,000 feet (boost at 49.5" Hg & mixture in auto-lean). And while I do understand the importance of airspeed in the ETO, fuel burn rate could be cut in half (106 gph) by reducing boost to 36" Hg while flying at the same altitude. This basically doubles the range and still keeps TAS around 280+ mph, which I believe would be fast enough to remain tactically viable.

Did the Thunderbolt normally fly at 350+ mph TAS while escorting bombers? If this was true then it too would have a far more limited range as well at that speed, as it's fuel burn rates in similar mission profiles and engine settings were virtually identical to the Hellcat.

But I do agree wholeheartedly that it would have been completely unnecessary to employ the Hellcat or Corsair as long range escorts because they both lacked the required high altitude performance and the USAAF already had three fighters which could perform the task as well or better than the two Navy fighters (and the P-39 wasn't one of them - sorry, couldn't resist! ).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Corsair’s cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren’t well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.
> 
> It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don’t design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don’t fit.



While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.

During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.

And while the F4U-1D did get some votes for "most comfortable cockpit", the P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-4, P-61B, and P-51D scored higher in this category (in that order). 

Food for thought....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.
> 
> During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.
> 
> ...


Resp:
In any grouping of evaluations, there will always be 'better' and 'worse' ratings. Grumman has always made good reliable aircraft. However, one must admit that the Hellcat was a much better fighter than the Wildcat. Grumman was quick to refine them. How many Fighters did Vought make? North American had a chance to produce the P-40, but believed that they could do better. I believe NAA made the correct decision. The Corsair was a 1938/1940 design; the first single engine fighter to obtain/exceed 400 mph in flight. The rest is history. We can debate it, but it will not change anything.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> In any grouping of evaluations, there will always be 'better' and 'worse' ratings. Grumman has always made good reliable aircraft. However, one must admit that the Hellcat was a much better fighter than the Wildcat. Grumman was quick to refine them. *How many Fighters did Vought make*? North American had a chance to produce the P-40, but believed that they could do better. I believe NAA made the correct decision. The Corsair was a 1938/1940 design; the first single engine fighter to obtain/exceed 400 mph in flight. The rest is history. We can debate it, but it will not change anything.



12571 Corsairs?
over 660 of them after V-J day. 
Until the F4F Wildcat Vought had built many times more navy aircraft than Grumman.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 12571 Corsairs?
> over 660 of them after V-J day.
> Until the F4F Wildcat Vought had built many times more navy aircraft than Grumman.


Resp:
I was referring to type/models of fighters, which there was one . . . the Corsair. It is interesting in that the Navy chose to keep the Corsair well into the next conflict. Although the F7F also saw Service in Korea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2018)

Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers. 
They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane. 
Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers.
> They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane.
> Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
> Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)





Shortround6 said:


> Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers.
> They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane.
> Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
> Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)


Resp:
Roger. It is may understanding the the Corsair was their first modern mono wing fighter. Brewster had problems (mainly management) in producing the F3A, but the FAA flew them in combat w/o complaint. The US retained them in the US for training only. Does anyone have a written assessment by the FAA on their Brewster Corsairs?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2018)

While the Hellcat was better in some ways than the Corsair, _e.g._, low-speed handling and ergonomics, it was less versatile and had, overall, slightly poorer performance.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 21, 2018)

From what I've read, all FAA Brewster built Corsair were relegated to training status. Please don't "Resp:" this. I know what you're quoting, I'm not stupid


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Roger. It is may understanding the the Corsair was their first modern mono wing fighter. Brewster had problems (mainly management) in producing the F3A, but the FAA flew them in combat w/o complaint. The US retained them in the US for training only. Does anyone have a written assessment by the FAA on their Brewster Corsairs?



From what I have read, Brewster has very serious management problems which manifested themselves as poor productivity, poor quality, poor labor-management relations(Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Archives - A History of Total Health), and even purported instances of sabotage.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 21, 2018)

According to "Florida Warplanes" by Harold Skaarup, only the Mk.IIs and Mk.IVs saw combat. The 430 Mk.IIIs must have been divided among the 26 second-line squadrons


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.
> 
> During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.
> 
> ...



Yes, early Corsair seems to have a problem with the cockpit 'layout'.

Boone T. Guyton, the Corsair's chief test pilot, also pointed out that there was a problem with the layout of the cockpit. He regretted that the solution was not reflected before the production line started.

_"At this time a serious mistake was found in the arrangement of controls in the F4U-1's cockpit. Unfortunately, it had gone into production, slipped by all of us, and reached the combat zone. At least one pilot died as a result. while I could rationalize the error as unforeseeable, it should not have been. As Vought's chief experimental test pilot and most experienced naval aviator, I should caught it."
_
There was a pilot who was shot down due to unintentional emergency landing gear extended in combat. Because the emergency landing gear could not be retract again, His Corsair was caught by A6Ms.

_"What the hell do you mean by putting that emergency landing gear bottle next to wing purging? Do you know what's happening?"_

So, that's what he heard.

Perhaps including it with other problems to have been fixed with later variants, but it would have been just minor changes until cockpit was completely redesigned on the F4U-4.

However, it still has nothing to do with the opinion that most of the average pilots are limited in control or visibility because of the Corsair's wide cockpit design. For the pilots of various origin and times, the Corsair was evaluated as a maneuverable machine and easy to fly. If the it's cockpit was specially interferes with control and visibility compared to the other cockpits, most pilots would have said that - especially the combat pilots. However, except for the early Birdcage type, that opinion is not noticeable. Except for the frontal view from the ground due to the long nose, the Corsair with a raised cabin(In other words, bulged or semi-bubble) was seems well received. As far as I can see, unlike the layout, the control and visibility seem to belong to 'comfort'.

Well, this is an interesting subject, but I find it difficult to get the data. I did not even know the average stature of the USN and USMC pilots during World War II. Conversely, I was wondering how could assure that 75% of the pilots do not fit with it.



swampyankee said:


> While the Hellcat was better in some ways than the Corsair, _e.g._, low-speed handling and ergonomics, it was less versatile and had, overall, slightly poorer performance.



As far as I know, exactly, It's not the low-speed handling but the handling in landing conditions. Corsair was an agile aircraft with a very light stick force, but the stick force of the elevator became excessive if it cuts the throttle. for touchdown to the aircraft carrier, the Corsair suffers from sluggish handling and low stability both when switching from a power approach to power off landing condition. The vertical stabilizer of the Corsair was advantageous in terms of agility because most of the sections are made of control surfaces, but the area of the pin was too small for terms of stability when rudder deflected. Moreover, flaps also decreased stability. It provides low stall speed and great combat flap due to it's excellent efficiency, but the flap's high chord ratio with low tail gear causes directional stability problem during touchdown. Lastly, a sudden fall of lift curve in throttle closed and decelerating situation causes a sharp wing drop. If pass all this safely, Corsair will finally complete the landing.

The interesting thing is that the design for better fighter makes an worse carrier based airplane. Vought seems chose the performance first, instead of maintaining this subtle balance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 22, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> What flight operations chart are you using for the 250 gph figure? The figures that I have for the Hellcat show a maximum of 213 gph while traveling at a TAS of 351 mph at 25,000 feet (boost at 49.5" Hg & mixture in auto-lean). And while I do understand the importance of airspeed in the ETO, fuel burn rate could be cut in half (106 gph) by reducing boost to 36" Hg while flying at the same altitude. This basically doubles the range and still keeps TAS around 280+ mph, which I believe would be fast enough to remain tactically viable.
> 
> Did the Thunderbolt normally fly at 350+ mph TAS while escorting bombers? If this was true then it too would have a far more limited range as well at that speed, as it's fuel burn rates in similar mission profiles and engine settings were virtually identical to the Hellcat.
> 
> But I do agree wholeheartedly that it would have been completely unnecessary to employ the Hellcat or Corsair as long range escorts because they both lacked the required high altitude performance and the USAAF already had three fighters which could perform the task as well or better than the two Navy fighters (and the P-39 wasn't one of them - sorry, couldn't resist! ).


250gph straight from the pilot's manual.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> 250gph straight from the pilot's manual.



What, the one you penciled in yourself?  Does not exist.

Yes, I'm calling you out on this one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

hmmmm.






Yep, 250 gph at 22-24,000ft "Normal Power (max. Continuous)"

except.




that max continuous (Normal) power would have you "cruising" at over 380mph according to this chart. 
I wonder what the fuel burn was if cruising at 310-320mph true??


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> hmmmm.
> View attachment 502778
> 
> 
> ...


You are fast. Remember you have at least one 150gal drop tank to knock about 40mph off your speed. Still nowhere near the range for ETO.

Odd how normal power is faster then military power on that chart.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> hmmmm.
> View attachment 502778
> 
> 
> ...



'AUTO RICH' consumes more fuel than 'AUTO LEAN'.

'AUTO RICH' for power or better cooling and 'AUTO LEAN' was usually used for cruising.

Eventually, Both F4U and F6F were offically cleared to use 30 minutes military power and unlimited normal rated cruise with 'AUTO LEAN'.









The F6F's handbook was 1 May 1946 version and the F4U-1's handbook was at least revised after 1 June 1944.



P-39 Expert said:


> Odd how normal power is faster then military power on that chart.



F4U-1 was first fighter with production model R-2800, so it suffered from various initial problems. One of them was high-altitude performance, Birdcage Corsairs just after deployment were not allowed to fly above 29,000 feet. Due to early Corsair's operational experience, the R-2800 has been improved for battle. Hellcats and rised cabin Corsairs, which were able to appear on the battlefield with most problems resolved, were lucky.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> hmmmm.
> View attachment 502778
> 
> 
> ...



First off, that chart is for the Corsair, not the Hellcat. P-39 Expert lumped them both together in his original post. I have three Hellcat pilot manuals and none of them show figures for that sort of fuel usage. Here's the source for my figures:






Secondly, what pilot would elect to fly at max continuous power settings while cruising to the target area (whether ETO or otherwise)? That's a great way to run out of fuel. That's what the cruise settings are used for. As you can see with the Hellcat example, the fuel burn rate is basically cut in half by dialing down manifold pressures, RPMs, and running an auto lean mixture. Speed is still a respectable 283 mph.

But again, I'm not advocating that the Hellcat could have been used for high altitude bomber escort, you and others have already convinced me otherwise. I'm just talking range and radius in the general sense and what effects them.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> 'AUTO RICH' consumes more fuel than 'AUTO LEAN'.
> 
> 'AUTO RICH' for power or better cooling and 'AUTO LEAN' was usually used for cruising.
> 
> ...



Sorry Dawncaster, seems that I stepped on your toes a bit here and repeated some of what you already stated. We obviously were responding at roughly the same time...


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 22, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> First off, that chart is for the Corsair, not the Hellcat. Here's the source for my figures:
> 
> Secondly, what pilot would elect to fly at max continuous power settings while cruising to the target area (whether ETO or otherwise)? That's a great way to run out of fuel. That's what the cruise settings are used for. As you can see with the Hellcat example, the fuel burn rate is basically cut in half by dialing down manifold pressures, RPMs, and running an auto lean mixture. Speed is still a respectable 283 mph.
> 
> But again, I'm not advocating that the Hellcat could have been used for high altitude bomber escort, you and others have already convinced me otherwise. I'm just talking range and radius in the general sense and what effects them.



If only consider the range and cruise speed Corsair may be slightly better than Hellcat, even without auxiliary fuel tanks in the wing, the Corsair has equivalent range and faster cruising speeds. Well, both models were not capable at ETO as escort fighters, but they can be good low and medium altitude fighters. Tempest and Typhoon which had similar operational altitudes would fight together.



DarrenW said:


> Sorry Dawncaster, seems that I stepped on your toes a bit here and repeated some of what you already stated. We obviously were responding at roughly the same time...



Like many confused dogfights!


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> ...... Remember you have at least one 150gal drop tank to knock about 40mph off your speed.....



From what I can tell from US Navy documents, the 150 gallon centerline tank used by the Hellcat decreased top speed anywhere from 10-20 mph, depending on altitude (greater loss at height, due to increased speeds). 40 mph deficits at any height/speed sound excessive to me.

Are you sure you're not talking about _two_ tanks used on the Corsair and lumping the two aircraft together again?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> If only consider the range and cruise speed Corsair may be slightly better than Hellcat, even without auxiliary fuel tanks in the wing, the Corsair has equivalent range and faster cruising speeds. Well, both models were not capable at ETO as escort fighters, but they can be good low and medium altitude fighters. Tempest and Typhoon which had similar operational altitudes would fight together.
> 
> 
> 
> Like many confused dogfights!



agreed!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> the
> 
> First off, that chart is for the Corsair, not the Hellcat. P-39 Expert lumped them both together in his original post. I have three Hellcat pilot manuals and none of them show figures for that sort of fuel usage. Here's the source for my figures:
> 
> ...




I am actually on your side. 
He was right, the chart does show the gph he said, however the the power setting and thus the fuel flow he claimed would never have been used and did not need to be used in when cruising either the F4U or F6F at the speeds/attitudes in question.

As to drop tanks and loss of speed. Using the loss of max speed with tank/s to compute the loss of speed when cruising is also wrong. the penalty of carrying the tanks at 300mph is going to be less than at 400mph. It will be proportional. not a flat loss of 40mph regardless of speed when clean.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 22, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> the
> 
> First off, that chart is for the Corsair, not the Hellcat. P-39 Expert lumped them both together in his original post. I have three Hellcat pilot manuals and none of them show figures for that sort of fuel usage. Here's the source for my figures:
> 
> ...


Same engine in Corsair and Hellcat. 

You flew at normal/max continuous when escorting B17/B24 over Europe. LW had you on radar from the time you took off and know exactly where you are. So likely they are above you, if only barely. 

Now there may be times or situations where you can back off the throttle a little, but you certtainly better PLAN your mission at normal/max continuous.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> You flew at normal/max continuous when escorting B17/B24 over Europe....



Is this really true guys? I hail to the other "experts" here on the subject because I'm more of a PTO fella....


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I
> 
> As to drop tanks and loss of speed. Using the loss of max speed with tank/s to compute the loss of speed when cruising is also wrong. the penalty of carrying the tanks at 300mph is going to be less than at 400mph. It will be proportional. not a flat loss of 40mph regardless of speed when clean.



Gotcha! So we can expect even less of a penalty while flying at the slower cruising speeds....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Same engine in Corsair and Hellcat.
> 
> *You flew at normal/max continuous when escorting B17/B24 over Europe.* LW had you on radar from the time you took off and know exactly where you are. So likely they are above you, if only barely.
> 
> Now there may be times or situations where you can back off the throttle a little, but you certtainly better PLAN your mission at normal/max continuous.



No. You did not. you flew at a speed that allowed you to accelerate up to combat speed in a short period of time without burning up all your fuel in the meantime. 

If the bomber stream is moving at 180-200mph true and you are weaving above at 300-320mph you are actually flying over 50% further than the bombers. 
If you are blasting around at 360-400mph at max cruise then you are flying twice as a far as the bombers for each mile the bombers make towards the targets in Germany and nobody had enough fuel to do that. 
Usually what was wanted was max lean or close to it NOT max continuous.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Odd how normal power is faster then military power on that chart.



Not really.

Firstly, military power is faster at the same altitudes, up to about 23,500ft, except fro a small part around 20,000ft due to gear change.

Secondly, the extra boost and rpm shows in a shift to lower altitudes.

I suspect that over 23,500ft the supercharger can't make as much boost as normal power at that rpm and/or the drive power requirements have gone way up.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> No. You did not. you flew at a speed that allowed you to accelerate up to combat speed in a short period of time without burning up all your fuel in the meantime.
> 
> If the bomber stream is moving at 180-200mph true and you are weaving above at 300-320mph you are actually flying over 50% further than the bombers.
> If you are blasting around at 360-400mph at max cruise then you are flying twice as a far as the bombers for each mile the bombers make towards the targets in Germany and nobody had enough fuel to do that.
> Usually what was wanted was max lean or close to it NOT max continuous.


Bomber stream is more like 220-240mph and with drop tank you are going 340-350mph and weaving to stay with the slower bombers. Maybe after mid '44 after the LW had been beaten down you could cruise at lower than normal power, but in late '43 and the first half of '44 you better plan your mission at normal power. 

In any event, range (actually internal fuel capacity) would have precluded the Corsair and Hellcat from long range bomber escort duty in Europe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

You have, of course, some sort of documentation to back that up?

It is contrary to what the the planning charts called for. Granted they are guidelines and individual missions would vary but using your standards would mean very short ranges/radius indeed. An early P-47 (clean) burned 190-210gph at max continuous and at 25,000ft it did 360mph true using 190gph. Since it burned 91 gallons take-off and climbing to 25,000ft that sure doesn't leave much fuel for reserve let alone combat. 
We know that early P-47s were short radius but this is ridiculous. 15 minutes at military rating (and not including 5 minutes at WEP) will burn about 68 gallons. 

However using the planning charts 210mph IAS at 25,000ft (around 310-315 true) the P-47 burns about 120 gallons an hour. That is is estimate as the flight instruction chart has no listing for that speed, however 200IAS at 25,000ft burns 95 gph and 225IAS burns 145gph. 

A P-38G with underwing tanks burned around 220gph to do 360mph true at 25,000ft. at max continuous At 215IAS at 25,000ft it burned about 110gph. 
That extra 40-45mph cost an awful lot of fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2018)

B-17 manual, B-17 Pilots Manual.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

So about 143 IAS at 25,000ft when running at 55,000 to 60,000lbs but that is not formation flying which is slower ?

Bombers sure aren't doing 240mph true.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> So about 143 IAS at 25,000ft when running at 55,000 to 60,000lbs but that is not formation flying which is slower ?
> 
> Bombers sure aren't doing 240mph true.


Janes listed the B-17 cruising speed at 220mph and B-24 at 237mph. That's about 150mph indicated. They were slow.

You can fly at whatever speed you want, but only a fool would fly over occupied France or Germany at less than normal power at minimum 25000'. You could not hide from radar and you were already a sitting duck with that big drop tank. If you had the chance to save fuel of course you would take it, but you had to plan your mission for normal power.

Your (clean) Thunderbolt example right out of the manual: 305gal internal
- 45gal reserve for take off and climb to 5000'
- 70gal reserve for 15min combat (275gph)
- 27gal reserve for landing (20min at 80gph)
163gal available at 190gph normal power = .86hr x 225mph (bomber speed) = 195mi or call it a 100 mile radius. Not quite to the German border.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Janes listed the B-17 cruising speed at 220mph and B-24 at 237mph. That's about 150mph indicated. They were slow.



What is the point that you're trying to make? The cruise speeds of the Fort and Lib at bombing altitudes are still far lower than the cruise speeds of the majority of American fighters in service at the time (save for the P-39). I believe the points that SR6 has made thus far are still valid even while using your sources.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> What is the point that you're trying to make? The cruise speed of the Fort and Lib at bombing altitudes is still far lower than the cruise speeds of the majority of American fighters in service at the time (save for the P-39). I believe the points that SR6 has made thus far are still valid even while using your sources.


SR6 is saying that escort missions over Europe were not flown at normal power all the time. I'm saying that you had to PLAN your mission at normal power. If you could save a little gas here and there then great, you may land with a little spare gas left. Good for you. If not you still had enough fuel to fly your mission and get back to England because you planned for the worst case. This was the most heavily defended airspace in the world in '43-'44, you need ALL the speed and altitude your plane can muster. ALL the time. 

P-39 (all models) was faster than either the B-17 or B-24. You honestly think a B-17 was faster than a P-39?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> 163gal available at 190gph normal power = .86hr x 225mph (bomber speed) = 195mi or call it a 100 mile radius. Not quite to the German border.



Are you disputing the escort ranges given here? I see about twice the radius of action from your calculations which would equate to half the fuel burn rate, which equates to cruise engine settings. I'm not even sure if they could make the French coast using your logic....


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-39 (all models) was faster than either the B-17 or B-24. You honestly think a B-17 was faster than a P-39?



At 25K feet who really knows? All the operating instructions that I've seen don't give a pilot the option to fly at that altitude while cruising around in an Airacobra.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 23, 2018)

For what it's worth a British report on 8th Air Force escort tactics notes: _"It is usual for the Bomber Force to fly at 18, to 25,000 feet, 150 m.p.h. A.S.I. ..."_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Are you disputing the escort ranges given here? I see about twice the radius of action from your calculations which would equate to half the fuel burn rate, which equates to cruise engine settings. I'm not even sure if they could make the French coast using your logic....
> 
> View attachment 502994


For a P-47 to have a 230mi radius means a 460mi mission. After the reserves deducted in my post #359 that 460mi was on a net 163gal. At 225mph (bomber speed) meant a 2hr endurance which means burning 81gph. The smallest GPH figure listed in the P-47 range charts is 95gph for 200mph indicated or 300mph true. Burning 81gph (if you can stay aloft) would mean cruising at LESS THAN 300mph. Over the most heavily defended airspace in the world. It would be like trolling for sharks, you would be eaten in the first 10 minutes.

So yes, I guess I disagree with your charts.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> At 25K feet who really knows? All the operating instructions that I've seen don't give a pilot the option to fly at that altitude while cruising around in an Airacobra.


P-39 pilots manual charts show the P-39N cruises at 344mph TAS at 25000'. 360mph for a P-47. A good deal faster than a B-17 at 220mph. Sheesh.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 23, 2018)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> For a P-47 to have a 230mi radius means a 460mi mission. After the reserves deducted in my post #359 that 460mi was on a net 163gal. At 225mph (bomber speed) meant a 2hr endurance which means burning 81gph. The smallest GPH figure listed in the P-47 range charts is 95gph for 200mph indicated or 300mph true. Burning 81gph (if you can stay aloft) would mean cruising at LESS THAN 300mph. Over the most heavily defended airspace in the world. It would be like trolling for sharks, you would be eaten in the first 10 minutes.
> 
> So yes, I guess I disagree with your charts.



These escort ranges are well established, have been for years. I'm not saying that every mission profile allowed for these figures but the mission planners must of surely used something similar in order to make smart decisions concerning which units to use when and where. But if you refuse to admit that the P-47 normally flew escort between 280-300 mph TAS and totally refute the charts presented than there's really nothing more that can be said on the subject by yours truly. I'm tapping out....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-39 pilots manual charts show the P-39N cruises at 344mph TAS at 25000'. 360mph for a P-47. A good deal faster than a B-17 at 220mph. Sheesh.



can I see this chart please?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

....and obviously those are not under cruise settings (remember when I said "cruising around"?). In order for the Airacobra to fly at 25,000 feet it had to be in max continuous power all the time which ain't cruise!!!! Maybe that's why you are so determined to convince us that ALL fighters in the escort role flew at max continuous power, to level the playing field so to speak.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

When did I say that?


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ....and obviously those are not under cruise settings (remember when I said "cruising around"?). In order for the Airacobra to fly at 25,000 feet it had to be in max continuous power all the time which ain't cruise!!!! Maybe that's why you are so determined to convince us that ALL fighters in the escort role flew at max continuous power, to level the playing field so to speak.


Max continuous/normal power (same thing) IS a cruise setting. It is 2550rpm for a Thunderbolt with 2700rpm for military/combat/TO power. You certainly could cruise at max continuous power, that is what it was for especially in the combat zone.

P-39/Allison max continuous/normal was 2600rpm with military/combat/TO power at 3000rpm. Max continuous/normal power IS CRUISE POWER. You can certainly cruise at lower power settings for increased fuel economy unless you want to get killed.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Max continuous/normal power (same thing) IS a cruise setting. It is 2550rpm for a Thunderbolt with 2700rpm for military/combat/TO power. You certainly could cruise at max continuous power, that is what it was for especially in the combat zone.
> 
> P-39/Allison max continuous/normal was 2600rpm with military/combat/TO power at 3000rpm. Max continuous/normal power IS CRUISE POWER. You can certainly cruise at lower power settings for increased fuel economy unless you want to get killed.





No hard feelings there P-39 guy. I hope you enjoy the fantasies you are creating concerning the sleek little fighter from Bell. I would be the last to take away any satisfaction you might derive from the experience.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

And just so this thread doesn't get black balled, I will accept the idea that max continuous power can be construed as "cruise" by some and still be correct. Maybe you could tell me then why in other cruise "conditions" (lower power settings) there is no data for the P-39 above 20k feet in the operational charts?

I'm serious here, I want to learn something new.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Janes listed the B-17 cruising speed at 220mph and B-24 at 237mph. That's about 150mph indicated. They were slow.
> 
> 163gal available at 190gph normal power = .86hr x 225mph (bomber speed) = 195mi or call it a 100 mile radius. Not quite to the German border.



Jane's is good but it is not a pilot's manual. They are on this site, look them up. Milosh posted a link to one in post #357
ANd again, individual cruise speed is not formation cruise speed.

100 mile radius is far from the German border. It is 137 air miles from Harwich to Rotterdam. And yes that is about what they were rated for in WW II (if not 10-15 miles shorter) but then you forgot the fuel needed to get from 5000ft to 25,000ft. which was roughly another 50 gallons.


I think you are getting confused by the term "Normal power". 

"Normal" and "max continuous" are the same. It was supposed to be the maximum power that could be used without a time limit, Not a cruise power. 

I would note it was not all roses and chocolate for the defending Germans, after climbing to 25,000 ft or above they were at _best climb speed_ and not anywhere near max level speed or even max level cruise speed and they would need around 2 minutes (4-6 miles?) to accelerate from best climb speed to a high level speed. The American escort fighters were cruising at around 1/2 between best climb speed and full speed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2018)

I would expect that the use of normal/max continuous power would give the aircraft its maximum cruise speed.

But on a mission requiring range it would not be the best to use, except for areas with a very high chance of enemy contact.

They would use a cruise setting which is a compromise between range and cruise speed.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 23, 2018)

British data sheets for P39 N1 to N5 (Allison V1710-85 [E19]) have:

Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 215 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 296 mph

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

The American "Normal" or max continuous was similar to the British max cruise. The Americans never used a 30 minute climb rating, although early in the war a few of the engines were only supposed to use the Normal or max continuous for 1 hour.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2018)

Greyman said:


> British data sheets for P39 N1 to N5 (Allison V1710-85 [E19]) have:
> 
> Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 215 mph
> Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 296 mph



For an escort mission over Europe, they would use maximum weak mixture most of the time.

For comparison:
Mustang Mk III with V-1650-3:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 253 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 395 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg

Mustang Mk III with V-1650-7:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 253 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 405 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

F4U-1:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 251 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 281 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-ads.jpg

F4U-1a:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 248 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 278 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1a-ads.jpg

Corsair IV:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 261 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 300 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-IV-ads.jpg

Hellcat I:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 232 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 282 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-a.jpg

Hellcat II:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 20,000 feet: 237 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 20,000 feet: 293 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-II-ads-a.jpg

Mosquito Mk IV with Merlin 21:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 265 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 320 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV-merlin21_ads.jpg

Mosquito Mk IV with Merlin 23:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 265 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 327 mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkIV_ads.jpg

Mosquito Mk XVI with Merlin 72/73:
Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 245 mph
Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 311 mph (321mph after dropping wing bombs)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito_MkXVI_ads.jpg


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

Greyman said:


> British data sheets for P39 N1 to N5 (Allison V1710-85 [E19]) have:
> 
> Cruising Speed (most economical) 15,000 feet: 215 mph
> Cruising Speed (max weak mix) 15,000 feet: 296 mph





Shortround6 said:


> The American "Normal" or max continuous was similar to the British max cruise. The Americans never used a 30 minute climb rating, although early in the war a few of the engines were only supposed to use the Normal or max continuous for 1 hour.





wuzak said:


> I would expect that the use of normal/max continuous power would give the aircraft its maximum cruise speed.
> 
> But on a mission requiring range it would not be the best to use, except for areas with a very high chance of enemy contact.
> 
> They would use a cruise setting which is a compromise between range and cruise speed.



I'm starting to get the impression that "max continuous" power as well as the lowest cruise settings possible are not the most ideal of choices, except under extreme circumstances.

How much time would a P-47D need to accelerate from let's say 300mph up to it's maximum speed at full military power? And I think SR6 made a good point. Why is it always assumed by some people that the Luftwaffe was that good at vectoring interceptors in order to catch the escort fighters with their proverbial pants down around their ankles? They had their own laundry list of obstacles to overcome just to make it to altitude and show up in the same piece of sky at the same time as the bombers they were bent on destroying.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 23, 2018)

wuzak said:


> For an escort mission over Europe, they would use maximum weak mixture most of the time.
> 
> For comparison:
> Mustang Mk III with V-1650-3:
> ...



Outstanding side by side comparisons! Those Mustangs can really haul arse!!!


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2018)

Yes, sir, they do indeed "haul arse".

The figures for the Mustang are without drop tanks or bombs, probably so for all the others too (except the Mosquito), so the cruise speed would drop a bit, maybe 15-20mph, on the inward leg of a mission.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

How long would it take an Allied fighter to go from protecting the bomber box speed to attacking an enemy formation speed? It seems some can't comprehend this. I'm sure the Allied fighters were bounced occasionally but not "trolling for sharks, you would be eaten in the first 10 minutes" every time

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> How long would it take an Allied fighter to go from protecting the bomber box speed to attacking an enemy formation speed? It seems some can't comprehend this. I'm sure the Allied fighters were bounced occasionally but not "trolling for sharks, you would be eaten in the first 10 minutes" every time


Well, cruising along at 25000' with drop tank at less than normal power you would move the throttle to combat power, drop the external tank, and dive away since the LW was above you. They knew exactly where you were (radar) and would not attack unless they had the altitude advantage. How long would it take from a medium cruise setting to attack speed? Without diving (straight level acceleration) how long would it take to accellerate from say 250mph to well over 400mph? I don't know exactly, but quite a few precious seconds, maybe 20-30? That's an eternity when the enemy is attacking you.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Jane's is good but it is not a pilot's manual. They are on this site, look them up. Milosh posted a link to one in post #357
> ANd again, individual cruise speed is not formation cruise speed.
> 
> 100 mile radius is far from the German border. It is 137 air miles from Harwich to Rotterdam. And yes that is about what they were rated for in WW II (if not 10-15 miles shorter) but then you forgot the fuel needed to get from 5000ft to 25,000ft. which was roughly another 50 gallons.
> ...


Sorry Janes is not good enough as a source for you.

I have stated numerous times that max continuous and normal HP are the same.

I didn't forget the fuel needed to get from 5000' to 25000'. The purpose of the reserve for TO and climb to 5000' is so the pilot could more easily compute range. Climb from 5000' to 25000' would take approximately 10-15 minutes and while you are climbing you are also headed in the direction of your mission. Climb speed and minimum cruise speed are very similar, around 170mph. 10 minutes climbing at 170mph is only 28 miles, hardly significant in a 500mi mission, and remember you should be climbing in the direction of your target.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Well, cruising along at 25000' with drop tank at less than normal power you would move the throttle to combat power, drop the external tank, and dive away since the LW was above you. They knew exactly where you were (radar) and would not attack unless they had the altitude advantage. How long would it take from a medium cruise setting to attack speed? Without diving (straight level acceleration) how long would it take to accellerate from say* 250mph to well over 400mph*? I don't know exactly, but quite a few precious seconds, maybe 20-30? That's an eternity when the enemy is attacking you.



Except they weren't doing 250mph were they? They were doing 310-320mph even with the tanks. The escorts were not all cruising along at 25,000ft. they flew at different altitudes Some sections/flights several thousand feet higher than some of the others to prevent this sort of thing. 
They tried using P-38s at 30,000ft and had some real problems but that shows that not all escorts were at 25,000ft. 
I am not sure the German radar was that precise in height finding. ANd if the German fighters didn't attack because they don't have a height advantage, oh well, escort job is done successfully because if they don't attack they aren't shooting at the bombers. 
Many of the escort fighters turned into the attacks, not dove away. It gave a head on firing pass and also reversed the height positions. A lot depended on exact circumstances.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

So we are looking at seconds and not half a minute or so to get up to speed? And as you state, not everyone was at the same altitude so there would be different reaction times


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 24, 2018)

I've read a lot of encounter reports, not nearly as many as drgondog but quite a few. I don't ever recall seeing any where P-51's dropped externals and dove away... ever. They universally turned into the attacker, diving away is a good way to end up in a Luft Stalag, or worse.

Escorts were typically at varying altitudes and at high cruise speed scissoring over the bomber stream, about every 45 minutes or so they'd throttle up to keep the plugs from fouling, then return to cruise settings.

Mustangs also typically cruised fast so that the work up to engagement speeds was only seconds, geez, drgondog has gone over this a zillion times and still there's questions?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Sorry Janes is not good enough as a source for you.
> 
> I have stated numerous times that max continuous and normal HP are the same.
> 
> I didn't forget the fuel needed to get from 5000' to 25000'. The purpose of the reserve for TO and climb to 5000' is so the pilot could more easily compute range. Climb from 5000' to 25000' would take approximately 10-15 minutes and while you are climbing you are also headed in the direction of your mission. Climb speed and minimum cruise speed are very similar, around 170mph. 10 minutes climbing at 170mph is only 28 miles, hardly significant in a 500mi mission, and remember you should be climbing in the direction of your target.




Janes is OK if you have nothing better. We have better, it is free, it is on this website.

The manuals will show a large variety of cruise settings and at a variety of weights. 

Janes may very well be giving a cruise speed and range for plane flying on it's own as a comparison to other planes flying on their own which is a valid way of comparing airplanes. It is a lousy way of getting information on speeds and ranges of formations consisting of hundreds of aircraft. 

Will you please read something about how the missions were actually flown?
Many of these fighters flew in circles as they climbed. Why?
Because they did not take-off in ones, twos or threes and immediately set course for Germany as soon as they cleared the runway. They took off and formed up into squadrons and then finished the climb so as not to loose anybody. It also allowed any stragglers to catch up. a plane that had temporary problems that could be cleared up in a few minutes. May be landing gear had to cycled more than once ot fully retract or something? temporary radio issue? 

Then they had to rendezvous with the bombers (who did the same thing except very few bombers took off two at a time) , or set a course to point where they would relieve and earlier group of fighters, flying as group ment one or two pilots (usually the most experienced) were responsible for navigation and not each pilot or pair doing the best they could to wind up at at given point at a given time. 

170mph is a perfectly lousy cruise speed for many American fighters. It may work for the Navy planes but the army planes (especially the P-47) had higher stalling speeds and higher best climb speeds. for instance best climb for P-47 even with a small amount of external fuel at 15,000ft was 165mph indicated which is actually 225mph true. 
Once again, best climbs at three different weights (and at different altitudes) are often given in manuals.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> I've read a lot of encounter reports, not nearly as many as drgondog but quite a few. I don't ever recall seeing any where P-51's dropped externals and dove away... ever. They universally turned into the attacker, diving away is a good way to end up in a Luft Stalag, or worse.
> 
> Escorts were typically at varying altitudes and at high cruise speed scissoring over the bomber stream, about every 45 minutes or so they'd throttle up to keep the plugs from fouling, then return to cruise settings.
> 
> Mustangs also typically cruised fast so that the work up to engagement speeds was only seconds, geez, drgondog has gone over this a zillion times and still there's questions?


So, if you are flying at 25000' with drop tanks and you are bounced from above you kept your tanks and turned into your attacker? 

Yes, turning into your attacker was policy and a good one, but not when every variable was against you (drop tanks, lower speed, attacked from above). Your attacker is diving at say 500mph and you are cruising at say 320mph? And you keep your tanks and engage by turning into him? You're about to become an easy victory claim.

Say you are going 350mph, how many seconds does it take to get to top speed over 400mph? Many precious seconds, probably at least 10 while the LW is diving on you.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> And just so this thread doesn't get black balled, I will accept the idea that max continuous power can be construed as "cruise" by some and still be correct. Maybe you could tell me then why in other cruise "conditions" (lower power settings) there is no data for the P-39 above 20k feet in the operational charts?
> 
> I'm serious here, I want to learn something new.


You have obviously seen the charts, post them yourself. Thread is about the Hellcat and Corsair in Europe. You brought up the P-39, so I included a little comparison for you.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 24, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> I've read a lot of encounter reports, not nearly as many as drgondog but quite a few. I don't ever recall seeing any where P-51's dropped externals and dove away... ever. They universally turned into the attacker, diving away is a good way to end up in a Luft Stalag, or worse.
> 
> Escorts were typically at varying altitudes and at high cruise speed scissoring over the bomber stream, about every 45 minutes or so they'd throttle up to keep the plugs from fouling, then return to cruise settings.
> 
> Mustangs also typically cruised fast so that the work up to engagement speeds was only seconds, geez, drgondog has gone over this a zillion times and still there's questions?



Pete,

There is a tremendous amount of high quality information on here that has been culled for those people (pretty much all of us) who are looking for a little more than what the average book has to offer. Unfortunately a new guy doesn’t absorb it all as quickly as we would like and sometimes attitudes, preconceived notions need time to be worked through. Drgondog/ Bill is exceptionally good at answering aLOT of these mission specifics so hopefully he will chime in.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> So, if you are flying at 25000' with drop tanks and you are bounced from above you kept your tanks and turned into your attacker?
> 
> Yes, turning into your attacker was policy and a good one, but not when every variable was against you (drop tanks, lower speed, attacked from above). Your attacker is diving at say 500mph and you are cruising at say 320mph? And you keep your tanks and engage by turning into him? You're about to become an easy victory claim.
> 
> Say you are going 350mph, how many seconds does it take to get to top speed over 400mph? Many precious seconds, probably at least 10 while the LW is diving on you.



Again, you're selectively answering just one post and ignoring all the others. With several formations of fighters, it's entirely possible that another friendly group is above the enemy or in a better position to respond.

As to turning into the enemy, yes that's entirely the RIGHT tactic. It cuts down the time the adversary has to get a shot in and gives you a chance to bring your guns to bear. Once the enemy is past you, you can then reverse and translate that little extra potential energy (height) into kinetic energy to chase after the enemy. 

If you dive away, you lose sight of the enemy ('cos he's behind you), and you still won't accelerate fast enough to get away, so you'll actually present an easier target for a longer time period than if you turn into the foe.

Remember the job of the fighters is to protect the bombers. You can't do that if you're diving away from the enemy...and, if you do dive away, and the enemy disengages to attack the bombers, how long will it take you to get back in position?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Pete,There is a tremendous amount of high quality information on here that has been culled for those people (pretty much all of us) who are looking for a little more than what the average book has to offer. Unfortunately a new guy doesn’t absorb it all as quickly as we would like and sometimes attitudes, preconceived notions need time to be worked through. Drgondog/ Bill is exceptionally good at answering aLOT of these mission specifics so hopefully he will chime in.
> Cheers,
> Biff



Yep, I've only recently ventured into this realm of insanity though I've been a member of the site for 8 years. I know where the wings go

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 24, 2018)

No Mr. P-39 Wizard, you don't keep your tanks, perhaps you didn't read it correctly so slower...

Never read where Mustangs got bounced and dove a way, they _dropped tanks and turned into the attacker_, fighter tactics 101.

Why do you insist that Mustangs were always bounced from above at over 500MPH? Many encounter reports, if you could be bothered to read them, have P-51s sighting and attacking LW A/C below them.

You also seem to think that the Germans knew exactly where the escorts were every time and then positioned themselves perfectly to bounce them from above.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> No Mr. P-39 Wizard, you don't keep your tanks, perhaps you didn't read it correctly so slower...
> 
> Never read where Mustangs got bounced and dove a way, they _dropped tanks and turned into the attacker_, fighter tactics 101.
> 
> ...


Pardon me, guess I read your post wrong, you said there were no encounter reports where Mustangs dropped their tanks and dove away, ever. I took that to mean they kept their tanks. 

Amazing that no Mustangs ever dove away to escape an adversary who was above them or otherwise held the advantage. Seems odd.

How did you get from me that Mustangs were ALWAYS bounced from above? But then again, hard to bounce someone from below. 

But honestly, the LW DID know exactly where the bombers and their escort were, they were on radar. Radar gave direction, altitude and speed. LW fighters had the advantage in that they knew where (and how high) you were flying, so they had the option of engaging when they were in an advantageous position above. If they didn't have time to get above, then they probably didn't attack.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Pardon me, guess I read your post wrong, you said there were no encounter reports where Mustangs dropped their tanks and dove away, ever. I took that to mean they kept their tanks.
> 
> Amazing that no Mustangs ever dove away to escape an adversary who was above them or otherwise held the advantage. Seems odd.
> 
> ...




P39Expert,

FYI you tend to take things out of context. Slow down, when people disagree it’s not an attack but a disagreement!

When attacked at close range, whether by an ambush or by a break in the line it’s usually best to turn into the attack even today. If you are carrying jettisonable fuel tanks it’s usually best to get rid of them lest you have a T. McGuire event and kill remove yourself rather than making the enemy earn it.

A bounce, or in today’s speak “getting tapped”, is attacking with the element of surprise or from a position of advantage. From beneath when it’s a surprise is also from a position of advantage. So yes, you can be bounced from other than above.

Also you need to have a much closer look at German radar, coverage, displays, and command and control. I have a feeling it’s not anything like what you imagine. I flew the Eagle from 1991-2008. It was sometime in 1995 that I encountered a ground or air based GCI radar that could pass decent altitude cuts. I repeat 1995. Why do you think the Luftwaffe sent guys up to shadow the bomber stream prior to the target area? It was to get their altitude and pass it on to the flak batteries. Do you think that the entire country of Germany had flak batteries? It did not, they put guns around things that would get attacked.

Reread my first sentence in this post and slow down.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 24, 2018)

I think P-39 Expert needs to read some German intercept records/reports.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> You have obviously seen the charts, post them yourself. Thread is about the Hellcat and Corsair in Europe. You brought up the P-39, so I included a little comparison for you.
> View attachment 503103



....except you made one glaringly obvious mistake. The speed shown for the P-39N is while using war emergency power settings, not military, which is what the Hellcat was flying at in this particular chart. Plus did you happen to notice that the speed of the P-39N rapidly drops below that of the Hellcat as it approaches strategic bomber altitudes, and keeps on plummeting further from there? So much for the argument that the Airacobra would make a great escort fighter in the ETO!!!!! 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_level-speeds.jpg


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Amazing that no Mustangs ever dove away to escape an adversary who was above them or otherwise held the advantage. Seems odd.



Well you told us not so long ago that the Luftwaffe was a beaten force by the Spring of '44 and provided no real threat from that point forward, so why would they EVER have to worry about something like that happening to them?!?!?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> You have obviously seen the charts, post them yourself.



OUUUCH!!!!


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> ....except you made one glaringly obvious mistake. The speed shown for the P-39N is while using war emergency power settings, not military, which is what the Hellcat was flying at in this particular chart. Plus did you happen to notice that the speed of the P-39N rapidly drops below that of the Hellcat as it approaches strategic bomber altitudes, and keeps on plummeting further from there? So much for the argument that the Airacobra would make a great escort fighter in the ETO!!!!!
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39N_level-speeds.jpg


WEP was only available below critical altitude of 17,500', above that altitude all military power. Faster below 23000' and within 3mph at 26000'. Plotted speeds were taken from the same graph you furnished above. Outclimbed the Hellcat substantially at all altitudes. No disrespect to the Hellcat, best carrier plane of WWII. Period.

Never said the P-39 was a great escort fighter.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

If we're going to graph apples to apples let's do things right....


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Never said the P-39 was a great escort fighter.



How quickly we forget. We had a thread shutdown due to this same behavior.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

One would expect the P-39 to climb faster, as it was designed form the ground up as an interceptor, not a dogfighter like the F6F. By the way you can add roughly 300-400 fpm to the Hellcat's climb rate, up to maximum boost (60" Hg) critical altitude of roughly 18,000ft, just to make things line up correctly....


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> If we're going to graph apples to apples let's do things right....
> 
> View attachment 503156


Can't seem to find that graph in wwiiaircraftperformance.org, is it from somewhere else? 

The -5 didn't enter service until June '44 after the heavy lifting had been done. P-39N was out of production by April '43.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Can't seem to find that graph in wwiiaircraftperformance.org, is it from somewhere else?
> 
> The -5 didn't enter service until June '44 after the heavy lifting had been done..



Don't say that to the soldiers, sailors, and airman who fought the bitter battles to come from mid '44 onwards (or their family members for that matter). You just might get a knuckle sandwich!


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Can't seem to find that graph in wwiiaircraftperformance.org, is it from somewhere else?



So there's actually something that you didn't already know and haven't seen concerning WWII aircraft. Interesting....


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

And you're just deflecting the main topic now because you have been roundly defeated by a host of well-schooled and dedicated aviation historians who spent a lifetime learning their "trade". They just didn't read Jane's one time and called it a day. To really know this stuff you need multiple sources.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 24, 2018)

You guys should cut out the sniping unless you actually want the thread shut down. Respect each others different viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

parsifal said:


> You guys should cut out the sniping unless you actually want the thread shut down. Respect each others different viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them.



I'll do my part. Thanks for stepping in and trying to mediate the situation. At the end of the day this is just a hobby for me and not worth going fist to cuffs over anything that's discussed here..


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

Jane's as a source is highly variable. A lot depends on the year, sometimes the editor, and if peacetime orwartime. Civilian or military aircraft. 

Government censorship. And sometime propaganda. 

As an example the listing for the B-17 in a reprint edition putout in 1989 of the 1946/47 edition the weights of the B-17 are given as.

Empty 32,780lb
Normal loaded 49,500lbs
maximum overload 60,000lbs.

The description of the guns is for a "G" model. 

The Manual for the "F" 
has a basic weight of between 39,800lbs and 41,300lbs (basic weight includes crew, guns, ammo, oil and some misc. while empty does not.
However the loaded weights for 7 different conditions vary from 51,700lbs for basic weight plus 1732 gallons of fuel and no bombs) to 65,000lbs for 3 of the 7 load conditions. that is 5,000lbs more than Janes says for the heavier/later G. 

From this we are left with two choices, 1, somebody spent a lot time faking a manual and putting it into distribution. 2. Jane's, quite possible due to war time restrictions and shortage of staff immediately post war, is in error. 

Which is more likely?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> From this we are left with two choices, 1, somebody spent a lot time faking a manual and putting it into distribution. 2. Jane's, quite possible due to war time restrictions and shortage of staff immediately post war, is in error.
> 
> Which is more likely?



Of course this is a rhetorical question, but something that should be considered when deciding to use secondary source material to support your claims.

By the way excellent sleuth work SR6.....


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Of course this is a rhetorical question, but something that should be considered when deciding to use secondary source material to support your claims.
> 
> By the way excellent sleuth work SR6.....


Would still be interested in the source of your red line numbers on the -5. Is that from wwiiaircraft, or somewhere else?

Janes was only used for the cruising speeds of the B-24 and B-17. I'll throw it away today.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

Janes can be useful, you just have to be careful and you have to not misapply information.

You come here and try to upset notions or ideas that many people have had for a long time.

If you have new facts that is OK. 

But so far you have simply brought your own idea's on how things worked with very little to back them up. 

Jane's may be right in a strict technical sense 
"Normal Range with (max bomb load normal fuel) 1100miles (1,760km) at 220mph (352kmh) at 25,000ft (7,625m). 

But they aren't really telling us what bomb pad really is or what normal fuel was. (1700 gal is listed in the description) and again.
Speed/ range of an individual aircraft is different that the speed/range of aircraft flying in a small formation which is different than speed/range flying in a large formation. 

The manual that the link was provided for has 8 different speed/range charts with different loads and speeds. But again, that is an aircraft manual, not a operational planning chart or manual. It gives performance for individual aircraft and not groups.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 25, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> View attachment 503177
> If we're going to graph apples to apples let's do things right....


Still would like to see your source for these speeds, looked all through the Hellcat section of wwiiaircraft. Could you show me please? Thanks.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Janes can be useful, you just have to be careful and you have to not misapply information.
> 
> You come here and try to upset notions or ideas that many people have had for a long time. *Certainly not trying to upset anyone.*
> 
> ...


 *All I wanted to know was the cruising speed of a B-17. Janes said 220mph. If you think it is different then please supply your number. I'll use that. Thanks for your help.*


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> *All I wanted to know was the cruising speed of a B-17. Janes said 220mph. If you think it is different then please supply your number. I'll use that. Thanks for your help.*



Simple questions get simple answers, but not always the right ones.

The link to the manual was provided and there are plenty of B-17 manuals here;
Manual Index - American

How about doing your own work.


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2018)

This seems to give a cruising speed of between 190 and 230 mph depending on power setting
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/Fortress_III_Data_Sheet.pdf

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> This seems to give a cruising speed of between 190 and 230 mph depending on power setting
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/Fortress_III_Data_Sheet.pdf


 Correct, but that is the speed for a single aircraft. 
Now put 3 dozen in formation, fly at 220mph and then have the formation do a 45 degree turn. Guys on the inside have no trouble. They throttle back to 210 or 200 or 195 or whatever they have to do to keep station as the rest of the formation flys a bigger arc to the make the turn. 
It is the guys on the outside of the turn that have trouble,if using the power setting for 230mph doesn't allow them to keep station they have to advance the throttles into the rich mixture position and suck down a lot more fuel per minute. Not a big deal for one or two turns but combined with throttle jockeying that goes on with trying to keep a large formation together in close proximity and ranges/speeds take beating compared to single aircraft performance.

Formation speed is governed by the worst performing plane in the group being in the worst position. Any other planning leads to stragglers which become losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Correct, but that is the speed for a single aircraft.
> Now put 3 dozen in formation, fly at 220mph and then have the formation do a 45 degree turn. Guys on the inside have no trouble. They throttle back to 210 or 200 or 195 or whatever they have to do to keep station as the rest of the formation flys a bigger arc to the make the turn.
> It is the guys on the outside of the turn that have trouble,if using the power setting for 230mph doesn't allow them to keep station they have to advance the throttles into the rich mixture position and suck down a lot more fuel per minute. Not a big deal for one or two turns but combined with throttle jockeying that goes on with trying to keep a large formation together in close proximity and ranges/speeds take beating compared to single aircraft performance.
> 
> Formation speed is governed by the worst performing plane in the group being in the worst position. Any other planning leads to stragglers which become losses.


Totally agree and without any personal knowledge would expect it to average it out at approx. 170mph with 190mph as a max. What the numbers d show is a cruise of 220 is a pipe dream.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 25, 2018)

Glider said:


> Totally agree and without any personal knowledge would expect it to average it out at approx. 170mph with 190mph as a max. What the numbers d show is a cruise of 220 is a pipe dream.




Gentlemen,
I dug out one of the very first books I purchased back during the age of dinosaurs. It is titled "Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski. On page 239 there is a photo of a 15th Air Force mission planning map. The map gives compass headings, distance, and time. The bomb group was the 463rd.. The target was Blechhammer. The date, Dec 12, 1944
Leg Heading Distance (Miles) Time (minutes) Speed mph (calculated rounded)
Outbound 25 degrees 263 77 205
Outbound 22 degrees 81 21 231
Outbound 332 degrees 111 33 202
Outbound 313 degrees 48 15 192
IP 348 degrees 42 11 229
Target 72 degrees 41 8 308
Home 147 degrees 122 33 222
Home 170 degrees 118 36 197
Home 221 degrees 92 34 162
Home 205 degrees 263 96 164

The different outbound legs were plotted to avoid known Flak concentrations. The homeward legs did the same. I speculate that the slower speeds away from the target were to allow damaged bombers to stay in formation, or it could be the effects of a headwind. Blechhammer was an “oil target” so flak would have been heavy. I was surprised to see the speed of the bombers as they bombed the target.

Adding the times and miles together I get 1181 miles round trip and 6 hours and 4 minutes.

My uncle who flew with the 483rd made 4 trips to Blechhammer (8/27, 9/13, 10/14, 10/17 in 44) and his diary shows flight times of 7 hrs 25 min, 7 hrs 40 min, 8 hrs 20 min, and 8 hrs 30 min. I believe his diary shows the total air time to include take-off, assembly, and landing. I am guessing the planning map shows actual flight times from after assembly to arrival over base to land.

Note that the speeds I calculated are ground speeds, not true or indicated. I suspect the formation would fly at whatever IAS to get the desired ground speed (jf possible) I do not know if the courses and times include adjustments for wind. Also note that the bombers did not fly one speed the entiree mission, nor did they fly a straight line to the target and back.
. 
For informatiom

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2018)

Course changes are one aspect to put downward pressure on point to point mission times. however, the main variables are fuel loads, max overload weights, raid sizes, form up times, airfield spot rates (how quickly the aircraft can be gotten airborne) and overwhelmingly the headwinds. Weather states are by far the hardest to predict in mission planning.

Escort fighhters will have variable minimum speed and endurance requirements, and it will always be the case that the escorts need to have significantly higher cruising speed than the bombers. The escorts typically will be vectored to meet the bomber formation enroute, then perform a variable position, moving forward, above and beside the bombers to maximise their cover effects. Fighters usually do not provide continuous cover from start to finish, they run shuttles, out to a certain distance, whereupon they turn for home and are relieved by another replacement escort force. That meant the escorts were burning fuel reserves more quickly than these simple range comparisons are suggesting.

The effective combat range of the hellcat over japan in 1945 was between 230 and 250 miles depending on the mission. Corsair was about the same. seafire was about 175 miles. Zeroes had an effective combat range of about 400miles . ive read theMustang II had an effective combat range9radius) of just over 500 miles, that might be wrong.

P-39s did not thave the same legs as these aircraft, pure and simple. They had a hard time flying from Moresby to gona, a distance of just over 100 miles. Sure you will get variations for different subtypes, but not to the extent of several hundred miles......


----------



## YGBSM (Jul 25, 2018)

Just to add some context to Eagledad's post, here is the Blechhammer South Plant (the target of the Dec 12th raid) as it appeared in a recon photo from May '44:






Source: Bierawka; Opole Province; Poland | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photography

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 25, 2018)

The 303BG website gives mission times.

example: http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/119.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 25, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The effective combat range of the hellcat over japan in 1945 was between 230 and 250 miles depending on the mission. Corsair was about the same. seafire was about 175 miles. Zeroes had an effective combat range of about 400miles . ive read theMustang II had an effective combat range9radius) of just over 500 miles, that might be wrong.



Great post as usual. I assume that these ranges are on internal fuel only, right? I ask this because US Navy pilots would be using their standard "Problem F-1" to determine radius of action. NAVAER documents state that an F6F-5 with 150 gallon drop tank had a combat radius anywhere from 391-431 statute miles; the F4U-1D with the same external fuel load (but slightly less internal) had a combat radius of just around 380 statute miles. This makes sense to me because with 60% more fuel they could theoretically fly about 60% further. If we place them in an ETO environment this range would of course drop some due to the necessity to fly higher altitudes and at greater speeds.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> The P-47D had an escort radius of roughly 375 miles with 413 gallons of fuel, achieving an average of roughly 1.8 mpg. If we use this as a constant for the other two fighters in question, the F6F-3/5 (400 gallons total) would have a theoretical escort range of 360 miles, the F4U-1D (387 gallons total) conceivably 348 miles. With additional internal fuel the P-47D could fly an escort radius of 430 miles. Add in the fact that the Thunderbolt was out-fitted with progressively lager belly/ external wing tanks and it's easy to see that the notion of the Hellcat and Corsair flying high altitude escort in Europe as well or better then the Army fighter just doesn't hold water.




Itis not just the fuel, the P-47 _may_ have had lower drag and the P-47's engine was more fuel efficient at high altitude cruise due to the turbo.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 26, 2018)

Gentlemen,
Dean, in America's Hundred Thousand (page 113) gives the P-47 a zero lift drag coefficient (Cdo) of .0213 and a flat plate area of 6.39 square feet.
The data for the F4U is Cdo =.0267, flat plate area 8.38
The data for the F6F is Cdo = .0272, flat plate area 9.08

This would suggest that the P-47 is a less "draggy" aircraft than the F4U or the F6F

Eagledad

Flat Plate Area = Cdo X Wing area

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2018)

Thank you.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to line up well with the speeds the planes could do at sea level using 2000hp ( no water injection or turbo boost). 

Hellcats seem to do about 310-320mph at sea level using 52.5in boost while the P-47 seems to do about 335mph using 52in of boost? 

Certainly welcome to correction on this. I would note that the P-47 did use a thinner wing which might give it an advantage at high speed?


----------



## eagledad (Jul 26, 2018)

SR

But it does, sort of. I would expect the P-47 to be faster than the F6F and F4U. As you wrote, P-47 335. F6F 310-320.
However, in looking at William's site, the F4U is rated at approximately 350 at sea level using 2000 hp. 
I have seen a navy document that shows production F4U-1s have a sea level speed of 339.
Bottom line, it appears that the F4U with the same power as the P-47 is faster.

I did write that the flat plate areas_ suggested _that the P-47 is less "draggy", but the does not appear to be true in all cases.

Any aeronautical engineers care to help me out?

Eagledad


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

When I get home I can find the page in Dean's book where he quotes a CDo of .025 for the P-47D.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

.... I will also try to clarify my "theory" about range and provide different drag figures for the three fighters because it's pretty apparent that they vary heavily depending on source.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

I'm not sure about that S/L speed of the P-47 in military power. I have seen many documents where it was very close to the F6F in a similar configuration.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

It does look like the P-47 has an edge in aerodynamic cleanliness (thinner air foil design = less induced drag), which is amplified as altitude increases and the turbo really starts to really kick in.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jul 26, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The US duo, in 1943, has a number of advantages, as well as disadvantages, to be deployed in Europe.
> In the ETO, at altitudes from 20-30000 ft, they offer no speed advantage over German fighters (they might easily be in disadvantage on any altitude), and at any altitude the Germans should climb faster.
> The fuel situation is, interesting, to say at least. The F4U historically did not carried drop tanks until late 1943, using the wing tanks instead. 361 USG should give about equal range, on the 1st sight, as the 370 USG found at late P-47Ds; both planes flying at ~25000 ft. That makes some 300 miles max, ie. not some long short range fighter.
> The F6F-3 carried the drop tank from the day one (corrections welcomed), fuel quantity being 250 USG internal + 150 USG external. We might compare that with the late 1943 P-47 situation in ETO (305 + 108 USG). The map I've posted twice on the forum gives 375 miles of combat radius for such P-47, the F6F might not venture so deep in the Continent because of less internal fuel - 350 might be the maximum?
> ...



Some more "fuel" for discussion here; http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf


----------



## Barrett (Jul 26, 2018)

Eric Brown's innovative book "Duels in the Sky" posited some interesting matchups based on his experience with each (all!) types. I know he addressed F4U v 190 but do not recall the verdict. Am reminded of Robin Olds' statement when asked which was better: 51 or 190. He said "It depended on the pilot, and I never fought a 190 pilot who was as good as I was." (Pause) "But I fought a better one once and I was lucky to get away!"

Vought designed the F4U as a relatively low-production machine, never expecting it would go 12k copies. I cannot find my notes (of course) but Rex Beisel stressed that Vought aerodynamics shop sought minimum drag and max power. (Odd how few folks realize the F4U was America's first single-engine production a/c to make 400 mph.) Everybody cites the inverted gull wing as permitting a short(er) landing gear but in fact it gave an aerodynamic advantage by mating the wing stub to the fuselage at that angle.

The oft-cited but little-referenced 1944 joint fighter conference asked participants the best fighter & fighter-bomber in various categories. Corky was involved and so was Rex Barber. Rex said (and I quoted him in my Naval Institute book) that if the allies had to build one fighter, it shoulda been the Corsair.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 26, 2018)

There was also the humongous prop to consider Barrett.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

Ok, I looked at AHT by Dean and found that the profile drag given for the P-47D in table 98 on page 598 is .0251. I also noticed that the figure of .0213 is listed for the P-47B, not D (probably different source data used by author). There's another wartime source (by Vought) that shows profile drag for the P-47D, F4U-1D, and F6F-5 as .022, .020, and .023 respectively. Very close indeed. I'm fairly certain that Dean used the drag figures found in NACA report L5A30, which gave wind tunnel results for many aircraft including the F6F-3 and F4U-1, but not the P-47 unfortunately (I found the document listed in his references). The NACA report gives _total_ drag (CD), and when you subtract induced drag (CDi) from what's given you get a number very close to what's presented in his book (CDo).

As most people with just an elementary understanding of aerodynamics probably know, these numbers are highly dependent on the testing environment as well as the condition (or state) of the aircraft under test. Without having these three aircraft side-by-side and tested under the exact same conditions one cannot truly say with any degree of certainty that aircraft A is "more draggy" than aircraft "B".

I will say though that the P-47 is definitely blessed with a "speedier" airfoil than either of the two Navy fighters, and due to this fact I would personally give it an ever so slight edge in overall aerodynamic cleanliness. However, there are other parameters that also effect drag, but to a lesser degree than wing design (the thrust angle of the airfoil and fuselage surface refinement being just a couple of them).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Ok, I looked at AHT by Dean and found that the profile drag given for the P-47D in table 98 on page 598 is .0251. I also noticed that the figure of .0213 is listed for the P-47B, not D (probably different source data used by author). There's another wartime source (by Vought) that shows profile drag for the P-47D, F4U-1D, and F6F-5 as .022, .020, and .023 respectively. Very close indeed. I'm fairly certain that Dean used the drag figures found in NACA report L5A30, which gave wind tunnel results for many aircraft including the F6F-3 and F4U-1, but not the P-47 unfortunately (I found the document listed in his references). The NACA report gives _total_ drag (CD), and when you subtract induced drag (CDi) from what's given you get a number very close to what's presented in his book (CDo).
> 
> As most people with just an elementary understanding of aerodynamics probably know, these numbers are highly dependent on the testing environment as well as the condition (or state) of the aircraft under test. Without having these three aircraft side-by-side and tested under the exact same conditions one cannot truly say with any degree of certainty that aircraft A is "more draggy" than aircraft "B".
> 
> ...



I would tend to be careful of differences in zero-lift drag coefficient of less than about 5% even if done by the same group using data from the same wind tunnels or series of tests. 


Here, the Hellcat has both the largest wing area and greatest Cd0, which is consistent with it being the slowest of the three.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I'm not sure about that S/L speed of the P-47 in military power. I have seen many documents where it was very close to the F6F in a similar configuration.



I looked at the spread sheet that I created a little while back, where I closely examined the flight test data of the Hellcat, Thunderbolt, and Corsair on _wwiiaircraftperformance. _I tried to find specifications at similar altitudes and horsepower (not necessarily manifold pressures), being careful to note the configuration of the aircraft during the particular test. What I found was that there's limited data for the Thunderbolt below 5,000 feet, and when S/L speed was given it was usually during ADI testing.

From what I can tell, with roughly 2000 HP available the speed of the F6F-3 indeed averaged 320mph at S/L (one aircraft carried wing pylons). The F4U-1 was much faster under the same power, achieving on average 345 mph (no mention of pylons for any of the test aircraft). The Thunderbolt was harder to figure out, due to the minimal amount of data at sea level height. At this same engine output I was only able to find a figure for a particular P-47D of 303 mph, and a P-47N that flew at 327 mph. Both of these aircraft had wing pylons. Not sure why such a huge difference in speeds between the two Thunderbolt models being flown under basically the same horsepower. One thing I did notice was that there wasn't any test data for the P-47 which stipulated speeds even close to 335 mph at S/L _without _the use of water injection.

It was also interesting to look at the various speeds with roughly 2200 HP available (using ADI). A P-47D was clocked at 330 mph, while a F6F-3 flew at 334 mph and a F4U-1 at 364 mph. All aircraft were without wing pylons during these particular tests.

It does look like the Corsair was hands down the fastest of the three at sea level. Maybe Vought's profile drag numbers are the most correct after all????

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 26, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Here, the Hellcat has both the largest wing area and greatest Cd0, which is consistent with it being the slowest of the three.



But that's the thing Swampy, I'm not really sure if the Cat really was slower than the Jug when flown at a similar horsepower rating. I'm thinking that the superior speed of the Thunderbolt at certain altitudes had more to do with higher engine output than superior aerodynamics. What say you?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 26, 2018)

Barrett said:


> I know he addressed F4U v 190 but do not recall the verdict.



_Corsair II Versus Focke-Wulf 190A-4
This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The Fw 190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair.
Verdict: The Fw 190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair._


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 26, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> But that's the thing Swampy, I'm not really sure if the Cat really was slower than the Jug when flown at a similar horsepower rating. I'm thinking that the superior speed of the Thunderbolt at certain altitudes had more to do with higher engine output than superior aerodynamics. What say you?



At high altitudes, certainly: the critical altitude of the turbocharged engine of the P-47 was much higher than the mechanically supercharged engines of the Hellcat and Corsair.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jul 27, 2018)

Darren W and swampyankee

Thank you for the explanations.and patience.

Eagledad

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 27, 2018)

eagledad said:


> Darren W and swampyankee
> 
> Thank you for the explanations.and patience.
> 
> Eagledad



I appreciate the kind sentiment, your input is always valued as well.


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 27, 2018)

eagledad said:


> SR
> However, in looking at William's site, the F4U is rated at approximately 350 at sea level using 2000 hp.
> I have seen a navy document that shows production F4U-1s have a sea level speed of 339.



350 mph at sea level with 2000 bhp for F4U-1's prodction inspection trials, and it was first batch(BuNo 021xx) production model birdcage F4U-1.

339 mph was not for production model F4U-1, it's included in F3A-1's report of prodction inspection trials. F3A-1s generally showed many problems with poor production quality.

Interestingly, the F3A-1 didn't have 2000 bhp at sea level in that report. This also applies to FG-1A's prodction inspection trials report. However, Vought's F4U-1s did not suffer from such a problem. Vought Corsairs seem to have better quality than other company Corsairs. or maybe it's the difference between PW's R-2800 and Nash's Licensed R-2800. Nash's R-2800 showed only 1890 horsepower with military power at sea level in FG-1A's prodction inspection trials report.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jul 28, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> In reality in WWII the USN found that the only high altitude bombers were the USAAF's - and the Navy even bought some for their own use. The F7F and F8F had single stage superchargers, since there was no real threat either on the high seas or in DC..
> .


I think I read that the AAF were having a tough time with high altitude Japanese bombers over Port Moresby, New Guinea, early in the war. Their P-40s and P-39s could not intercept them.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 29, 2018)

davparlr said:


> I think I read that the AAF were having a tough time with high altitude Japanese bombers over Port Moresby, New Guinea, early in the war. Their P-40s and P-39s could not intercept them.


To intercept a Japanese Betty bomber the interceptors needed early warning radar or the ability to fly standing patrols. No airplane in existence on either side could intercept high altitude high speed bombers without early warning or standing patrols.

No American radar until August '42 at Milne Bay. Few standing patrols since there were only two squadrons of P-39s defending Moresby. 

Plenty of Japanese bombers and fighters were shot down in the defense of Moresby, the defending P-39s exacted a little better than a 1 to 1 victory ratio against their more experienced, better trained, and better supplied Japanese opponents. They managed to just barely hang on until radar and reinforcements arrived. And the Navy stopped the Japanese Moresby invasion force in May at the battle of Coral Sea.

With early warning after August '42 the bombing raids on Moresby dwindled from multiple daily raids in May to sporadic raids thereafter.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 29, 2018)

This article states that 29 RS (RAAF) transported to Moresby 19 February 1942 and began operations 1 month later.

Radar performance was hampered by the mountains adjacent the town, with GCI plots limited in range initially to 40 miles (for targets coming in at 18-22000 feet). If the Japanese attacked at altitudes above 18000 ft, the performance of the p-39s fell away so badly they simply couldn't reach enemy altitudes in time. There are occasional early warnings provided by coast watchers but really the issue could not be rectified until the p-39s were replaced by better defenders for moresby 

http://www.radarreturns.net.au/archive/EchoesRRWS.pdf

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 29, 2018)

parsifal said:


> This article states that 29 RS (RAAF) transported to Moresby 19 February 1942 and began operations 1 month later.
> 
> Radar performance was hampered by the mountains adjacent the town, with GCI plots limited in range initially to 40 miles (for targets coming in at 18-22000 feet). If the Japanese attacked at altitudes above 18000 ft, the performance of the p-39s fell away so badly they simply couldn't reach enemy altitudes in time. There are occasional early warnings provided by coast watchers but really the issue could not be rectified until the p-39s were replaced by better defenders for moresby
> 
> http://www.radarreturns.net.au/archive/EchoesRRWS.pdf


The performance of the Moresby radar was poor as judged by the operators. The sets were "experimental" models and were still on the south side of the Owen Stanley mountains which limited their range. They still could not adequately warn of incoming raids.

Milne Bay is on the eastern tip of NG and was not obstructed by mountains. It also provided a panoramic view of the Japanese held areas. 

The P-39s obviously could intercept Japanese bombers at over 22000' as they did on numerous occasions.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 29, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> But that's the thing Swampy, I'm not really sure if the Cat really was slower than the Jug when flown at a similar horsepower rating. I'm thinking that the superior speed of the Thunderbolt at certain altitudes had more to do with higher engine output than superior aerodynamics. What say you?



Note that the Hellcat was not flush riveted. It is true that turbocharged engines generally perform better at altitude than mechanically supercharged engines - hence the superiority of the AP-4 over the XP-41, which led to the T-Bolt. But aerodynamic drag was a secondary consideration for the Hellcat.

Grumman claimed that the difference in top speeds of the Hellcat and Corsair was almost entirely due to ASI errors in the F4U and that the low altitude difference was due to a decision to reduce the direct ram air to the carb in their airplane to reduce the chance of carb icing.






It is true that the F4U had a rather more direct path to the carb than the Hellcat's chin intake, and Grumman incorporated that approach in the F8F.

Note that the picture shows the RIGHT root intake for the F4U, which has the oil cooler and intercooler cooling air intake. The carb intake is on the other side but you can still see that it is a short trip to the carb on the back of the R-2800.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

I took another look at sea level speeds at military power (without WEP) and found a few examples worthy of comparison:

Type / Configuration / Speed / Engine Output

F6F-5 BuNo. 58310 / 1 wing pylon / 319 mph / 1850 hp

F65-5 BuNo. 72731 / 2 wing pylons & rocket launchers / 312 / 1900 hp

P-47D S/N 42-26167 / 2 wing pylons / 303 mph / 1950 hp

P-47N S/N 44-88406 / 2 wing pylons / 327 mph / 2060 hp

Sources:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/72731-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/58310-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406-speed.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg


I think that the difference we are seeing with level speeds of various P-47s at similar power settings is mostly due to whether or not the aircraft is configured with wing pylons or not. For example, when comparing S/N 42-26167 to the P-47 tactical planning chart (which shows speeds at 5K feet _without_ pylons), I see a decrease in top speed anywhere from 22-30 mph (42-26167 with pylons was clocked at 325 mph at this same height in military power).

To me these pylons look far “draggier” than either type carried by the Hellcat or Mustang so I think the speed difference is plausible (on the low end anyway). Mustang wing pylons caused 12 mph loss, Hellcat lost about 10 mph for faired wing pylons and an additional 4 mph for rocket launchers.

Anyone have statistics that show _exactly _what the speed loss would be for the Thunderbolt with these pylons installed? The only way to know for sure is to have the same aircraft tested with and without the pylons under the same set of circumstances (weather conditions, engine output, ect.).

After considering this, I’m currently under the impression that at similar rated power and without wing pylons the P-47 had a slight speed advantage over the F6F at sea level, but this advantage quickly faded once pylons were installed on each perspective aircraft.

I also noticed that with the examples I gave the P-47N is 11 mph faster than the F6F-5 similarly configured (Hellcat speed would be 316mph carrying two pylons and no rocket launchers), but the Republic fighter also has 160 more horsepower available as well. Not sure however if this is enough of a difference in power to give the P-47 that much of an edge in speed without it being slightly “cleaner” aerodynamically.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Note that the Hellcat was not flush riveted....



Yes I was aware of that but in the end it's not an absolute given that an aircraft with flush riveting will have lower overall drag then one which is not. From my understanding flush riveting isn't as structurally strong, and because Grumman wanted to make it's fighter inordinately rugged it chose strength over surface refinement. Most if not all would agree that they made the right choice.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> It is true that turbocharged engines generally perform better at altitude than mechanically supercharged engines - hence the superiority of the AP-4 over the XP-41,





Shortround6 said:


> ...and the P-47's engine was more fuel efficient at high altitude cruise due to the turbo.



I see. So if two engines are developing the roughly same horsepower, RPM, and burning close to the same amounts of fuel per hour, how does cruise speed vary by 12 mph as in this example? There is 4" Hg difference in MP between the two so maybe that's the reason. 

Examples from selected P-47D and F6F-5 pilot's manuals (both aircraft with 350 gallons of fuel after reaching altitude, center-line drop tank mounted and no wing pylons):

AC / altitude / engine output / RPM / MP / fuel setting / fuel use rate / airspeed / max. range

P-47D / 25,000ft / 1200hp / 2250rpm / 32" Hg / auto lean / 105gph / 295 mph / 960 miles / 2.81 mpg

F6F-5 / 25,000ft / 1225hp (Low Blower) / 2300rpm / 36" Hg / auto lean / 106gph / 283 mph / 935 miles / 2.67 mpg

At 30,000ft:

AC / altitude / engine output / RPM / MP / fuel setting / fuel use rate / airspeed / max. range

P-47D / 30,000ft / 1200hp (est.) / 2250rpm / 32" Hg / auto lean / 110gph / 303 mph / 960 miles / 2.75 mpg

F6F-5 / 30,000ft / 1125hp (High Blower) / 2300rpm / 34" Hg / auto lean / 111gph / 299 mph / 935 miles / 2.67 mpg

The P-47's ferry tank was far more 'draggy' than the cigar-shaped tank used by the F6F so I believe that actual air frame drag was less with the P-47 and this probably had more to do with airfoil design than anything else (i.e. induced drag).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2018)

Some of those charts are bit on the rough side. 

But lets go back to your example. P-47 engine is turning 50rpm less which is no big deal. Barely a blip on the fuel consumption scale. However it is running at 32in of manifold pressure which is 89% of the manifold pressure the F6F is using. 

Hmmm, just a tick fewer RPM, 10% less boost (which means 10% less air through the engine), 50 hp more power (better efficiency? ) 

Something doesn't seem quite right???

F6F has to use more of the power in the cylinders to drive the auxiliary supercharger to get the desired manifold pressure which is were some of the power it should have been making using 36in of pressure goes.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Something doesn't seem quite right???



Thanks, I forgot to figure in the added power consumed by the supercharger. To get engine output within 50 hp the Hellcat's boost was set 10 percent higher....


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Some of those charts are bit on the rough side.



In what way?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 29, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I don't know, is a 4" Hg for 50 less horsepower a lot of difference when running at such low boost? Your explanation is well taken and I can definitely see some added efficiency for the turbocharged engine, but even with this the range of the two aircraft with similar gas load is pretty darn close (within 3%).
> 
> And I do realize that once the turbo enters higher boost settings it will start to out-strip the performance of the supercharged R-2800. I was just trying to promote my theory that all three Pratt and Whitney powered aircraft would have almost identical fuel burn rates while using similar cruise (lower power) settings, and knowing the P-47's ETO escort range with a given fuel load we can use simple algebra to determine what would be the theoretical range of the two naval fighters under similar circumstances.
> 
> Have I convinced anyone yet?



Even with low MAP the auxiliary supercharger is going to require more power to drive than the turbo, at altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2018)

We have at least 2 variables that contribute to the difference in cruise speed vs the power used. 
1. may be the efficiency of the respective propellers at cruise speed/altitude. 
2. maybe a difference in exhaust thrust. However this may not be great. The P-47 gets darn little (I think?)
But the amount the F6F gets at cruise speeds may not be a lot either. At 36in and 2300rpm the engine is moving about 57% the amount of air it is at 54in and 2700rpm and since exhaust thrust is mass times velocity the fact that you are running lean means less fuel per pound of air.

F6F exhaust is better than than an early F4U but not as a good as a V-12




That middle pipe in the upper 3 may do pretty good but the top pipe doesn't look so good. The longer the pipe and the more/sharper bends the lower the exhaust gas velocity. 
An engine running 54in of boost in the cylinders will have higher pressure/velocity gas leaving the exhaust ports than one running 36 in of boost. 
Trying to compare a 1200hp V-12 running at 48in boost to a large radial loafing at 1200hp with 32-36in of boost may not be accurate.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Even with low MAP the auxiliary supercharger is going to require more power to drive than the turbo, at altitude.



Fair enough. What about throttle response, is "turbo lag" prevelant with aircraft engines as it is in cars? From what I've learned a supercharger has power on demand, does this ever give the supercharger an edge over a turbo in aircraft operations?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We have at least 2 variables that contribute to the difference in cruise speed vs the power used.
> 1. may be the efficiency of the respective propellers at cruise speed/altitude.
> 2. maybe a difference in exhaust thrust. However this may not be great. The P-47 gets darn little (I think?)
> But the amount the F6F gets at cruise speeds may not be a lot either. At 36in and 2300rpm the engine is moving about 57% the amount of air it is at 54in and 2700rpm and since exhaust thrust is mass times velocity the fact that you are running lean means less fuel per pound of air.
> ...



Awesome stuff as usual SR6. I'm going to need a little time to digest what you said so I understand it completely...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Far enough. What about throttle response, is "turbo lag" prevelant with aircraft engines as it is in cars? From what I've learned a supercharger has power on demand, does this ever give the supercharger an edge over a turbo in aircraft operations?



Probably not. You have a few things going on with the aircraft engine that you do not have with cars/motorcycles.
Many racers use lightened flywheels to improve throttle response in land vehicles. In aircraft you had an over 300lb prop (in most cases) going to well over 400lbs on the high powered engines you were trying to wind up. Quick throttle response probably wasn't going to happen.
No WW II aircraft used a turbo only, you had the engine supercharger and if you were cruising it wasn't maxed out. Some planes cruised with the throttle wide open but with the prop at coarse pitch and low rpm. To accelerate the propeller governor was changed to a higher rpm and the propeller pitch mechanism reduced to the pitch to allow the engine to speed up. The engine supercharger could probably keep up with the increased demand for air for a while the turbo, reacting to increased exhaust flow, sped up. 

There may be some lag but not to the extent of an engine with only a turbo and how long does it take to increase the RPM on that big propeller?


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 29, 2018)

Getting back to the Thunderbolt's wing pylons and the extra drag they caused, in _America's Hundred Thousand_ (Dean) a pilot is quoted as saying that his P-47D-16 was exactly 50 mph slower due to those "monstrosities" (wing pylons) used on it. Most likely a bit of an exaggeration but it does hit home the fact that they were without a doubt noticeably large and cumbersome.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Probably not. You have a few things going on with the aircraft engine that you do not have with cars/motorcycles.
> Many racers use lightened flywheels to improve throttle response in land vehicles. In aircraft you had an over 300lb prop (in most cases) going to well over 400lbs on the high powered engines you were trying to wind up. Quick throttle response probably wasn't going to happen.
> No WW II aircraft used a turbo only, you had the engine supercharger and if you were cruising it wasn't maxed out. Some planes cruised with the throttle wide open but with the prop at coarse pitch and low rpm. To accelerate the propeller governor was changed to a higher rpm and the propeller pitch mechanism reduced to the pitch to allow the engine to speed up. The engine supercharger could probably keep up with the increased demand for air for a while the turbo, reacting to increased exhaust flow, sped up.
> 
> There may be some lag but not to the extent of an engine with only a turbo and how long does it take to increase the RPM on that big propeller?



Exactly, turbos on cars have to deal with constant changes of rpm and power requirements, while aircraft engines tend to be fairly constant speed.

Even an aero engine not connected to a turbo will take some time to accelerate from cruise rpm to military rpm and boost.

As for the turbo, opening the throttle and dumping more fuel in is going to increase the exhaust energy and thus accelerate the turbo. Also, depending on the altitude, the exhaust may already have enough energy to accelerate the turbo, but is dumped overboard by the wastegate for turbo speed control.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2018)

"The performance of the Moresby radar was poor as judged by the operators. The sets were "experimental" models and were still on the south side of the Owen Stanley mountains which limited their range. They still could not adequately warn of incoming raids.

Milne Bay is on the eastern tip of NG and was not obstructed by mountains. It also provided a panoramic view of the Japanese held areas.

The P-39s obviously could intercept Japanese bombers at over 22000' as they did on numerous occasions".

Milne Bay was of no assistance in the air defence of Moresby. It was 300miles away, and more than 600 from Rabaul. There was a mountain range in the way of Moresby that created just as bad a radar shadow as the mountains behind Moresby. I don't know what your data sources are telling but as a person that has been there and seen the place first hand, there is virtually no radar signatures detectable to the north and NW. And no radar set available in 1942 with air search capability and a range of 600 miles. We have had this conversation before, and still you keep pedalling out the same garbage over and over. I will tell you again ive been there, I know the conditions, and milne does not have much to offer the air defence problems facing Moresby.


They were standard US SCR sets, experimental to the RAAF because we had never used them before, but more or less standard issue in the US. Performance was initially poor and improvements were slow to take effect, however even when given ample warning of impending attacks P-39s proved nearly useless as defending CAP.

Even when P-39s were given ample early warning, they generally were a failure in intercepting IJN bomber raids over Moresby. they did inflict losses and eventually these losses mattered because the IJN was very susceptible to losses. but claiming they were effective is a joke, surely.

As an example of P-39 performance even when given plenty of warning, look at the raids of 18 May 1942

During the morning of May 18, 1942 at Rabaul 18 x G3M2 Nell bombers from the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) Genzan Kokutai led by Lt. Rokuo Nikaido took off from took off from Vunakanau at 5:55am armed with 60kg bombs on a mission to bomb 12 mile airfield. Also participating were 16 x G4M1 Bettys from 4th Kokutai led by Lt. Commander Hatsuhiko Watanabe. This group was tasked with the suppression of 7 Mile Airfield. Escort was provided by 9 x A6M2 Zeros from the Tainan Kokutai from Lakunai but two Zeros aborted the mission due to mechanical problems, leaving only seven on the mission.

Due to their different cruising speeds, the two different bomber formations proceeded separately to Moresby. Later, 11 x A6M2 Zeros from the Tainan Kokutai took off from Lae FPO2c Masayoshi Yonekawa aborted for mechanical reasons with the other ten rendezvousing with the Nells over Ioma at 9:15am and were spotted by Australian spotters who provided an early warning to Moresby via radio. The coastwatcher intel gave accurate and timely information on course speed, raid size and heading. The defending p-39s had plenty of time to scramble. Raid was coming in at 22000 feet.

Meanwhile at Port Moresby, P-39 and P-400 Airacobras from the 36th and 35th Fighter Squadron plus attached aircraft from the 39th Fighter Squadron and 40th Fighter Squadron took off to intercept an incoming formation of G4M1 Betty bombers. The precise number of Airacobras involved in the scramble is unclear, but it was at least 32 involved in the scramble operations. There had never been this many fighters committed to the defences at Moresby.

At 8:40am, the Betty formation sighted eighteen enemy aircraft approaching and successfully bombed at 8:43am, hit the northwest end of the runway and dispersal area damaging water supplies, telephone lines, tents, a mess hall and two trucks from the Australian Army 17th anti-tank regiment, C Troop. P-39s, despite the long warning were still trying to gain altitude at the time the order for ‘bombs away” was given. At 9:00am the Nell formation bombed 12 mile airfield, again with no immediate opposition from the defending p-39s, that were again still trying to make altitude This raid by the Nells hit the runway, damaged huts and destroying two parked Airacobras and damaging another Airacobra. This last aircraft was written off.

Eventually about 15-20 minutes after their bomb run, the Betty formation was intercepted by the Airacobras with great difficulty managed to shoot down G4M1 piloted by Oyama (he was KIA). Shot down in return Missing was P-39F 41-7 - 7191 with the loss of the pilot. Damaged was a second G4M1 piloted by Inoue which later crashed after diverting to Lae. Inoue and most of the crew survived. Six other Bettys suffered minor damage but returned safely. Afterwards, escorting Zeros from the 2nd Shotai A6M2 Zeros engaged the Airacobras and prevented them from making further attacks. Three were claimed.

As indicated above the Japanese formation returned to base. Returning, Inoue’s G4M1 diverted to Lae, where it crash landed but as far as I know the pilot and most (if not all) of the crew survived. The others returned safely to Rabaul. All the Nells and Zeros returned safely. The Zeros claimed three Airacobras shot down. The Betty bombers also claimed four Airacobras shot down. On the American side,P—39F 41-7191 was lost outright, with three others damaged, of which two never flew again. Effectively three squadrons of p-39s had been scrambled, could not gain altitude in time despite being. given ample early warning, had managed to bring down two enemy bombers for the loss of one crew. No IJN fighters were lost (despite 8FG claims to the contrary) , whilst losing one aircraft outright with pilot and writing off two other aircraft as well as losing 3 on the ground. All up , the lost of 6 aircobras, and damage to an additional two to shoot down two bombers, and slightly damaging 6 others.

A typical day at the office really……..

​


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 30, 2018)

Yep, typical day at the office for the 8th FG at PM (Port Moresby).

I'll try to pedal more garbage to you, please hold your nose. May I get your source for the May 18 mission, would like to read it myself.

I think we are in agreement that the PM radar was of little use to the two squadrons of P-39s defending the town. Between PM and the Japanese bases at Lae stood the 12000' Owen Stanley mountains. Not much radar getting through those. And coastwatchers were of very sporadic help since they were constantly being hunted by the Japanese. When the radar did alert the 8th FG it was often only clouds or a flight of birds. But the 8th had to go ahead and intercept those clouds/birds because they had no way of knowing.

The AAF was struggling in those early days of WWII at PM. Outnumbered, short of parts, inexperienced crews against an established IJN opponent with experienced pilots. I'm sure you have heard of the two attempts to ferry P-39s from Australia to PM that April. Over half the planes were lost to weather on FERRY missions. The Japanese must have been laughing their butts off, the AAF can't even move planes from one base to another without losing them. That was the state of AAF readiness/competence in April '42. They just weren't very good.

Specifically to the mission of May18, 34 bombers and 17 fighters was a huge mission for the Japanese at the time. Plus they had split into at least two groups further complicating the interception. PM had been under constant attack since the P-39s arrived there in April. From April 30 the Japanese flew missions against PM constantly with multiple missions on many of those days. It is unlikely that either 8th squadron was at full strength. It is also unlikely that the 8th scrambled whole squadrons since they only had two squadrons at PM. Normally they had two flights (4 planes/flight) ready to scramble with more available at longer notice. A normal squadron at PM was 16 planes That's just all they had, at that time. 

You say that ample warning was given of the raid at 9:15am but then say that the Bettys attacked PM at 8:43 and the Nells at 9am. If correct, the attacks occurred before the warning was given.

And the P-39 could certainly intercept enemy bombers at 22000' with adequate warning. That they did on a regular basis is proof. The attached P-39K original source graph clearly shows the P-39 would do 360mph at 22500' and get there in about 11minutes. And that's climbing at 2600rpm when 3000 was available. The little black circles represent contemporary Zero performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

Hmmm, first P-39K was "delivered" in Buffalo NY in July 1942. a little late to do much of anything in New Guinea in May of 1942. 

And then we are back to tests done and/or corrected to "standard" day conditions (59 degrees F) which was _never _ the conditions in New Guinea. 

If you look at the take-off, climb and landing chart for the "K" it calls for 14.5 minutes to 25,000ft at 7800lbs at 0 degrees C/32 degrees F and call for a 10% increase in time for every 20 degrees F above that, so a rough 30% increase in time to 25,000ft on a 92 degree F day. 
The hot temperatures also play hell with ceilings and climb rates at high altitudes. 

You may also have trouble with keeping the coolant and oil temperatures within limits if doing full throttle climbs. Not to mention that, one again, you are flying in formation, even if a small one and the formation speed/climb is limited to worst performing aircraft in the group.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Hmmm, first P-39K was "delivered" in Buffalo NY in July 1942. a little late to do much of anything in New Guinea in May of 1942.
> 
> And then we are back to tests done and/or corrected to "standard" day conditions (59 degrees F) which was _never _ the conditions in New Guinea.
> 
> ...



I don't have an official P-39D or F performance graph so I use the K graph which was the next model but the test figures for the D are virtually the same. Both have 8.8 gears and weigh about the same.

I agree with you on the brutal tropical conditions, played hell with everybody. 

But the air gets colder with altitude, wouldn't the conditions be pretty much standard at about 16000' when the air temp is 32 degrees approx?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> But the air gets colder with altitude, wouldn't the conditions be pretty much standard at about 16000' when the air temp is 32 degrees approx?



Nope.

Most people (countries/test groups) could agree on standard conditions at sea level. 
Hot day standards _were_ all over the place. They may be better now with international air travel demanding better standardization.

One chart in an old book (1943) shows a "standard day" going from 59 D/F to about -65 D/F at 35,000ft in a straight line and holding steady at -65 D/F as altitude went above 45,000ft.

A "typical" hot day line is also provided. It holds 100 D/F till about 6,000ft then falls to around -25 D/F at 35,000ft and then flattens out to hold that -25 D/F to over 45,000ft 

At 15,000ft the temp for a standard day is between +5 and +10 D/F while on the hot day line it is +60 D/F. 

The caption under the chart says that the "Hot day" curve is typical of the several "Hot day" standards in use. 

some of this depends on actual location and weather conditions. A 100 degree day in Buffalo NY or in England in the summer may very well have lower upper air temperatures than a 100 degree day in Egypt or Northern Australia-New Guinea were it may be 100 degrees for days (actually weeks ) at a time and the upper air currents are coming from areas that are equally as hot.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 30, 2018)

Gentlemen

I am enclosing the P-39 Tactical Planning chart from 1943. It includes data for the P-39D. From a planning stand point, there was no difference between a P-39D, F, or K. I also found a graph of the P-39D-2 performance. This was/is located in the library of the Wisconsin Historical Society. 
FYI
Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 30, 2018)

eagledad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> I am enclosing the P-39 Tactical Planning chart from 1943. It includes data for the P-39D. From a planning stand point, there was no difference between a P-39D, F, or K. I also found a graph of the P-39D-2 performance. This was/is located in the library of the Wisconsin Historical Society.
> FYI
> ...


There goes three hours that I'll never get back.  Thanks.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 30, 2018)

eagledad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> I am enclosing the P-39 Tactical Planning chart from 1943. It includes data for the P-39D. From a planning stand point, there was no difference between a P-39D, F, or K. I also found a graph of the P-39D-2 performance. This was/is located in the library of the Wisconsin Historical Society.
> FYI
> ...



Why wasn't the pilot of the Airacobra given the option to operate at 25,000 feet at any power setting less than max continuous? Looks like he wasn't given the option to carry a drop tank or bomb at that height either. What am I missing here?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2018)

but if D-2&K had a engine with more TO power they would not climb a bit faster almost at low altitude?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2018)

My mistake. Got the interception and sighting times back the front. Airstrike was detected over Ioma (see map below) about 110 miles from target. There was an immediate scramble (AFAIK), which means the strike was intercepted somewhere over the owne Stanleys Despite all this early warning the p-39s were still not up to the correct altitude at the time of interception.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

> Why wasn't the pilot of the Airacobra given the option to operate at 25,000 feet at any power setting less than max continuous? Looks like he wasn't given the option to carry a drop tank or bomb at that height either. What am I missing here?



What you are missing is the plain fact that the P-39 had difficulty operating _in formation_ at that altitude with those kinds of loads.
chart in pilots manual (rather incomplete, only 1st and last columns) shows the 75 gallon drop tank costing about 30mph at 9,000ft at most economical settings
and over 50mph at 15,000ft at max continuous power (2600rpm and F.T.)

British figured you needed a climb rate of 500fpm to fly in a small formation as an indicator of reserve power. P-39D as per the chart so kindly provided shows that is just out reach when using max continuous power (Normal) at 25,000ft without an under fuselage load.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2018)

Vincenzo said:


> but if D-2&K had a engine with more TO power they would not climb a bit faster almost at low altitude?


Not necessarily. I was reading on the weekend about the CA12 and CA13 boomerangs. The CA13 according to the account I was reading had about 100 extra HP comparared to the earlier rendition, but this was cancelled out by the additional weight penalties.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 30, 2018)

parsifal said:


> My mistake. Got the interception and sighting times back the front. Airstrike was detected over Ioma (see map below) about 110 miles from target. There was an immediate scramble (AFAIK), which means the strike was intercepted somewhere over the owne Stanleys Despite all this early warning the p-39s were still not up to the correct altitude at the time of interception.
> 
> 
> View attachment 503858


Whether they were able to intercept the bombers on that particular mission is meaningless. The chart shows that a P-39 will climb to 22000' easily on normal power 2600rpm with combat 3000rpm available. How did all those Japanese planes get shot down May-December '42?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Nope.
> 
> Most people (countries/test groups) could agree on standard conditions at sea level.
> Hot day standards _were_ all over the place. They may be better now with international air travel demanding better standardization.
> ...



SR6,

Aviation today uses a standard lapse rate of 2’ Celsius per thousand feet, or air cools by 2’C per 1k climbed up to about 36k.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 30, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Why wasn't the pilot of the Airacobra given the option to operate at 25,000 feet at any power setting less than max continuous? Looks like he wasn't given the option to carry a drop tank or bomb at that height either. What am I missing here?


You're not missing anything. These early P-39s cruised at 25000' burning 54gph at normal/max continuous 2600rpm, although this chart shows it burning 71gph (120gal divided by 1.7hr). Remember this chart says "ALL PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED". Not a performance test, just guidelines.

It's only burning 54gph, want it to burn less at lower power?

Also remember the N model will be out in December with much better performance.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> It's only burning 54gph, want it to burn less at lower power?



Yes, to extend it's rather meager range.

The P-39N had even shorter legs with it's reduced fuel load.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> You're not missing anything. These early P-39s cruised at 25000' burning 54gph at normal/max continuous 2600rpm, although this chart shows it burning 71gph (120gal divided by 1.7hr). Remember this chart says "ALL PERFORMANCE ESTIMATED". Not a performance test, just guidelines.
> 
> It's only burning 54gph, want it to burn less at lower power?
> 
> Also remember the N model will be out in December with much better performance.



The engine was only burning 54 gallons an hour because that is all the air the supercharger could supply at 25,000ft at 2600rpm.

A test of a "D" showed 585hp at 25,000ft when climbing using 2600rpm. In level flight with more RAM and using 3000rpm the test plane showed 740hp at best power, 710 hp at auto lean and 695hp at auto rich. This is backwards from most aircraft and _may_ show that the P-39s (at least on this test aircraft) carb was running too rich at high altitude.

The P-39 with 8.80 gears was simply running out of breath at these altitudes.

of course once the magic P-39N shows up in Dec after teleporting itself from Buffalo NY to Port Moresby (8,800 miles) the Japanese are doomed

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 30, 2018)

Spitfire V with 4 x 20mm cannon climbed to 20,000ft nearly 2 minutes faster than the P-39D. Standard Spitfire V was nearly 3 minutes faster.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 30, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Why wasn't the pilot of the Airacobra given the option to operate at 25,000 feet at any power setting less than max continuous? Looks like he wasn't given the option to carry a drop tank or bomb at that height either. What am I missing here?



Hard to see in the chart, but looks like max cruise power was not available at 25,000ft, or at 10,000ft at or near maximum weight.

Would suggest there was not enough power to sustain level flight at max cruise power at 25,000ft. Even at max continuous power it seems to be only possible at 7,650lb.

Also note that at that weight the climb rate is only given for military power, and not for maximum continuous.

25,000ft is well above the critical altitude for the engine in Military Power, and probably for maximum continuous and maximum cruise as well.

The difference between the power levels is mostly due to rpm, which gives a slight increase to boost, due to increased supercharger rpm, as well. Can't recall the exact differences, but the Military power would be at 3,000rpm, max continuous at ~2,800rpm and max cruise at ~2,600rpm.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2018)

Not meaningless. Just that on a mission where they had plenty of time to react, with aircraft operating at a known attack altitude, the P-39s were unable to reach that altitude. Your claim that there was no radar until august is disproven. Your claim that only radar could provide early warning, is disproven. Your claim that Milne Bay solved the detection issues over Moresby is patently incorrect, though not disproven .

It only takes one exception to disprove a theory expressed in absolutes. Your claims are completely busted by this one exception

But we can find plenty of other similar example for this dud of an aircraft if you want.

Something I forgot to correct earlier. the claim that the US forces were heavily outnumbered in the air in May 1942. 

25th flotilla came under the command of 11 Air fleet, which from17 april was based on Tinian. At around that time,25th flotilla was reinforced with the elements of the Motoyama air gp (a special detachment that was originally to be attached to the 22 flotillain the SW command area, but wound up being attached to the Sth Seas detachment, less its fighter components. other commands under the 11AF included 24th 25th and 26th flotillas that were responsible for both the central and south pacific areas, the Carolines, the marianas and home islands defences.

As of 17 april there were 25 Zeroes in this TO, this was increased to 40 just before the end of the month.

Opposing them were the two fighter groups of the USAAC that tended to rotate the units as required. There were initially 60 a/c, give or take in the US FGs deployed, plus one RAAF fighter sqn . Nominally that amounted to about 80 fighters in front line, but at least as many again held in reserve. That is hardly "heavily outnumbered".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Can't recall the exact differences, but the Military power would be at 3,000rpm, max continuous at ~2,800rpm and max cruise at ~2,600rpm.



Military was 3000rpm, Max continuous was 2600rpm. max economical cruise was 2300rpm. 
This is pretty much the same for P-39s, P-40s and P-38s with a few minor exceptions.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Military was 3000rpm, Max continuous was 2600rpm. max economical cruise was 2300rpm.
> This is pretty much the same for P-39s, P-40s and P-38s with a few minor exceptions.



Thanks.

So cruise power at 25,000ft must have been woeful if the power at max continuous was only 585hp.

The chart posted by eagledad suggests that the aircraft (P-39D) could not fly at 25,000ft in an overload condition (with bombs or external fuel tanks), meaning it had to make do with its 120USG internal fuel. Not great for range either.


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2018)

I'm having a hard time seeing what a P-39 has to do with Hellcats and Corsairs in Europe. But I also didn't follow more than the last several pages.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 30, 2018)

GregP said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing what a P-39 has to do with Hellcats and Corsairs in Europe. But I also didn't follow more than the last several pages.



Particularly the performance of P-39s in the PTO!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Particularly the performance of P-39s in the PTO!


The argument was raised by one member that he couldn't understand why the P-39 was not used as an escort in the ETO, and how well it flew against the Japanese opposition in the PTO.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

parsifal said:


> My mistake. Got the interception and sighting times back the front. Airstrike was detected over Ioma (see map below) about 110 miles from target. There was an immediate scramble (AFAIK), which means the strike was intercepted somewhere over the owne Stanleys Despite all this early warning the p-39s were still not up to the correct altitude at the time of interception.
> 
> 
> View attachment 503858


Am I ever getting to read your source myself? Can I get this from you? 

If the Bettys were called in by coastwatchers (notoriously unreliable) at 110mi out and they cruised at 250mph then they would be at PM in .44hr or 26 min. Figure 15 minutes to take off, climb to altitude etc the 8th had 11 minutes to find two different groups of bombers at two different altitudes best case. Not including defending themselves against Zero escort. Harder than it looks.

Really would like to read your source.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The argument was raised by one member that he couldn't understand why the P-39 was not used as an escort in the ETO, and how well it flew against the Japanese opposition in the PTO.


Just said (and proved) that it could have been used as escort. Never said it was a P-51B.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Not meaningless. Just that on a mission where they had plenty of time to react, with aircraft operating at a known attack altitude, the P-39s were unable to reach that altitude. Your claim that there was no radar until august is disproven. Your claim that only radar could provide early warning, is disproven. Your claim that Milne Bay solved the detection issues over Moresby is patently incorrect, though not disproven .
> 
> It only takes one exception to disprove a theory expressed in absolutes. Your claims are completely busted by this one exception
> 
> ...



One group at the time, they were being rotated. 8th only had two squadrons until the 80th was added later.

A squadron was 16 planes per mission if no aborts. Total planes per squadron was about 24, crew chiefs had to keep 16 of those operational. So at any given time 32 planes were available for combat.

8th almost never sent up all 32 at once since a bad mission (bad weather etc) could see them all lost. Two flights (8 planes) on the runway with the rest in reserve.

Against as you say 40 Zeros and how many bombers? I would say that was outnumbered.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Hard to see in the chart, but looks like max cruise power was not available at 25,000ft, or at 10,000ft at or near maximum weight.
> 
> Would suggest there was not enough power to sustain level flight at max cruise power at 25,000ft. Even at max continuous power it seems to be only possible at 7,650lb.
> 
> ...


Maximum cruise power was 2600rpm and was available at all altitudes. May not have been much, but was available.

Military (combat) power was 3000rpm (740hp at 25000'), max continuous/normal was 2600rpm (585hp at 25000'). Using military power in climb greatly increased the climb rate over normal power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> If the Bettys were called in by coastwatchers (notoriously unreliable) at 110mi out and *they cruised at 250mph *then they would be at PM in .44hr or 26 min. Figure 15 minutes to take off, climb to altitude etc the 8th had 11 minutes to find two different groups of bombers at two different altitudes best case. Not including defending themselves against Zero escort. Harder than it looks.
> 
> Really would like to read your source.



I would really like to see the source that says the G4M Betty could cruise at 250mph??


----------



## Dawncaster (Jul 31, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Chance-Cought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.
> 
> What do you think might have happened if it had been used in the ETO versus the Luftwaffe, combined with the all-time best kill ratio fighter of WWII, the F6F Hellcat? If the two of them had been deployed to Europe when they historically could have been, what might the result be?
> 
> ...



Disagree, some founded facts were as follows.

The different IAS reads are not confined between F4U and F6F. It's common. Spitfire and Tempest also have different IAS reading tables, as were the P-47 and P-51, Yaks and MiGs, etc.... As he wrote at the end, he seems to have a little baised. Because he was a test pilot for Grumman, it seems he did not know about F4U as much as F6F. He called the tested F4U the latest version - F4U-1D, but it was late 1943, so it's different from the truth. BuNo 17781 was just F4U-1(F4U-1A) with old propeller blades. He said that both fighters '*SHOULD*' have the same performance because they have the same engine, propeller, wing span, and gross weight. But In fact, the F4U had lighter gross weight and shorter wing span, the propeller blades and engine's altitude performances were also different. Well, If the F4U-1 was at a supercharger shift altitude and it had old propeller blades with early troublesome supercharged engine, it's not unusual for the F6F to be that fast - Especially If the F6F was less loaded and it's weight was light as F4U-1. However, most of the problems in F4U's engine were almost solved when F6F arrived on the solomon, and most of the flight tests were done with same load condition(ex. overload fighter), So F6F was generally slower than F4U in practical condition.

After the pitot tube error was resolved, the F6F-5 was became faster - it's true over 400mph class fighter, but still slower than the F4U-1A/D at all altitudes. Several comparison flights and mock dogfights, F4Us showed faster speed and higher climb rate. It's combat speed and combat climb with in actual ACM situation - no IAS reading influence.

On 22 April 1944, The Naval Air Forces Pacific Command received an F6F-5 and an F4U-1D for the purpose of fleet evalution. At the end of that time the board was generally agreed on most findings.

- F4U-1D is undoubtedly faster than F6F-5.
- F6F-5 has better maneuverability than F6F-3, but not better than F4U-1D.
- F4U-1D has better climb, especially zoom-climb characteristics than Grumman.
- F4U-1D is steadier gun platform and better dive bomber.
- F6F-5 is conceded easier to land aboard ship, owing to better foward visibility.

So, On 16 May 1944, a Navy evaluation board had concluded.

"It is the opinion of the board that generally the F4U is a better fighter, a better bomber and equally suitable carrier aircraft compared with the F6F. It is strongly recommended that the carrier fighter and or bomber complements be shifted to the F4U type."

It's clear why the Navy put the F4U on aircraft carrier. That's because the F4U-1D had the performance to meet the requirements of the Navy, not the limit of production capacity of Grumman - as someone often claims. Apart from the circumstances of the Grumman, the F4Us would have been on the aircraft carrier.

And present survival WWII fighters have different conditions so have to take that into account when making comparisons. For example, SETP's 1989 evalution, the FG-1D showed slower speed than F6F-5 until more than 130 seconds from start acceleration, due to F6F-5 had advantage in weight and drag condition. take off weight for F6F-5 was approx 2000 lbs lighter than military gross weight and clean wing without pylons, but FG-1D had only 1000 lbs lighter than military gross weight(Equivalent weight for military condition with 50% fuel and 50% ammunition - practical weight for combat) and fitted two stub pylons. Nevertheless, Corsair chosen for best in maneuverability, but under those conditions, Corsair could be said to be slower than Hellcat. It's the result of the difference in conditions.

References
1. Hellcat Versus the Corsair - 9 september to 8 November 1943 from '_Convair Advanced Designs: Secret Projects from San Diego, 1923-1962 _'
2. Navy Taste Test: Hellcat vs Corsair from '_WW II Fighters From the Cockpit_ '
3. '_Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair' _by Boone T. Guyton
4. '_Vought F4U Corsair_ ' by Martin W. Bowman
5. '_Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea_ ' by Barrett Tillman
6. '_Flight Test Comparison: Ending the Argument _' by John M. Ellis III

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 31, 2018)

I'm as bewildered as everyone else how this thread got so far off topic....

When I resurrected this thread I was curious about the performance gains that could be realized with the Corsair and Hellcat if 150 octane fuel was used in place of 130 (which was common practice in Europe by the summer of '44). After reading everyone's input and looking at performance charts I now see that for the most part it would only lower the critical altitude and have zero effect at the heights where strategic bombing was being performed.

I assumed wrongly that they would see the same gains as the Thunderbolt, forgetting that it's turbocharging unit had the ability to maintain constant sea-level horsepower well beyond normal escort fighter operating heights. However, the two navy fighters would obviously benefit from use of the fuel at low and medium altitudes.

So basically a 10-15 mph increase in speeds _below_ FTH would occur but not much more (overall top speed obtained would not be very different). Climb rates would surely improve as well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> So basically a 10-15 mph increase in speeds _below_ FTH would occur but not much more (overall top speed obtained would not be very different). Climb rates would surely improve as well.


The improved fuel would only affect the climb rates at altitudes below the Full Throttle Height (FTH) where the superchargers were not maxed out on airflow.
Once you are over the FTH the superchargers are maxed out, no more air available so no more boost and thus no more power regardless of fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 31, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The improved fuel would only affect the climb rates at altitudes below the Full Throttle Height (FTH) where the superchargers were not maxed out on airflow.
> Once you are over the FTH the superchargers are maxed out, no more air available so no more boost and thus no more power regardless of fuel.



Understood. Thanks.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would really like to see the source that says the G4M Betty could cruise at 250mph??


What cruise speed would you prefer?


----------



## stona (Jul 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> What cruise speed would you prefer?



At least 50 mph lower.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 31, 2018)

stona said:


> At least 50 mph lower.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Thank you. 200mph vs 250mph gives the P-39s an extra 7 minutes to find and intercept.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> What cruise speed would you prefer?


Something you didn't pull out of your hat. 
A B-26 (early short wing) would have been hard pressed to cruise at 250mph at over 20,000ft for very long, and it was a smaller plane with more powerful engines.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 31, 2018)

G4M1, Model 11
Cruise: 315 km/h (175 knots, 196 mph)
Max: 428 km/h (230 knots, 265 mph)


----------



## parsifal (Jul 31, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> One group at the time, they were being rotated. 8th only had two squadrons until the 80th was added later.
> 
> A squadron was 16 planes per mission if no aborts. Total planes per squadron was about 24, crew chiefs had to keep 16 of those operational. So at any given time 32 planes were available for combat.
> 
> ...




And as expected, you would be wrong.

The Japanese in April through to the end of April had 25 A6Ms and approximately 40 twin engine bombers (I will get the precise numbers later today) . There were another 5 "attack groups"' equipped mostly with single engine short range a/c lacking the range to reach Moresby from Rabaul. these 5 groups were special attachments to 11 AF, spread over the four main operational areas. There might be one or two art most assigned to 25 flotilla

The fighters were reinforced towards the end of April, in preparation for Mo so as to be about 40 a/c. There were no additions to the air group until after watchtower. There was no rotation of forces for the Japanese, which is the striking difference to what was happening to Allied formations. Airbase capacities generally ditated how much force could be brought to bear. The allies had far more fighters tasked with the defence of of Moresby than the Japanese could hope to bring, and as losses in one group mounted were able to rotate other units into and out of the operational zone as required. the Japanese never had that luxury. This was also the case for the LW in the west after June 1941.

In addition to the fighter groups of the USAAC there were units of the RAAF, one squadrons from February, two squadrons from March, and three squadrons from July. There were approximately 600 strike aircraft supporting them . In addition to that there were the marine squadrons committed to watchtower which 25 flotilla had to deal with after July 

So you can spruik a bunch of B/S all you like about how the P-39s were outnumbered, and you would be wrong.

The P-39 crews that fought May to December fulfilled a critical function in the defence of Moresby. They were hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese at the beginning and the exchange rates in losses reflected that. However the fact that they were there, and just kept on rising up to challenge the Japanese every time, inflicted attritional losses on the Japanese. This was ultimately what defeated the Japanese, the relentless crush of numbers. But to pedal around a bunch of bullshit, trying to say the p-39 groups and the p-39 were 9and was) something that they just weren't at that time is ultimately ridiculous.


----------



## jpatrick62 (Jul 31, 2018)

Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

Now this test was conducted by the Army in August 1943 (Beginning of the USAAF bombing campaign in Europe?) as an evaluation of the P38/P47/P1 versus the rival service's F4U. Again, it's interesting to glean some of the same things as was implied in the Navy test conducted above.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02296.pdf

In the Army tests, things are much closer, but overall not that much different than the Navy tests. The F4U was considered a better close in fighter versus all three Army planes. The principle objection (from the Army's POV) was the cockpit layout and visibility, which the Army pilots did not like. The Army testing also found the maintenance of the F4U to be more difficult than their own types.

Finally, here is the comparison tests between F6F-3/F4U-1/FW190-4 done January 1944. Unfortunately the F4U aircraft and the FW190-A4 had engine issues that may have affected
the testing, so this test may not be totally accurate, although it does have the F4U and FW190 in a virtual dead heat. Again, the USN aircraft could easily out-maneuver the more heavily wing loaded German, but was that still an advantage by 1944?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2018)

Thank you,

from Wiki so correction welcome.

Engine used in the G4M in most of 1942.

*MK4A [Ha-32] 11*
1,530 horsepower (1,140 kW), 2450 rpm at takeoff 
1,410 horsepower (1,050 kW), 2350 rpm at 1,000 metres (3,300 ft)
1,380 horsepower (1,030 kW), 2350 rpm at 4,000 metres (13,000 ft)

SOmehow I am having trouble seeing a G4M cruising at over 20,000ft at 250mph using such engines. 

I believe the raid also included G3Ms and the likelihood of them cruising at 250mph is zero.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 31, 2018)

jpatrick62 said:


> Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
> since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
> ...



Nice summation of things jpatrick62. While we're at it let's include AAF testing of the F6F-3 which occurred during that same week. And although it wasn't compared to the standard army fighters of the time, from my take on things they seemed to have liked the Hellcat, having far less negative comments to say about it than the Corsair.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 31, 2018)

jpatrick62 said:


> Again, the USN aircraft could easily out-maneuver the more heavily wing loaded German, but was that still an advantage by 1944?



I would definitely think so. Question always is, how much of an advantage would it be when compared to top speed, climb, range, and so on.....?


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 1, 2018)

parsifal said:


> And as expected, you would be wrong.
> 
> The Japanese in April through to the end of April had 25 A6Ms and approximately 40 twin engine bombers (I will get the precise numbers later today) . There were another 5 "attack groups"' equipped mostly with single engine short range a/c lacking the range to reach Moresby from Rabaul. these 5 groups were special attachments to 11 AF, spread over the four main operational areas. There might be one or two art most assigned to 25 flotilla
> 
> ...



You ever going to give me your source? I would like to read it. My source says different.

Do you doubt the graph in post #466? 

Why all the venom over an airplane? Who shot the Japanese planes down over Moresby? Not the P-39?

I'm not pedaling any bullshit, just govt/military test information and history.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 1, 2018)

I don't entertain BS very much these days. And your version of history is full of it . It has a number of downright porkies that lead to a number of false conclusions. top of that list is that in 1942 the USAAC played a pivotal role in the defeat of Japan and were instrumental in the Battle Of Australia. It overstates the effectiveness of American weapon systems at this time by a wide margin, fails to consider at all any other methodologies, like checking against enemy records . The result is an extreme cockeyed view of history that you don't even realise is disrespectful to just about everyone, including those who you seek to elevate, because it smooths over the very real hardships they endured. Saying the P-39 did more than it actually did suggests that it was easier than it actually was. The truth is that in that 3 month period, something like 60 p-39s were lost or written off. in exchange they shot down or destroyed by their own hand less than 10 zeroes and perhaps as many bombers

Statements like your claim that the p-39s were heavily outnumbered in the TO is not only patently incorrect, it also happens to strike a very raw nerve with Australians. For the first year of the war in the pacific, with the exception of naval operations, nearly all the heavy lifting in the pacific was done by Australian forces. Saying that the p-39s were the sole defenders of Moresby ignores a whole host of Australian efforts that its not funny......for example 75, 76 and 77 squadrons, number 30 squadron, to name just a few. there are plenty of others. Suggesting that the majority of heavy lifting was done by the US fighter groups has to be also galling to those flying bomber strikes against the Japanese positions. . It will probably surprise you that B-26s destroyed more Zekes on the ground in one raid than the entire US fighter forces did in three months of fighting over Moresby.

As far as my source are concerned, Ive got enough. Steve Bullards account of Japanese operations is a great translation of Japanese source material. George Johnstons war diary for 1942 is another primary source. "The Air war against Japan" is the official history and a reasonable account of own losses but not much good as a summary of enemy losses. Ive got most of the series written by Morison which is in about the same class. I like horners book on command decisions, because it peels back most of the BS some of which we are seeing here.

im not challenging scientific data. I base my critiques almost exclusively on operational research.....what happened, what might have happened and why. If an aircraft fails to live up to it paper performance, why is that? To me they are interesting questions.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

jpatrick62 said:


> Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
> since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
> ...



Considering that the USAAF tested F4U-1 BuNo 02296 was one of the first batch Corsair with birdcage canopy, can find some interesting things. Among the early Birdcage Corsairs, the earliest - first batch F4U-1s had no mirror bulges at the top of the canopy and no boost tabs on ailerons, resulting in low maneuverability at high speeds and had wing heaviness problems. It's cockpit layout, visibility, seat position was the worst in all Corsair variants and supercharger didn't properly worked. Well, the tested F4U-1 BuNo 02296 was outdated at that point. At the time of testing, August 1943, the new raised cabin type F4U-1(often called F4U-1A) was already started delivering. It was a model that solved the above problems.

Nevertheless, the fact that the F4U-1 has shown its advantages in comparison dogfight means that there was a difference in maneuverability between them and the Corsair. As the war progressed, all three types USAAF fighters were much heavier, but the F4U-1 had no weight change. Therefore, it's no wonder that the F4U-1, which solved all the problems in USN comparison of 1944, showed advantage against the P-51B. (The overboosted F4U-1 BuNo 02390 was also tested, but with the exception of speed comparison, the difference with BuNo 17930 was not reported)

In addition, before the above comparison at the August 1943, the F4U-1 and army fighters were already compared. On May 21st, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Elgin AAFB in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with the P-47, P-51, P-38 and P-39 fighters, and all resulted favorably for the Corsair. only at altitudes above 20,000 feet, the F4U-1 lost its advantage against P-47 and P-51. It's the similar result as the above report, which means that the similar conclusions were already in place ahead of the two reports.

It became clearer in later comparisons. From the late 1944 to the early 1945, TAIC's comparison tests revealed a difference in maneuverability between army fighters and naval fighters. The Japanese fighter Zeke(A6M) needed 3.5 turns for Corsair and Hellcat. However, for P-51, P-47, and P-38, Zeke needed only one turn or less for advantage or firing position. In the report, Corsair was the only fighter to be able to stay with Zeke until 150 knots due to it's great combat flap, but the P-38's combat flap was rated to be ineffective because the maneuverability difference with Zeke was too great.

Finally, what if case you mentioned - against German fighters, Corsair would maintain its status as a superior dogfighter until the end of the war. But they do not favor such a tight dogfight. So the Corsair would mostly fight with it's good speed, excellent energy retention and superior high-speed maneuverability.

References
1. Memorandum Report on F4U-1 No. 02296
2. Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes
3. TAIC REPORT NO. 17 November 1944
4. TAIC REPORT NO. 38 April 1945
5. 'Vought F4U Corsair' by Martin W. Bowman
6. 'Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea' by Barrett Tillman


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2018)

Interesting new book just released...





​
*The P-39/P-400 was a type that was rejected by the RAF for a lack of high altitude performance. Its nose mounted cannon was often appreciated by the pilots who flew it and though it was pretty much useless above 15,000 feet, was reliable, rugged and eventually much appreciated by the Soviet pilots who flew it. *


*However, against the agile, well armed A6M2/3 Zeros, flown by experienced combat veterans, the Americans in their Airacobras were at a distinct disadvantage when they met in combat over New Guinea. Though claiming a lot of Zeros shot down, American (as well as Japanese) pilots overclaimed by a ratio of about 6.5 to 1. *

*Undoubtedly more planes were lost due to weather, mechanical breakdown, or ground fire than to other aircraft, but this was very much the trend throughout the war on all sides. American pilots soon learned not to dogfight with the Japanese and use their plane's superior diving speed to get out of trouble. Hit and run was the best offense. Meanwhile Japanese pilots used the A6Ms superior maneuverability and climb to ambush and shoot down the P-39s. *

*In this book, the author does the standard format of a history of both types, the training and operations of the pilots involved and then combat operations where they met each other. But in this case, goes into more detail about what it was like to operate these aircraft under the conditions that were prevalent at the time. Both suffered from a lack of supply and primitive conditions, though the Japanese more so. Combat in this theater of operations took its toll on both and such is amply covered. *

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> Corsair was the only fighter to be able to follow Zeke's turn to 150 knots due to it's great combat flap



Yes, the report did state this but with a slight caveat. The Corsair could employ wing flaps at around 175 knots and stay with the Zeke *for about a one-half turn*. Once speed dropped to 150 knots or less this was no longer possible. This is not the same as being able to follow it completely during turning maneuvers at those speeds.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

Double post.


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Yes, the report did state this but with a slight caveat. The Corsair could employ wing flaps at around 175 knots and stay with the Zeke *for about a one-half turn*. Once speed dropped to 150 knots or less this was no longer possible. This is not the same as being able to follow it completely during turning maneuvers at those speeds.


 I wrote it in the same meant as you wrote. I thought '*to *150 knots' was enough. I probably should have used '*until *150 knots'. perhaps my english skill problem?


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> I wrote it in the same meant as you wrote. I thought '*to *150 knots' was enough. I probably should have used '*until *150 knots'. perhaps my english skill problem?



No, your English is excellent. I was more concerned about the supposed ability of the Corsair to turn as well as the Zeke at such low speeds. Staying with it for only a half-turn isn't going to yield you much IMHO....


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> No, your English is excellent. I was more concerned about the supposed ability of the Corsair to turn as well as the Zeke at such low speeds. Staying with it for only a half-turn isn't going to yield you much IMHO....



Let's borrow another book's expression for it, "Time to disengage"

Dogfighting at such a speed was an unfavorable choice for Corsair because speeds below 150 knots were Zeke's homeground. But being able to follow for 0.5 turns means that Corsair could create an opportunity. It usually takes nearly 20 seconds for a World War II fighter to finish a complete 360 degree turn - perhaps the exceptionally good turn fighter like Zeke would be lower. A time close to 10 seconds is a lot of time to say 'only', and enough time to do something for offensive or defensive. It is an characteristic that was sufficiently meaningful. So it was reported that way.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

I think you are misunderstanding why I first posted, but I'm just thankful that we both came to an agreement that the Corsair doesn't have the same turn capability as an A6M5 at such low speeds. If they did they'd be one-for-one on turn radius.

And yes, any further advantage that wing flaps can give you is a good thing. But their use never made the Corsair turn as well as the Zero for any sustained length of time.


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I think you are misunderstanding why I first posted, but I'm just thankful that we both came to an agreement that the Corsair doesn't have the same turn capability as an A6M5 at such low speeds. If they did they'd be one-for-one on turn radius.
> 
> And yes, any further advantage that wing flaps can give you is a good thing. But their use never made the Corsair turn as well as the Zero for any sustained length of time.


Nobody, including myself, claimed that the Corsair had the same sustained turning capacity as Zeke.

There was no first class fighter could stay with Zeke in one-direction sustained turn at 10,000 feet. It's a basic premise. The advantage mentioned above was that the Corsair had the ability to maintain it's opportunity for longer time even at low speed, compared to other fighters in report. It does not mean that Corsair could stay with Zeke in sustained turn.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

You never made the limitations clear in post #511. I just wanted to add that the Corsair could only follow for a half-turn because that's what the report stated.



Dawncaster said:


> Corsair was the only fighter to be able to follow Zeke's turn until 150 knots due to it's great combat flap



From everything that I've read or heard, the F6F could out-turn the F4U at speeds below 200 KIAS (many successful Japanese pilots voted the F6F as their toughest opponent due to it's maneuverability). Combat flaps helped reduce this disparity, but didn't eliminate it entirely.

Because it only had two settings for the flaps - up or down, the report obviously wouldn't mention them in the case of the Hellcat. This certainly doesn't mean that the F6F couldn't also "follow a Zeke's turn" at least partially at those speeds too, _without_ the use of flaps.

The report probably emphasized the value of flaps in turns to remind Corsair pilots of their practical use in combat. But saying the F4U alone had this ability when dogfighting the A6M is leap of logic that one should not make.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 1, 2018)

Gents,

If a lesser turning aircraft can get into what is today called the “control zone”, it should be able to maintain an offensive position and kill a better turning plane. I will also state that the control zone has also been called “saddled up” previously. It is similar to getting an adversary face down, with your knee in his back and your gun against the base of his skull. Stronger, faster, better turning he may be but lost the battle he has.

Yes the Zero could out turn pretty much everything it faced, however that doesn’t make it impervious to another type getting into position and passing on a dose of lead poisoning from a turning fight. Yes the accepted tactic was hit and run because that worked better the majority of the time. The Corsair had an option to stay a little longer if in a favorable position to push the attack.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> You never made the limitations clear in post #511. I just wanted to add that the Corsair could only follow for a half-turn because that's what the report stated.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave your post a positive rating so my intentions weren't to attack your credibility here. I'm very sorry if that's how you feel.



We need to pay attention to the expression of the report.

_"...stay with Zeke 52 for about one-half turn, *OR *until the speed fell to 150 knots."_

For two limitations in reports, there were two questions in my head.

at 10,000 feet, Could Corsair follow the Zeke until 150 knots? - True.
at 10,000 feet, Could Corsair follow the Zeke for only 0.5 turn from 175 knots? - Depend on situation.

So, I tried to write definite thing.

'150 knots' was a definite limitation. But '0.5 turn' was an uncertain limitation, it's based on locked altitude at 10,000 ft and for only one-direction turn. In ACM situation, it may be longer or shorter than 0.5 turn. You seem to want to say that Corsair only 0.5 turn allowed for Zeke in ANY case. But deceleration rate depends on the fighter's maneuver. It's not possible to simply apply '0.5 turn limitation' for various situations in the air combat. whereas, '150 knots limitation' is not affected by such things. So I used it.

You seems define 'follow' as just the same sustained turn. However, even if the turn rate is steadily declining by deceleration, if it can stay with bandit, it's also say 'follow' - until can not do it anymore. However, the term 'stay' was used in the report. So final version that fixed several things is as follows. 'In the report, Corsair was the only fighter to be able to stay with Zeke until 150 knots'

Well, it is an interesting perspective. Thank you for pointing out.



BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> If a lesser turning aircraft can get into what is today called the “control zone”, it should be able to maintain an offensive position and kill a better turning plane. I will also state that the control zone has also been called “saddled up” previously. It is similar to getting an adversary face down, with your knee in his back and your gun against the base of his skull. Stronger, faster, better turning he may be but lost the battle he has.
> 
> ...



Great, it's what I wanted to say.

I hoped that the meaning of being able to follow Zeke at lower speed than other fighter was interpreted like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 1, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> The book shows that Brown did, but that does not mean that most other pilots do. Brown had less than average stature.


By American standards of the time, he was an inch shorter than an average male. 5'8" and 150 was standard at the time, current standard is 5'9-5'10".


> Ronnie Hay, an ace of Royal Marines, praised Corsair's cockpit size.


The Royal Marines had their own aviation arm?

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


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 1, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> By American standards of the time, he was an inch shorter than an average male. 5'8" and 150 was standard at the time, current standard is 5'9-5'10".



Thanks for information!

Did the pilots have a higher average stature than other peoples? Otherwise, I wonder why Eric Brown was famous for having a nickname of 'Winkle' due to his small stature.



Zipper730 said:


> The Royal Marines had their own aviation arm?



A number of Royal Marines were Fleet Air Arm pilots during the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 1, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> Well, it is an interesting perspective. Thank you for pointing out.



You're very welcome my friend.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 1, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> Did the pilots have a higher average stature than other peoples?


It seems that fighter pilots run the height range ordinary human beings fit into. Statistically the average human being would be a good starting point.


> Otherwise, I wonder why Eric Brown was famous for having a nickname of 'Winkle' due to his small stature.


I don't know, but in the past some Navy guys were a bit taller...


> A number of Royal Marines were Fleet Air Arm pilots during the war.


Okay


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 2, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> "It is the opinion of the board that generally the F4U is a better fighter, a better bomber and equally suitable carrier aircraft compared with the F6F. It is strongly recommended that the carrier fighter and or bomber complements be shifted to the F4U type."



Yes the US Navy definitely loved the F4U (and rightfully so), but fearing that there may be problems with it's development asked Grumman for a design as well. Thankfully the "Iron Works" produced an aircraft which at first inception was an outstanding carrier-born fighter, more than capable of providing the needed "muscle" for the US Navy until the F4U had all of it's problems ironed out. Good thing too, because the important battles at Truk, the Marianas, and Leyte Gulf (among others) were all decided by the time the first F4Us were given permanent shipboard duty (seven months after the May '44 report).

During the final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period (573 vs. 1734), allowing the "Cat" to take top honors as America's premier carrier fighter once again.

The F4U had to be content with being the more successful land-based fighter of the two designs.


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 2, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Yes the US Navy definitely loved the F4U (and rightfully so), but fearing that there may be problems with it's development asked Grumman for a design as well. Thankfully the "Iron Works" produced an aircraft which at first inception was an outstanding carrier-born fighter, more than capable of providing the needed "muscle" for the US Navy until the F4U had all of it's problems ironed out. Good thing too, because the important battles at Truk, the Marianas, and Leyte Gulf (among others) were all decided by the time the first F4Us were given permanent shipboard duty (seven months after the May '44 report).
> 
> During the final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period (573 vs. 1734), allowing the "Cat" to take top honors as America's premier carrier fighter once again.
> 
> The F4U had to be content with being the more successful land-based fighter of the two designs.



The funny thing was that Corsair was sent to Grumman and helped by them for solve the problems.

But you missed the fact that Hellcat was given much more opportunities. When quoting NASC, you should pay attention to a few points. It was basically pilot's claims in action reports, so it was very exaggerated. Similarly, the identification was also very inaccurate. It's a good reference, but it is inappropriate to treat the kills and analysis against enemy included in it as fact. Some people enjoy to quote a NASC that has not been cross-validated. But it's already proven that it is very inaccurate in the air combat record by many japanese documents. And mostly, they do not consider the situation while saying the NASC figures.

And I think I saw a post like "F4U did nothing for japanese defeat". So I tried to answer that including it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that Corsair was a far latecomer compared to Hellcat as carrier based fighter. Mostly, Hellcat had an overwhelmingly superior situational advantage compared to Corsair. Many pilots in the Hellcat had experience in combat for various situations and have a good understanding of how to keep their combat effectiveness in tandem with the fleet. Under the proper control of the Murderers' Row, they boasted a tremendous air-to-air combat efficiency. Corsair did not have those situational advantages. In late 1944, when the Navy built a new squadrons for Corsairs(mostly it's VBF), they had less average experience and skills than the most Hellcat squadrons.

"...products of these changes were the following: the creation of new squadron at a time when the original squadrons had four and a half months of training, with the result that this squadron was far behind the other in training and organization; the assignment of many pilots to the new squadron who had never flown F4U type planes, such pilots being in the majority, and of some pilots who had never flown fighter planes of any type before..."

Of course, there were some squadrons included VF-17 veterans from solomon like the VF-84, but overall, less than Hellcat squadron's average. And VF-84 leaves with USS Bunker Hill, which has been attacked by Kamikaze. And despite superior average combat experience, VMF's marine corsair pilots showed even less efficiency than navy corsair pilots of the VF/VBF at carrier duty in 1945.

While the Hellcat squadrons showed excellent radio communication with good efficiency against japanese fighters, but Corsair squadrons, on the other hand, was surprise attacked and defeated by omitting warning to each other.

"It was a complete surprise attack....(ellipsis)....If they had been alerted and joined in the combat, the situation might have changed."

In addition, during this period, against 343 Kokutai, Corsair pilots reported almost all of bandits as Zeke, Tony, Tojo, and Oscar. But they were all N1Ks. NASC conducted an analysis based on the reported identification. Therefore, there is a doubt about the conclusion.

In so many combats, the level of pilot experience, skill and situational advantage was the most telling factor. In 1945, considering that the action sorties for Hellcat was 2.5 times that of Corsair, So it is to say the Corsair did well her duty despite adverse conditions. If Corsair had more time to gain experience, it would have been able to show full potential.

For example, Hellcat did not surpass Corsair during the period until early 1944, even if it is limited to the period of Rabaul Air War(from 12 october 1943 to 19 february 1944). Because the fleet at that time did not offer the advantage to the Hellcat as much as the Battle of the Marianas or later yet and had less opportunity. Against Rabaul Kokutai the cradle of many top IJN aces, the Corsair was best allied fighter againt best japanese pilots and it's cross-validated now. The Japanese losses included the Dai 1 Koku Sentai and Dai 2 Koku Sentai that were dispatched for the operations, and as a result, their carrier air groups were also got accumulated damage.

At the time after the air raids in Rabaul from the late 1943 to the early 1944, Japanese carrier task force almost lost it's own sophisticated aerial operation capability. Due to attrition warfare, their aviation power rebuilding was not done properly. Particularly problematic was the skill and organization of the pilot. planes was able to supplement, but the pilot's proficiency, experience and organization were not. Since then, the Japanese have been almost silent until the US forces invaded Mariana, for rebuild the aviation power.

Eventually, when the US Forces entered Japan's 'Absolute Defense Line' Mariana and the Japanese dismissed the passive respond and decided to fight. but their aviation power was still not restored. Just before the battle, the training time with their carrier was pathetic.(Admiral Ozawa's Dai 1 KoKu Sentai was 6 month, Captain Jojima's Dai 2 KoKu Sentai was 2 month, others were 3 month) Japanese commanders complained about it. They were concerned about both numbers and experience .

"Surprisingly, SOMETIMES, these pilots did not only take off safely, but even landed, in bright sunlight, in calm waters, without any pressure, without bullet flaring and distraction."

After the battle began, the Japanese air power, which had been lost in numbers, performance and experience, was annihilated. When they encountered the enemy, they did not react properly and were scattered and hunted. In a situation where the organizational power had collapsed, it was best to just survive even an ace. It is due to the fact that the attrition warfare made over Guadalcanal, Solomon, and Rabaul drove Japanese aviation power into a brain dead condition in solomon.

Whereas, when the Corsair was first deployed on the battlefield, Japanese aviation power still remain the ability to inflict sharp damage on the US forces. They concentrated on surviving veterans from previous collapses and maintained their organizational strength. As a result of the cross-validation, actually, they were often victorious in the air warfare over Rabaul. During this period, Corsair shot down highst number of Japanese fighter in allied fighters.(also cross-validated) On the other hand, losses were also high. The Corsair's air-to-air losses were already 50% of the total war in 1943, but the number of action sorties were only 6% of the total war. it indicates what Corsair did at solomons. She fought against better organized and more experienced, powerful enemies as allied main fighter. Although direct damage have been given by bombers, it's a worthy achievement as a fighter aircraft.

After Rabaul, Corsair and Hellcat went a different way. Hellcats and it's pilots were become stronger day by day. They were intensively operated and gained a lot of proactive victories as an carrier based fighter. Also they were could supported by fleet tactics and were able to fight in an overwhelming dominance. After sufficient experience of pilots and fleets, their strength was improved dramatically. it demonstrates the advantages of an carrier based fighter. In addition, The conditions to fight within the advantage against weakened enemies, made it easy for inexperienced pilots to gain experience and victory, So Hellcat became 'Ace maker' and best carrier based fighter in pacific, It's also due to its easy flying characteristics and the high survivability.

On the other hand, the Corsair squadrons were tied to the beach, so it did not get the opportunity as the Hellcat squadrons. While Hellcats enjoy the Turkey shot season, the Corsair gains experience and skill as a mostly fighter-bomber.

By 1945, the two models pilots with different experiences had a generally difference. Marine pilots were regarded as CAS specialists and received a high reputation from ground soldiers such as 'Angels in Okinawa', In Iwo Jima, they taught Army P-51 pilots the know-how about CAS. On the other hand, as mentioned above, Hellcat showed a better figures as an carrier based fighter. due to it's far superior experiences for it.

It is not just the difference in carrier capability. Despite Corsair's superior performance, more opportunities and better situations for Hellcat were made that result. So It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation.

Reference
1. Records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
2. IJN Zero Battle Diary #2 - victories and losses for Zero over Rabaul from Aug. to Nov. 1943
3. IJN Zero Battle Diary #3 - victories and losses for Zero over Rabaul from Dec. 1943 to Feb. 1944
4. Genda's Blade - Japan's Squadron of Aces 343 Kokutai
5. J2M Raiden and N1K1/2 Shiden/Shiden-Kai Aces
6. 'Vought F4U Corsair' by Martin W. Bowman
7. 'Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea' by Barrett Tillman


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 2, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> But you missed the fact that Hellcat was given much more opportunities.



And you missed the fact that the Corsair was given much more opportunities in the Solomons as well. Should we diminish the Corsair's accomplishments there, while at the same time make excuses for the Hellcat? Of course not, that would sound like sour grapes. Why use that sort of logic in regards to the Hellcat's wartime successes then?



Dawncaster said:


> It was basically pilot's claims in action reports, so it was very exaggerated.



This would apply just as much to Corsair. And there were many more "claims" made in the action reports than what we see in NACS. The numbers reflect what the squadron intelligence officers and commanders deemed as aircraft actually DESTROYED, and they did their very best to eliminate duplicating and optimistic over-claiming. Did over-claiming make it into these reports? Sure it did! But this sort of thing happened everywhere, in every country, and with every unit. It's disingenuous to single out the US Navy flyers and ignore the others which were guilty of the very same thing.



Dawncaster said:


> Remember that Corsair was a far latecomer compared to Hellcat as carrier based fighter. Mostly Hellcat had an overwhelmingly superior situational advantage compared to Corsair. Many pilots in the Hellcat have experience in combat for various situation and have a good understanding of how to keep their combat effectiveness in tandem with the fleet. Under the proper control of the Murderers' Row they boasted a tremendous air-to-air combat efficiency. Corsair did not have those situational advantages. In late 1944, when the Navy built a new squadrons for Corsairs(mostly it's VBF), they had less average experience and skills than the most Hellcat squadrons.



Agreed. Why not give the Hellcat pilots (and the US Navy for that matter) some kudos for this? Their accomplishments shouldn't be reduced just because the average FITRON was a disciplined and highly organized fighting unit.



Dawncaster said:


> While the Hellcat squadrons showed excellent radio communication with good efficiency against japanese fighters, but Corsair squadrons, on the other hand, was surprise attacked and defeated by omitting warning to each other.



So who should be blamed for this?



Dawncaster said:


> In addition, during this period, against 343 Kokutai, Corsair pilots reported almost all of bandits as Zeke, Tony, Tojo, and Oscar. But they were all N1Ks. NASC conducted an analysis based on the reported identification. Therefore, there is a doubt about the conclusion.


Mis-identification of enemy aircraft was prevalent since the dawn of aviation. It happened with Hellcat units as well.



Dawncaster said:


> So it is to say the Corsair did well her duty despite adverse conditions. If Corsair had more time to gain experience, it would have been able to show full potential.



It was never my intent to claim that your favorite fighter _couldn't_ have accomplished the same record as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities, just that it _didn't_.




Dawncaster said:


> For example, Hellcat did not surpass Corsair during the period until early 1944, even if it is limited to the period of Rabaul Air War(from 12 october 1943 to 19 february 1944). Because the fleet at that time did not offer the advantage to the Hellcat as much as the Battle of the Marianas or later yet and had less opportunity...



The Corsair was in action six months before the arrival of the Hellcat. Do you think that this had something to do with it as well? I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done, but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either....



Dawncaster said:


> It is due to the fact that the attrition warfare made over Guadalcanal, Solomon, and Rabaul drove Japanese aviation power into a brain dead condition in solomon.



According to NACS (are we allowed to quote this source anymore?) the Corsair destroyed 366 aircraft before the Hellcats arrived in the Solomons. With the rampant over-claiming you spoke of earlier, just how much of a dent did this actually make in Japanese air power there? And while I will agree that the Japanese lost much during the preceding year, they were still a very formidable force and were able to cause much havoc for the allies where ever they were found.



Dawncaster said:


> She fought against better organized and more experienced, powerful enemies as allied main fighter. Although direct damage have been given by bombers, it's a worthy achievement as a fighter aircraft.



There were still many competent Japanese fighter units flying well into 1944. Even in 1945 the Japanese were known to inflict heavy losses on well trained allied air units. Hellcat pilots had to deal with them as well.



Dawncaster said:


> So Hellcat became 'Ace maker' and best carrier based fighter in pacific, It's also due to its easy flying characteristics and the high survivability.



Agreed.



Dawncaster said:


> So It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation. .



During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair. That means that the US Navy utilized it more for the missions at hand. And it was able to deliver. That makes it the more successful carrier fighter of the two. Period.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 2, 2018)

jpatrick62 said:


> Well looks like a lot of history buffs have weighed in on this topic, so I'll throw in my .02 for laughs. I tend to trust the tests performed by the various service branches at the time
> since their very lives often depended on accuracy. Of course, we can't rule out inter-service rivalries, so a comprehensive view of all the branches performing tests on the various aircraft tend to give a better all around idea of the historical performance. Naval testing early F4U-1 aircraft versus the P51B seems to indicate the F4U the superior perfomer at lower altitudes, while the P51B was faster at higher alts. Interestingly, in this test the F4U had superior climb throughout the alts. More importantly, the maneuverability of each aircraft was tested and the nod went to the F4U, but again, this was a naval test so some bias might be there.


It must be pointed out that the F4Us in this test included water injection which was just becoming operationally available. The P-51B easily outperformed the non-water F4Us from SL to ceiling in airspeed and climb. The advantage shown in this comparison was real after the advent of the water injected F4Us. However, this disappeared in a flash in only four months when high octane fuel was approved for the P-51B, and again, the P-51B was significantly outperforming the F4U-1W/-1D in airspeed and climb from SL to ceiling.

SL speed P-51B -44 fuel *386 mph*, F4U-1D(water) *364 mph*

Climb P-51B *4430 fpm*, F4U-1D *3750 fpm*

10k speed P-51B *420 mph*, F4U-1D *397 mph*

Climb P=51B *3900* fpm, F4U-1D *3550* fpm

20k speed P-51B *442 mph*, F4U-1D *421 mph*

Climb P-51B *3200 fpm*, F4U-1D *2500 fpm* 



> Now this test was conducted by the Army in August 1943 (Beginning of the USAAF bombing campaign in Europe?) as an evaluation of the P38/P47/P1 versus the rival service's F4U. Again, it's interesting to glean some of the same things as was implied in the Navy test conducted above..



It must be noted here that the P-51 tested was the un-lettered Allison powered P-51, not even the contemporary Allison powered, and improved, P-51A, and yet performed quite admirably. Had the test been done against the contemporary up-engined Allison (-81) in the P-51A, it would have shown that the P-51A would have been faster and climbed better up to almost 20k feet.

The comment that “The F4U-1 is better for close-in fighting” could apply to the Japanese Zero against just about all WW2 front line fighters. It went to no avail against those other, less “better for close-in fighting” aircraft, which swept the Zero from the sky.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 2, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The truth is that in that 3 month period, something like 60 p-39s were lost or written off. in exchange they shot down or destroyed by their own hand less than 10 zeroes and perhaps as many bombers


After the neutralization of the Philippines, approximately 100 AAF pilots, fresh out of flight training, were diverted to the South Pacific. Were these guys thrown in P-39s and then went to face some of the best combat pilots in the world. Could this have a good result? Would the results be better if they were flying F4Fs. The Navy pilots, flying F4Fs, were more experienced than these AAF pilots.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 2, 2018)

Don't know, but there was a LOT of training done in Australia for the new arrivals. moreover, the early ferry flights from Townsville to Moresby via horn Is proving to be a disaster. some sources say as many as 16 P-39s were lost in two separate ferry operations, separated by just a few days, In april. A likely cause for these losses would have to be crew inexperience.....probably having the power setting set incorrectly, and not at max cruise.

As a piece of trivia , 7 of those ditched P-39s were scrounged and repared by the RAAF, entering Australian service in early 1943. There were a few other worn and/or damaged P-39s discarded by 8FG that were gifted to the RAAF also entering Australian service from late 1942. The RAAF copies were not liked at all. They did enter squadron service but were never risked in open combat, for the most part they were kept back in Australia for advanced training and home defences. we preferred the thoroughly ordinary CA-12 and CA-13 over the P-39 for front line operations. Ultimately the majority were returned to the USAAC, generally between July 1943 and about March 1944. For that we received discounts in the delivery of other, better Lend Lease aircraft. The USAAC never used these returned P-39s. On return, they were immediately scrapped, before even the war was over,, which is quite unusual for a wartime aircraft. .


http://www.adf-serials.com.au/research/Airacobra.pdf


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 3, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> And you missed the fact that the Corsair was given much more opportunities in the Solomons as well. Should we diminish the Corsair's accomplishments there, while at the same time make excuses for the Hellcat? Of course not, that would sound like sour grapes. Why use that sort of logic in regards to the Hellcat's wartime successes then?





DarrenW said:


> The Corsair was in action six months before the arrival of the Hellcat. Do you think that this had something to do with it as well? I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done, but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either....





DarrenW said:


> According to NACS (are we allowed to quote this source anymore?) the Corsair destroyed 366 aircraft before the Hellcats arrived in the Solomons. With the rampant over-claiming you spoke of earlier, just how much of a dent did this actually make in Japanese air power there? And while I will agree that the Japanese lost much during the preceding year, they were still a very formidable force and were able to cause much havoc for the allies where ever they were found.





DarrenW said:


> During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair. That means that the US Navy utilized it more for the missions at hand. And it was able to deliver. That makes it the more successful carrier fighter of the two. Period.



You mentioned final year of the war, why bring solomon for it? You wrote 'final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period', So I just explained the situational advantage of F6F during that period. The F6F has already been deployed for a year and has been operating on an aircraft carrier, but the F4U was in the process for placement. 

"replacement corsairs were lacking during this operation, resulting in bringing aboard replacement hellcats instead. this led to a depletion of corsairs and an over complement of hellcats....(ellipsis)....it is recommanded that the corsair replacement program be stepped up" from Records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

Including the difference in average experience described in the last post, It's obviously an advantage for Hellcat, and it's 2.8 times the action sorties reflects that. Your claim is valid only if Hellcat and Corsair are placed under the same situation with deployed same number of airframe. As I pointed, it seems ignore the situation and just focus on the figures. F4U had never been deployed as much as F6F on the carrier deck and also did not have operational experience with carrier. as much as F6F.

In addition, I did not miss early solomon. It clearly outlined the results of the F4U fighting in 1943, including for six months before the arrival of the F6F. It was worse situation than when F6F's arrival, and F4U faced fierce resistance while climbing the Solomon ladder. It was an advancement and it was not an opportunity like the F6F's huntings in 1944~1945. Corsair's air-to-air losses were already 50% of the total war in 1943, but the number of action sorties were only 5% of the total war. before F6F's arrival, It's only ONE percent. The high loss of F4U was due to Solomon's poor ground operationg conditions and enemy pilot's superb combat skill. But You wrote that Corsair had a much more opportunities than Hellcat. It is different from the fact. In fact, F6F already had more opportunities, from October 1943 to February 1944, F6F had about 40% more action sortie than F4U, but F4U shot down more enemy aircrafts and enegaged with more fighter type aircraft against Rabaul Kokutai. And After Rabaul Air War, F6F had a full advantage because it's carrier based fighter and mostly fought against the enemy whose organization had already collapsed - both the US Forces and Japanese Commanders were pointed out. Lastly, during final year of the war, in you mentioned period, the F6F had 2.8 times action sorties with carrier of F4U, which was 27% of total war. 

1% with war of attrition situation at ground vs 27% with full advantage situation with carrier.

It is very inappropriate to say that such situations for both models were the same 'opportunity'.

Overall, there is no doubt that during the war the F6F was a better carrier based fighter in World War II. It's excellent carrier operational capability and sufficient performance were enough to take the opportunity. But for me it seems that you insist that F6F is generally three times better than F4U because it's kill claims were three times better than F4U in same period, with completely ignoring Hellcat's situational advantage - much more deployed when F4U's arrival on carrier deck, 2.8 times action sorties, better experience of carrier operations and also better average experience of pilots. So I wrote 'It is inappropriate to use figures alone without consideration of the situation'. 

....

...

..

.

But when I think about it calmly, it is officially correct. The things I wrote were based on truth, but they are nothing more than a unnecessary comments for other directions. So I 100% admit it. 

'During the same time aboard ship the Hellcat officially destroyed three times the number of aircraft as the Corsair.'

It represents a clear and simple fact.



DarrenW said:


> Agreed. Why not give the Hellcat pilots (and the US Navy for that matter) some kudos for this? Their accomplishments shouldn't be reduced just because the average FITRON was a disciplined and highly organized fighting unit.





DarrenW said:


> So who should be blamed for this?



I am sorry for that. It's not tried to reduce the accomplishments of Hellcat squadrons. What I wanted to say was that better conditions produce better results. The pilot's average experience was an important factor. I wanted to talk about the situational disadvantage of Corsair squadrons.



DarrenW said:


> This would apply just as much to Corsair. And there were many more "claims" made in the action reports than what we see in NACS. The numbers reflect what the squadron intelligence officers and commanders deemed as aircraft actually DESTROYED, and they did their very best to eliminate duplicating and optimistic over-claiming. Did over-claiming make it into these reports? Sure it did! But this sort of thing happened everywhere, in every country, and with every unit. It's disingenuous to single out the US Navy flyers and ignore the others which were guilty of the very same thing.





DarrenW said:


> Mis-identification of enemy aircraft was prevalent since the dawn of aviation. It happened with Hellcat units as well.



By the cross-validation with japanese documents, It has proven to be vague and inadequate to accept as fact for 'confirmed' claims and identification, It is obviously different from the fact. It is only speculation that everything will be the same for all. But YES, if there is no alternative, it is the best choice. And It is also of great value in checking the operational status of the US Navy and Marine during the war. It is inappropriate not to use NACS to research Navy and Marine aviations in PTO. 



DarrenW said:


> There were still many competent Japanese fighter units flying well into 1944. Even in 1945 the Japanese were known to inflict heavy losses on well trained allied air units. Hellcat pilots had to deal with them as well.



I wrote about that F4U proved its value in adverse situations from before F6F's arrival to end of Rabaul Air War at Solomon campaign. it's not for Hellcat's mid 1944 to 1945. Well, for 1945, I have described the information about the less efficiency of the F4U.

And there was no competent Japanese fighter units against TF 58 in 1944. Please teach me if such Japanese squadron exists. After IJN once again lost carrier group aviation power in the Philippine Sea, they gave up rebuilding their carrier group aviation power. The F6F Hellcat, supported by superior fleet tactics, had been able to gain a overwhelming situational advantage mostly. Throughout all countries of World War II, there was no any ground based fighter could surpass the F6F with TF 58, It's bases were always moving for tactical advantage and it's strength was almost invincible. more than 10 aircraft carriers and a nearly thousand shipborne aircrafts - The Murderers' Row had fantastic combat capabilities and it was impossible to surpass them in normal fighting. So Japanese responded in an unusual way like Kamikaze or night attack, and veteran pilots had some success. But after the veterans were exhausted, they just wasted their aircrafts and pilots. some survived veteran pilots had some success in home defense of 1945.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

Trying to return to Hellcat & Corsair performance in Europe.

Their main shortcoming seems to be that they couldn't perform the bomber escort mission due to their range and altitude performance. On the other hand, the comparative tests show that they would have been quite competitive with the FW190 and mildly superior to the Bf109 in many altitude regimes. If one _objectively _looks at the comparative performance of many Allied aircraft in the Pacific, against the IJAAF and IJNAF, vs their performance in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe vs Luftwaffe aircraft, one would conclude that the Hellcat and Corsair would do quite well.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 3, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> You wrote 'final year of the war these carrier-based F4Us ultimately achieved less than a third of the aerial victories awarded to shipboard F6Fs during the same period', So I just explained the situational advantage of F6F during that period. The F6F has already been deployed for a year and has been operating on an aircraft carrier, but the F4U was in the process for placement.



It doesn't matter what the "situational advantage" was, we are discussing which aircraft was the most successful in 1945 during deployment aboard ship. According to the NACS the F6F destroyed three times the number of aircraft with a better kill/loss ratio during the same period (22.1 /1 compared to the Corsair with 16.9/1), that would make it the more successful carrier fighter.



Dawncaster said:


> It is very inappropriate to say that such situations for both models were the same 'opportunity'.



To quote from my earlier post #529:



DarrenW said:


> *It was never my intent to claim that your favorite fighter couldn't have accomplished the same record as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities, just that it didn't*.



I'm not sure how well you have mastered the English language, and I'm not trying to insult you here, but where in the above statement did I say that the Corsair didn't have the capability to achieve the same success as the Hellcat if given the same opportunities?




Dawncaster said:


> In addition, I did not miss early solomon. It clearly outlined the results of the F4U fighting in 1943, including for six months before the arrival of the F6F. It was worse situation than when F6F's arrival, and F4U faced fierce resistance while climbing the Solomon ladder. It was an advancement and it was not an opportunity like the F6F's huntings in 1944~1945........F6F already had more opportunities, from October 1943 to February 1944, F6F had about 40% more action sortie than F4U.....



Here is what I said earlier regarding the situation in the Solomons:



DarrenW said:


> I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity. According to NACS, from October '43 to February '44 Corsair units destroyed 620 aircraft, while both carrier and land-based Hellcats destroyed 564. Congrats to the Corsair pilots for a job well done,* but it's not like the Navy didn't show up during this period either*....



As you can plainly see, I didn't make any excuses for the Hellcat pilots during this period. I actually was in agreement with you when I said "*I never claimed that the Hellcat was "robbed" of having a greater victory tally during this period due to lack of opportunity"*.



Dawncaster said:


> Overall, there is no doubt that during the war the F6F was a better carrier based fighter in World War II. It's excellent carrier operational capability and sufficient performance were enough to take the opportunity......



We are starting to thinking alike here, this is a good sign.... 



Dawncaster said:


> But for me it seems that you insist that F6F is generally three times better than F4U .....



This is truly a misrepresentation of what I have said thus far.



Dawncaster said:


> And there was no competent Japanese fighter units against TF 58 in 1944. Please teach me if such Japanese squadron exists.



To say that there were "no competent Japanese fighter units" opposing the Task Force is purely conjecture on your part. Let's start another thread about this so we can share information about it. This thread is about the European theater so the topic doesn't fit the original discussion here.



Dawncaster said:


> The F6F Hellcat, supported by superior fleet tactics, had been able to gain a overwhelming situational advantage mostly. Throughout all countries of World War II, there was no any ground based fighter could surpass the F6F with TF 58, It's bases were always moving for tactical advantage and it's strength was almost invincible. more than 10 aircraft carriers and a nearly thousand shipborne aircrafts - The Murderers' Row had fantastic combat capabilities and it was impossible to surpass them in normal fighting.



This is a very good. I agree with everything you say here. Let's end this discussion on a postive note and get this thread back on track again, just like swampyankee suggested that we do, ok?

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


----------



## Dawncaster (Aug 3, 2018)

Totally Agreed.

Yes, It's unnecessary comments for other directions, as I worte.

I apologize for My lack of understanding of english.

I never knew that what I wrote would be interpreted as a robbery of opportunity. I just hoped that they would be accepted as having different opportunities. but it was
basically off the subject, as you worte.

Why did I ...

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 3, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Trying to return to Hellcat & Corsair performance in Europe.
> 
> Their main shortcoming seems to be that they couldn't perform the bomber escort mission due to their range and altitude performance. On the other hand, the comparative tests show that they would have been quite competitive with the FW190 and mildly superior to the Bf109 in many altitude regimes. If one _objectively _looks at the comparative performance of many Allied aircraft in the Pacific, against the IJAAF and IJNAF, vs their performance in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe vs Luftwaffe aircraft, one would conclude that the Hellcat and Corsair would do quite well.



I would also add that with the probable use of 150 octane fuel the two fighters would have a more competitive performance below critical altitude than is often stated in common literature.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 3, 2018)

Dawncaster said:


> Totally Agreed.
> 
> Yes, It's unnecessary comments for other directions, as I worte.
> 
> ...


It's ok, even two people with English as their native tongue can be misunderstood when it's in written form. Obviously you are very well educated on the subject and are quite passionate about the Corsair, just as I am about the Hellcat. I think we both want to get the facts straight but sometimes it's hard when the only way we have to express ourselves is with the use of words.

I have enjoyed your input immensely thus far and look forward to much more from you in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 3, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Don't know, but there was a LOT of training done in Australia for the new arrivals. moreover, the early ferry flights from Townsville to Moresby via horn Is proving to be a disaster. some sources say as many as 16 P-39s were lost in two separate ferry operations, separated by just a few days, In april. A likely cause for these losses would have to be crew inexperience.....probably having the power setting set incorrectly, and not at max cruise.
> 
> As a piece of trivia , 7 of those ditched P-39s were scrounged and repared by the RAAF, entering Australian service in early 1943. There were a few other worn and/or damaged P-39s discarded by 8FG that were gifted to the RAAF also entering Australian service from late 1942. The RAAF copies were not liked at all. They did enter squadron service but were never risked in open combat, for the most part they were kept back in Australia for advanced training and home defences. we preferred the thoroughly ordinary CA-12 and CA-13 over the P-39 for front line operations. Ultimately the majority were returned to the USAAC, generally between July 1943 and about March 1944. For that we received discounts in the delivery of other, better Lend Lease aircraft. The USAAC never used these returned P-39s. On return, they were immediately scrapped, before even the war was over,, which is quite unusual for a wartime aircraft. .
> 
> ...


The ferry losses from Townsville to Moresby were blamed on weather. The missions were flown and weather closed in causing the losses. A bit more experience or training and they probably would have waited a bit, but the planes were desperately needed at Moresby.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2018)

You can't compare the F4U to the P-51 because the Corsair can fly over-land missions from land bases, but the P-51 was not and is not a Naval fighter. The F4U-4 outperforms the P-51D, but not by a landslide. The F4U-1 outperforms the Allison P-51, but the P-51B outperforms the F4U-1. This is a bit pointless since the P-51 is not a carrier aircraft.

Better to compare naval vs naval and AF vs AF aircraft overall, don't you think? Just saying, not arguing. Discussions are always fun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 8, 2018)

Here is one, with arrestor hook and all!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 8, 2018)

Mustang! - Documents

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 8, 2018)

The P-51 in order to land on a carrier required quite some changes including the removal of the center-tank, and it was not easy to bring aboard ship


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 8, 2018)

As mentioned in the link I posted


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 8, 2018)

I wonder how all the required modifications that made the P-51 "carrier ready" affected it's overall flight performance. Is there any period documentation concerning this?

That exposed tail hook looks somewhat drag envoking.....


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 8, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I wonder how all the required modifications that made the P-51 "carrier ready" affected it's overall flight performance. Is there any period documentation concerning this?
> 
> That exposed tail hook looks somewhat drag envoking.....




Probably not a problem for experimental landing trials. 

I wonder what other mods would be needed to make it a realistic carrier-based aircraft. I'm suspecting stronger landing gear, hard points for catapulting (possibly not necessary for use of the aircraft on larger carriers), and wing folding, possibly better flaps, improvements in low-speed stability (the USAAF would accept lower stability during approach than would the USN)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> ...hard points for catapulting (possibly not necessary for use of the aircraft on larger carriers)....



You would definitely want a catapult if you were near the front of a large strike force launching from an Essex class carrier too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 8, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I wonder how all the required modifications that made the P-51 "carrier ready" affected it's overall flight performance. Is there any period documentation concerning this?


This would be a good link: Mustang! - Documents

The baseline aircraft was the P-51D-5NA, and was modified in the following way

Basic fuselage was strengthened to withstand repetitive stress of hard landings and catapult-launches. These changes included
Reinforced bulkhead to mount the tail-hook
Strengthening of the mid-lower fuselage to mount the catapult-hook

Addition of improved shock-absorbers (possibly stronger landing-gear struts) and higher pressure tires
Dorsal-root fillet added to improve directional stability: The earliest P-51D's lacked this feature, but it was added fairly soon on and backfitted
The reinforcements did result in the removal of the center fuel-tank and cost 85 gallons of fuel capacity (which contributed to the long-range of the P-51), though it might have been just as well (the aircraft's CG was very far aft), though there was probably some weight addition that occurred to do this, it seemed to be more volume consuming than weight adding. There may have been a plan to add bigger drop-tanks as a way to compensate a bit.

From a performance standpoint

The aircraft was a good performer in terms of cruise and top-speed as it was streamlined, had a good radiator, good engine power across a wide-range of altitude owing to the twin-stage supercharger and carburetor elbow. While it was probably a little bit heavier than a stock P-51D because of the reinforcements to the airframe, it's not clear how much of a difference it made in terms of takeoff run, climb-rate, and top-speed.
It's stall speed was said to be a bit on the high-side, and the margin between normal landing-speed and the maximum speed for engaging the net was said to be dangerously close. It required an unusual degree of exactitude in approaches.
The combination of engine power, directional-stability, low-speed approaches made it possible for loss of control in the event of abrupt power application (rolls, torque-stalls),
From a structural standpoint

Landing attitude had to be very precisely controlled or you could risk breaking the aircraft in half
From human factors, the plane was very good much like the regular P-51 and, while it's visibility over the nose was probably far from perfect, it was better than the F4U, though not the F6F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 8, 2018)

The extra tank caused flight restrictions for the P-51 til over half the capacity of the tank was consumed. Good idea to remove the tank.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> This would be a good link: Mustang! - Documents
> 
> The baseline aircraft was the P-51D-5NA, and was modified in the following way
> 
> ...



LMAO!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 8, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO!!!!!!


What's so funny?


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> From human factors, the plane was very good much like the regular P-51 and, while it's visibility over the nose was probably far from perfect, it was better than the F4U,* and possibly F6F*.



From what I can tell it would be hard to beat the view perched way up high and forward in a F6F, although the test pilot of the navalized Mustang was of a somewhat different opinion. Seeing that I fly a Hellcat in a flight sim my opinion is obviously the more correct. 

No brainer concerning the Corsair though.....


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What's so funny?



Perhaps because you posted a link fubar had posted only a few posts above yours, and then proceeded to summarise what the link said.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 9, 2018)

That is actually pretty funny

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 11, 2018)

The F6F has superb over the nose visibility. You can see the runway when in 3-point attitude.

The P-51 does NOT have good over the nose visibility, but is better than the Corsair due to being more narrow.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> The F6F has superb over the nose visibility. You can see the runway when in 3-point attitude.
> 
> The P-51 does NOT have good over the nose visibility, but is better than the Corsair due to being more narrow.



Grumman strategically placed the engine mounts canted to one side (instead of being at conventional right angles to the longitudinal axis). This gives a narrower front, aiding visibility forward and down. Lt Cdr A.M. Jackson of BuAer's fighter design desk (quoted as saying_ "you can't hit 'em if you can't see 'em"_) suggested that the original F6F cowling also be trimmed down for better aerial gunnery. This gave the aircraft a more flat-sided cowling when compared to the F4U and P-47, and as a result better overall forward visibility.

In addition to this, the nose of the aircraft sloped downwards from the windscreen (in sharp contrast to the practically level engine cowling of the P-51), which further improved forward vision in all flight attitudes. The higher placement and more forward position of the Hellcat's cockpit also gave the pilot a much steeper angle of view than with the Mustang (roughly 15 degrees greater), allowing him better vision over the nose and leading edge of the wing. This feature obviously aided in carrier landings, and was a trademark of Grumman fighters since the very beginning (giving them all a rather stout appearance as a result).


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Grumman strategically placed the engine mounts canted to one side (instead of being at conventional right angles to the longitudinal axis). This gives a narrower front, aiding visibility forward and down.
> .



You might want to check the geometry on that. The engine was not a flat disc of zero depth. It was a two row radial 




angling it a few degrees one way or the other is going to move the front cylinders one way and the rear cylinders the other assuming you pivot the engine in the middle. You are trying to angle a short cylinder shape, Diameter over the rocker boxes and depth/height form the front of the front cylinders to rear of the rear cylinders. 

1 1/2 degrees of angle to the side is going to nothing for vision down and past the the engine.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 1 1/2 degrees of angle to the side is going to nothing for vision down and past the the engine.



Hmm I don't know SR6, I'm quoting a December 1943 Popular Science article about the F6F where C. B. Colby talked with the Grumman design team about the new fighter, but things may have been exaggerated a bit during the interview I suppose. I do believe however that the original intent was to improve forward visibility. If I come across anything that explains it better I'll let you know....


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2018)

Well, try it. take a couple of tuna fish cans (or short round cat food cans/roll of tape), stack them (or just use one) hold it around a foot from your eye and turn it slightly, do you see more or less past the can? 

The downward tilt I can understand (although there may have been other reasons?) but the sideways cant for better visibility?


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> (or *short round* cat food cans/roll of tape)



Sorry, couldn't resist!

And I get your point totally. You seem to have an aptitude for all things mechanical (far better than me) and the description I gave didn't wash well with you, which is totally understandable. I imagine that there is much more to this concept than meets the eye and as such the author may have generalized Grumman's design intentions a bit, which can cause misunderstandings when analyzed on a deeper level than first intended (Popular Science is consumed by the masses after all).

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 12, 2018)

Gents,

I was under the impression that the F8F Bearcat had its engine canted a few degrees down to help with what I do not know. Any validity in that statement from what you have come across?

Also think the F6F, more so in the F8F, and the Hawker Seafury the “hump backed” layout is more prevalent.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Aug 12, 2018)

Canted down to achieve the desired thrust axis ?

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 12, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I was under the impression that the F8F Bearcat had its engine canted a few degrees down to help with what I do not know. Any validity in that statement from what you have come across?
> 
> ...





Airframes said:


> Canted down to achieve the desired thrust axis ?



Can't speak for Bearcat but the Hellcat had a negative thrust line so the rather large wing could be mounted at the minimum angle of incidence in order to reduce drag in level flight. That's what gave the aircraft its distinctive tail down flight attitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mcoffee (Aug 13, 2018)

Down thrust is used to help mitigate the pitch excursions that occur with changes in power settings. Likewise, side thrust is used to help mitigate the effects of asymmetrical thrust inherent in propeller driven aircraft at high angles of attack. Neither are about visibility over the nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Can't speak for Bearcat but the Hellcat had a negative thrust line so the rather large wing could be mounted at the minimum angle of incidence in order to reduce drag in level flight. That's what gave the aircraft its distinctive tail down flight attitude.


I thought the thrust line was pointed *up* so that it'd hit the wing at an angle of attack that would increase the lift of the wing, and lower the AoA for flight?


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2018)

The down thrust is there only to avoid a hard nose-up pitching moment upon application of a significant amount of power. That's ALL it is there for. The last thing you need on a missed approach in bad is to add power, nose up, and stall.


----------



## YF12A (Aug 21, 2018)

Speaking of thrust line reminds me of a story told to me by my Father. In the '40's when he was working for American Overseas Airlines, they had one Lockheed Constellation that from day one from Lockheed always required a fixed amount of rudder trim, no matter what. No one could figure it out. My Dad thought about this and figured they needed to "baseline" the entire plane to make sure everything was straight. He convinced his manager they needed an expensive surveyors measuring device, I don't know what it was, and started measuring the plane. First, the fuselage from the nose through the middle rudder. Then the left and right rudders to be sure they were in parallel. Then they started with the No. 1 engine. When they got to No. 3 engine, the problem was found. That engine mount had been made crooked. It was off laterally by enough to cause the problem, but was not noticeable visually. Lockheed got a call, a new mount was sent, problem solved. And yes, my Dad made sure they checked No. 4 as well!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 22, 2018)

One thing I believe hasn't been mentioned here so far is that if the F4U or F6F were de-navalized while serving in the ETO they would probably gain a minimum of about 8 mph at critical altitude by fairing over the tail hook and wing irregularities associated with the folding wings, as well as the removal of catapult attachments (the overall reduction in weight due to these modifications would probably have some small effect on level speed but not nearly as much as the added streamlining). And while this may seem like a relative miniscule gain in performance, every bit of an improvement surely helps. Add in the use of 150 octane fuel and there is the possibility for decent performance gains up the their respective critical altitudes.

The last page of this document details the expected improvements in level speed by incorporating these physical changes (which incidentally closely mirrors the findings in NACA document L5A30):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-02334.pdf

According to Bill (drgondog) climb should likewise improve by 300+ fpm and range would improve slightly without the added weight of the hook and wing fold structures:

Could the later model P47 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 22, 2018)

From Wiki;

"
Since Corsairs were being operated from shore bases, while still awaiting approval for U.S. carrier operations, *965 FG-1As were built as "land planes"* without their hydraulic wing folding mechanisms, hoping to improve performance by reducing aircraft weight, with the added benefit of minimizing complexity.[53][54] (These Corsairs’ wings could still be manually folded.[55])

A second option was to remove the folding mechanism in the field using a kit, which could be done for Vought and Brewster Corsairs as well. On 6 December 1943, the Bureau of Aeronautics issued guidance on weight-reduction measures for the F4U-1, FG-1, and F3A. Corsair squadrons operating from land bases were authorized to remove catapult hooks, arresting hooks, and associated equipment, which* eliminated 48 pounds *of unnecessary weight"

Bolding by me. Granted the wings could still fold but redesigning the wing and taking out the hinges was probably lot of work for little benefit.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Corsair squadrons operating from land bases were authorized to remove catapult hooks, arresting hooks, and associated equipment, which* eliminated 48 pounds *of unnecessary weight"



Sounds about right. America's Hundred Thousand puts the weight of arresting gear used by the F6F between 35.7 and 37.4lbs (depending on whether it's a -5 or -3 model). But reading posts to similar threads on the subject leads one to believe that de-navalizing an aircraft could yield hundreds of pounds in weight saving measures. Not knowing the reduction that can be realized by removing the wing folding mechanisms and it's associated hardware, I'm under the impression that much of this extra weight inherent in carrier planes can be attributed to the strengthening of the overall airframe to withstand the daily abuse of carrier operations. That's why just adding a hook to a land-based plane and calling it good is normally never enough to make it a viable shipboard machine. And of course it wouldn't be feasible nor prudent to make the airplane less structurally strong in the hopes of improving it's performance.

However, wind tunnel tests have shown that by eliminating gaps and irregularities associated with folding wings and fairing over tail hook assemblies, level speed can improve enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor (especially when added to other drag reducing measures).


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2018)

Not sure why anyone would want de-navalize a Corsair or a Hellcat since they are Navy fighters and would retain the wing fold mechanism, the heavier construction of naval aircraft and other "Navy" items. The USAAF was not "hard up" for fighters and any Corsair of Hellcat presence in the ETO would be from a Navy source.

That's in the real world, not in a "what if."

If it just specualtion, you could look at several civilian Corsairs or Hellcats of taoday. Some have been de-navalized to an extent, and most have had armor remove as well as guns and unnecessary hardware items that drop things from wings or belly. You can't do that today as a civilian.


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> Not sure why anyone would want de-navalize a Corsair or a Hellcat...



This is just a fun exercise, and one that we often see on the forum. I for one love carrier planes so you won't get me to agree to any changes. 

One the other hand, numerous Marine Corps Corsairs had their tail hook assemblies removed and faired over because the aircraft were land based and did not require the added weight and drag associated with the equipment. SR6 mentioned that almost a 1,000 "land based" FG-1s were built and wing modification kits were offered in the field as well, so it wasn't just a fantasy after all.....


----------



## GregP (Aug 22, 2018)

The Corsair was originally land-based in US service, and some stayed that way. But they all had Naval construction and folding wings except the original FG-1s from Goodyear that did not have folding wings. The F2G-1 had manual wing fold and the F2G-2 had hydraulic wing fold. Tail hooks could be added or removed on all by maintenance personnel, but major structure remained Naval in construction.

Just for fun things ARE fun. I was just wondering.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> The Chance-Cought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess.


Plus some figures that show it's turning circle as being crap (Americas Hundred Thousand) from what I remember seemed to have erroneously listed the turn rate of the F4U-1 as being with it's flaps up and the P-51 with it's flaps down to some degree.

If I recall 

 drgondog
had listed the turning rate of the F4U as being consistently better than the P-51. The rate of roll I don't know how they compare, but it's possible that the fact that the F4U-1 with it's very high g-tolerances compared to even the P-51, and the fact that it's flaps could be used to an extent in tightening up turns, it seems like it would be better at turning than most would expect.

Now the F6F also has extreme g-load figures and can utilize its flaps in turns. The turning circle of the aircraft is quite good flaps-up, and with plain flaps (versus the F4F's split-flaps), provide a big difference in rate of turn when extended (and in doing so, provided a greater range of speeds where it could actually out-maneuver an A6M), and would have made it a formidable opponent to tangle with (neither the Me-109 and Fw-190 couldn't turn as good).

It's roll rate wasn't as good as the F4U, and was similar to the F4F, which wasn't all that good. With that said, consider the following

Captain Eric Brown stated that the F4F's roll-rate was comparable to either the Hurricane or Sea Hurricane (I forgot which), but required more muscle power to make it roll in the desired fashion, but if your arms were strong enough, you were good.
The Hawker Hurricane's roll-rate varied wildly based on certain variables including the way the aileron was rigged, and the type of lubrication involved. When all worked well, it rolled quite smartly. When rigged badly, it rolled poorly.
The Hurricane and Sea Hurricane might not have had the same rate of roll. Remember, carrier suitability requires good roll-control down to very low speeds, which could make the ailerons stiffer at higher speeds.
The way people compute roll-rate figures don't necessarily factor in differences from rolling to the left or right (the figures were sometimes averaged), the amount of time it takes to reach full roll rate (sometimes averaging it).



> Grumman's chief test pilot, Corky Meyer, has said in print (Flight Journal) that the Hellcat and Corsair flew side by side when at the same power levels when HE tested it except in the main stage (where it was 5 - 6 mph slower since the Hellcat didn't use ram air to avoid carburetor icing, and the same speed in low or high blower stages), and surmised the difference in airspeed was pitot tube placement on the Corsair since they verified the speed of the Hellcat with rigorous means. He says the Corsair was "optimistic" on airspeed and the Hellcat wasn't.


The F6F-5 might have been the aircraft noted as it was a bit faster than the F6F-3, and if paired with an earlier F4U-1 (top speed 395 mph), and possibly even the first WEP versions (417 mph), it would make quite a bit of sense.



DarrenW said:


> One thing I believe hasn't been mentioned here so far is that if the F4U or F6F were de-navalized while serving in the ETO they would probably gain a minimum of about 8 mph at critical altitude by fairing over the tail hook and wing irregularities associated with the folding wings, as well as the removal of catapult attachments


That would put the F6F-3 to 387 mph and -5 to 399 mph.


> Add in the use of 150 octane fuel and there is the possibility for decent performance gains up the their respective critical altitudes.


How much of a benefit do you think would have came out of that?


> According to Bill (drgondog) climb should likewise improve by 300+ fpm and range would improve slightly


The climb figures seemed all over the place without the F6F-3 and -5. Some figures were around 2900 others were around 3650. That gives me anything from 3200-3950 fpm.



Shortround6 said:


> Since Corsairs were being operated from shore bases, while still awaiting approval for U.S. carrier operations, *965 FG-1As were built as "land planes"* without their hydraulic wing folding mechanisms


Interesting...


> Granted the wings could still fold but redesigning the wing and taking out the hinges was probably lot of work for little benefit.


How much weight would be trimmed off? Pure curiosity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 22, 2018)

Gents,

A little information on what flaps do for your turn. I’m not Drgondog but will give it a shot.

First there are four ways in which a turn is measured or discussed, those being instantaneous / sustained and rate / radius. When an aircraft starts a max performance turn at high speed the pilot pulls to the aircrafts G limit. Pulling to the G limit results in a turn of a X degrees per second. As the aircraft slows it gets to what today is called corner velocity. That is the speed at which max degrees per second is obtained, also coincidentally enough it’s the speed at which an abrupt full aft stick will not result in an over G. Below this speed if airspeed is continued to be bled off (energy depleting) then The degrees per second stay about the same up to a certain point then start to slack off. At the start of this turn his circle is large and shrinks as his speed burns off. Eventually it stops shrinking and starts growing again, think I can no longer turn hard or I will fall out of the sky. So I have to relax back pressure on the stick and roll out some, hence the rate of turn goes down and the radius goes up. Again this is a max performance energy depleting turn, AKA a radius fight.

Next is the hard turn which is energy sustaining. A sustained hard turn is measured both by degrees per second and turn circle size. Degrees are less per second than the max performance turn but over time will turn more degrees sense he never gets so slow he will fall out of the sky. Also radius is larger. This is called a rate fight in today’s parlance. 

With this in mind the former aircraft, in the max performance turn, goes after a better turning aircraft. As he maneuveres he burns energy but needs a little better turn in order to get or keep his nose out in lead ( in order to gun his opponent). *He is bleeding energy and introduces flaps or greater drag in order to keep or maybe increase his turn rate / decrease his turn radius.* This last sentence is the key to this entire conversation. Those flaps will tighten his turn, decrease his radius but only for a VERY short time as they are more DRAG. His motor did not get more powerful when he selected his maneuvering flaps.

They are not the end all be all, but are just another tool in the pilots tool box to be used only in certain situations.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> How much of a benefit do you think would have came out of that?



Basically a 10-15 mph increase in speeds below critical altitude could be realized in each blower stage with the use of 44-1 fuel, however these particular altitudes will be lower than when utilizing the normal 130 octane fuel. Overall maximum speed previously obtained at original critical altitudes would not be very different. Climb performance should improve as well under the same circumstances.

In other words, low to medium altitude performance would improve but there would be negligible differences at altitudes above 18kft.


----------



## GregP (Aug 23, 2018)

Zipper, the F6F was designed without ram air to the carburetor on purpose, and Grumman would not add ram air under any circumstances. The reason was to preclude carburetor icing at low speeds around the carrier. Many Corsair went in due to carb ice in the circuit, but no Hellcats did. They had non-combat operational losses, to be sure, but not due to carb ice.

The last Hellcat prototypes, two XF6F-6s, were good for 417 mph, but the war ended and F8F Bearcat was on the way, so they weren't proceeded with.

The climb figures are not really all over the place. The 3,650 is at WEP and the 2,900 was a normal rated power. In fact, ALL the highest numbers for maximum performance of any piston aircraft were at WER, if it had one, or max power. In reality, most never got anywhere near the max numbers unless diving or running for their life. 

You need to go do some research on the weight saving. Look up a standard incremental weight table for any Corsair and see if you can find it.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 23, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Basically a 10-15 mph increase in speeds below critical altitude could be realized in each blower stage with the use of 44-1 fuel


With or without the modifications described?


> Overall maximum speed previously obtained at original critical altitudes would not be very different.


I thought the critical altitude was dictated by the manifold pressure limits? I figure if the manifold pressure limits were raised (high octane), the pressure limit would go up throughout the whole envelope until the blower could not produce enough boost to produce the new manifold pressure?


> Climb performance should improve as well under the same circumstances.


By how much would you guess just on 44-1 fuel, and with the other mods?



GregP said:


> Zipper, the F6F was designed without ram air to the carburetor on purpose


I understood that


> Many Corsair went in due to carb ice in the circuit, but no Hellcats did.


Didn't know that. I'm curious if they had carburetor heat in either design?


> The last Hellcat prototypes, two XF6F-6s, were good for 417 mph, but the war ended and F8F Bearcat was on the way, so they weren't proceeded with.


The F8F was a better choice. The -1 had truly breathtaking climb figures and better radius than the F8F-2 when configured for escort; the -2 was faster and longer legged on internal fuel.


> The climb figures are not really all over the place. The 3,650 is at WEP and the 2,900 was a normal rated power.


The 3650 figures seems to be a military power setting, though there is another figure listing 3200 at military power.


> You need to go do some research on the weight saving. Look up a standard incremental weight table for any Corsair and see if you can find it.


You mean the listing of the weight of all the components?


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> With or without the modifications described?



This would be the probable performance boost without any airframe modifications.



Zipper730 said:


> I thought the critical altitude was dictated by the manifold pressure limits? I figure if the manifold pressure limits were raised (high octane), the pressure limit would go up throughout the whole envelope until the blower could not produce enough boost to produce the new manifold pressure?



We'll probably need someone with a better understanding of superchargers to explain the science behind this to you. I'm going by aircraft performance charts that show critical altitudes (aka, full throttle height) dropping as maximum manifold pressures increase. For instance, a Hellcat running at 52" Hg ("military power") reaches critical altitude in high blower at around 23,000ft, but with 60" Hg ("war emergency power" or WEP) it drops to around 18,500ft. Using 150 octane fuel could conceivably boost manifold pressures upwards to 70" Hg, so I would expect another drop in critical altitude to occur then as well.



Zipper730 said:


> By how much would you guess just on 44-1 fuel, and with the other mods?



From what I've seen after examining countless performance charts I would expect about a 500fpm increase in ROC if boost pressures were increased from 60" to 70" Hg. Not really sure about how much "de-navalizing" an aircraft would improve climb as I don't have any good figures on the total weight that all these modifications would remove. I also haven't seen any real world data on an actual airplane showing test results both with and without the mods. Drgondog said a 300+ fpm increase could occur but that was only his best estimate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 24, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> This would be the probable performance boost without any airframe modifications.


Okay


> We'll probably need someone with a better understanding of superchargers to explain the science behind this to you.


I know that critical altitudes are lower for higher power settings. I was thinking about detonation, which occurs as a function of manifold pressure (and resulting heat): I figured if the manifold pressure could get higher without detonation...


> From what I've seen after examining countless performance charts I would expect about a 500fpm increase in ROC if boost pressures were increased from 60" to 70" Hg.


That's pretty good, so with a climb rate of 2900 feet per minute, you'd now see 3400, and for 3200, you'd now get to 3700, and for 3650, you would be able to get up to around 4150?


> Not really sure about how much "de-navalizing" an aircraft would improve climb as I don't have any good figures on the total weight that all these modifications would remove. I also haven't seen any real world data on an actual airplane showing test results both with and without the mods. Drgondog said a 300+ fpm increase could occur


Are those figures addable to each other? For example 500 fpm from 44-1 fuel; 300 fpm for stripping down so 300+500 = 800? Or is there some other variable?


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 24, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I know that critical altitudes are lower for higher power settings. I was thinking about detonation, which occurs as a function of manifold pressure (and resulting heat): I figured if the *manifold pressure could get higher without detonation*...



Yes, what you said in bold is the key to it. The "powers to be" decide on the safe operating limits of a particular engine while using a certain type of fuel or an emergency boost system (ADI, MW50, GM1...what have you). When you lower the chances of detonation (in this example by raising the octane rating) there's less chance of damage to the engine, so it can be safely boosted to higher manifold pressure levels which in turn gives increased output power safely and reliably. The same engine _without_ higher octane fuel or an emergency boost system could still operate at the new authorized boost levels but major damage will most likely occur.



Zipper730 said:


> That's pretty good, so with a climb rate of 2900 feet per minute, you'd now see 3400, and for 3200, you'd now get to 3700, and for 3650, you would be able to get up to around 4150?



Actually I was talking about a 10" Hg increase from a combat power setting (60" to 70" Hg), which might yield about a 3,700-3,800fpm climb rate at sea level. Not too shabby.



Zipper730 said:


> Are those figures addable to each other? For example 500 fpm from 44-1 fuel; 300 fpm for stripping down so 300+500 = 800? Or is there some other variable?



Best if this is done by an using an example. If we start with a standard Corsair that can climb at 3,200fpm in combat power, converting it to a "land-based" version might allow for a climb rate of 3,500fpm (if we use the estimated 300fpm increase supplied by drgondog). By running 44-1 fuel in this same converted aircraft the climb rate may theoretically reach 4,000fpm.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2018)

I think both the F6F and F4U could have been formidable at lower altitudes and if they were well flown, but they would be handicapped at some of the high altitude combat arenas of Europe. Both the F6F and F4U-1/1D engines began to loose power precipitously above 20-24k ft. whereas the P-51 starts losing significant power at 30k and, of course, the P-47 engine was flat rated up to 28-33k ft. The F4U-4 has much better high altitude performance but did not become operational until around VE day.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 26, 2018)

davparlr said:


> I think both the F6F and F4U could have been formidable at lower altitudes...



Yep, and if they were able to use 150 octane fuel to allow 70" Hg of manifold pressure the critical altitude in high blower would theoretically lower even further to around 13-14,000ft, down from 18-20,000ft while operating at 60" Hg. This would undoubtedly enhance their already excellent low to medium altitude fighting ability.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 15, 2018)

YF12A said:


> He convinced his manager they needed an expensive surveyors measuring device, I don't know what it was, and started measuring the plane.


I think you might be thinking of a theodolite...



DarrenW said:


> From what I can tell it would be hard to beat the view perched way up high and forward in a F6F


Yeah, I amended that in the earlier post.



GregP said:


> If it just specualtion, you could look at several civilian Corsairs or Hellcats of taoday. Some have been de-navalized to an extent, and most have had armor remove as well as guns and unnecessary hardware items that drop things from wings or belly. You can't do that today as a civilian.


A person's not allowed to modify a former military aircraft as a racer?


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 15, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> If a lesser turning aircraft can get into what is today called the “control zone”


I'm surprised they don't just call it the killing zone 


> the Zero could out turn pretty much everything it faced, however that doesn’t make it impervious to another type getting into position and passing on a dose of lead poisoning from a turning fight.


Yeah, it kind of reminds me of a time where I was playing basketball (I'm not that good at it), and was able to block a guy's shot despite him being taller than me and able to jump higher than I could (I was already in the air as he just started to leave the ground -- popped the ball right out his hand).


> First there are four ways in which a turn is measured or discussed, those being instantaneous / sustained and rate / radius. When an aircraft starts a max performance turn at high speed the pilot pulls to the aircrafts G limit. Pulling to the G limit results in a turn of a X degrees per second. As the aircraft slows it gets to what today is called corner velocity. That is the speed at which max degrees per second is obtained, also coincidentally enough it’s the speed at which an abrupt full aft stick will not result in an over G.


Yeah, it's the lowest speed where enough lift exists to pull the maximum rated g-load without stalling the aircraft.


> Below this speed if airspeed is continued to be bled off (energy depleting) then The degrees per second stay about the same up to a certain point then start to slack off.


G-load drops, lower speed still means the turning circle remains tight at first until the lift available to make it turn reach such a low level that you're barely able to turn at all?


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 15, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm surprised they don't just call it the killing zone
> Yeah, it kind of reminds me of a time where I was playing basketball (I'm not that good at it), and was able to block a guy's shot despite him being taller than me and able to jump higher than I could (I was already in the air as he just started to leave the ground -- popped the ball right out his hand).
> Yeah, it's the lowest speed where enough lift exists to pull the maximum rated g-load without stalling the aircraft.
> G-load drops, lower speed still means the turning circle remains tight at first until the lift available to make it turn reach such a low level that you're barely able to turn at all?



Zipper,

The control zone was previously known as the riding position do to the fact you have control over or are “riding “, like a horse, your opponent. Just because you have maneuvered into the control zone does not guarantee you a kill. Employing a gun against a skilled opponent is not easy by any means. Against other 4th generation fighters I am / was confident I could survive until the floor became a factor. And this was against guys who were very good, and had almost instantaneous feedback on whether their shots were good enough for a kill. There are levels to a BFM engagement that would literally take guys years to get to a doctorate level of understanding. Realize I boil down what I share in here, but there are volumes of background data that goes with it that doesn’t get passed. Also realize I censor what I say as well in order not to share something that could be used against us or our allies.

To answer your question yes. Imagine an airplane about 5 knots above the stall. He is able to turn but using only a few degrees of bank. His turn radius would be large, and his rate low. Add more speed and radius continues to decrease and rate continues to rise. Continue this trend and at some point you will get to his min radius. Above that speed his turn circle will start to INCREASE in size, and will continue to do so up to his max speed. Rate will continue to increase until at some speed it reverses to decrease. 

The above info covers the raw data that governs a dogfight / BFM (basic fighter maneuver) fight. Understanding those facts, how your and your opponents aircraft operate with regards to those rules, where you are in relationship to each other and the ground, all coalesce into determining the winner. Luck is always a factor be it good or bad.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 15, 2018)

GregP said:


> Grumman's chief test pilot, Corky Meyer, has said in print (Flight Journal) that the Hellcat and Corsair flew side by side when at the same power levels when HE tested it except in the main stage (where it was 5 - 6 mph slower since the Hellcat didn't use ram air to avoid carburetor icing
> . . .
> the F6F was designed without ram air to the carburetor on purpose, and Grumman would not add ram air under any circumstances.


Though I figure this will probably sound stupid, I'm curious why ram air would cause carburetor icing? I ask because I'd have figured that an increase in ram compression would cause a slight increase in pressure (and temperature on that note).

And from a pure hypothetical "what if" performance benefit estimate (as this thread is sort of based on how much extra performance could be squeezed out of an F6F and F4U if they were used in the ETO, were de-navalized, used 44-1 fuel, etc), I'm curious if this would have required a subtle difference or a massive redesign more or less.


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 15, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> To answer your question yes. Imagine an airplane about 5 knots above the stall. He is able to turn but using only a few degrees of bank. His turn radius would be large, and his rate low. Add more speed and radius continues to decrease and rate continues to rise. Continue this trend and at some point you will get to his min radius. Above that speed his turn circle will start to INCREASE in size, and will continue to do so up to his max speed. Rate will continue to increase until at some speed it reverses to decrease.


Makes sense


> The control zone was previously known as the riding position do to the fact you have control over or are “riding “, like a horse, your opponent.


Oh, okay


> Just because you have maneuvered into the control zone does not guarantee you a kill.


I know that, from what I gather, it simply means the parameters simply exist to make it possible.


> There are levels to a BFM engagement that would literally take guys years to get to a doctorate level of understanding.


And it's more than understanding it, it's the ability to understand it and *do* it...


> Realize I boil down what I share in here, but there are volumes of background data that goes with it that doesn’t get passed. Also realize I censor what I say as well in order not to share something that could be used against us or our allies.


I figured that would be the case.


> Luck is always a factor be it good or bad.


Very true!


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 31, 2019)

alejandro_ said:


> I am not so sure. There are many tests from World War II with data on both aircraft, even comparisons, and the Hellcat is slower. An example:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
> 
> Also, I would expect the instruments to be calibrated accordingly if the pitot tube is setup at a different height. Having said that, manufacturers stated that the performance could vary by 10% IIRC, thus there could be some "overlap".


Yeah, from what I remember, the critical altitude of the F4U-1 was around 23800' and 23200' for the F6F-3. I'm not sure what power-setting that's at, but it might be normal rated. If they're off by 10%, that would account for a critical altitude of 25000 feet for the F6F & F4U.

That said, you'd think for combat tests you'd make sure all the numbers and figures were pristine and not messed up in anyway.


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 31, 2019)

Here is a diagram of the R-2800 two stage supercharger.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 1, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Granted, the F4U was a terrific performer, but it was extensively used as a ground attack aircraft in the PTO, not just by the USN, but also RNZAF and FAA, so its air-to-air combat figures are generally going to be lower than the Hellcat.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really agree, since who would be operating it? The USN didn't have a great presense in the ETO and the FAA didn't use the Corsair extensively in that theatre. The USAAF certainly had its own performers, so while F4Us might have made an impact, I doubt there would have been a desire to spur development of it specially to suit the needs of the ETO. Its performance wasn't that much greater than ETO fighters.


Resp:
I know this is an old thread, but the USAAF 8th AF force was suffering severe losses as it flew progressively closer to bombing Germany. So much so that Gen Hap Arnold put out a letter in June 1943 . . . directing that a fighter either be developed or an existing fighter modified . . . to provide deep penetration escort of his bombers.
In May 1943 the USAAF hosted a 'Joint Fighter Meet' where all services (USAAF, USN, RAF etc) were invited to fly any of the fighters present (P-47, F4U-1, Seafire, etc). Every Army pilot who flew the Corsair gave it raved reviews, as the Corsair easily outmaneuvered their primary fighter . . . the P-47. 
I spent a lot of time evaluating the F4U for the ETO. This is what I looked at:
1. Availability: Yes, due to carrier landing issues, the USN relied on the F6F. USMC and FAA (Royal Naval Air Force) began receiving the F4U-1/F4U-1A and Corsair and Corsair II, respectively. So 25 to 30 F4U-1As could have provided a Squadron, for testing/evaluation in the ETO.
F4U-1A:
2. Range
- Internal/External fuel. One 237 gal fuselage self sealing tank located just forward of cockpit; 2 wing tanks of 62 gal each (2 X 62 = 124 gal) that are non-self sealing. How long would it take to convert to self-sealing?
- Extertnal fuel (drop tanks); One 160/171 centerline drop tank (additional range: ? )
3. Cruising speed: 186 mph
Using internal fuel at the Cruising speed of 186 gets @ 1015 miles. However, Naval operations rarely require altitudes above 15,000 ft. 8AF normally operated at 17,000 to 30,000 ft. Also, to be able to engage fast moving Luftwaffe fighters . . . USAAF Fighters (P-47, P-38 and later P-51s) were required to fly at least half of their mission at higher speeds (thus using up more fuel). To keep up their speed and to remain close to the bombers, they flew zigzag formations at least 3,000 ft above the bombers (example: 27,000 ft above 24,000).
4. Fuel Consumption: @ 195 gal per hour during normal-rated cruise (which was somewhat high). So it appears that if the two wing tanks were made self sealing, it range could be extended. But by how much?
5. Maximum service ceiling (high altitude required to cover high flying B-17/B-24s). 15,000 ft vs 27,000 ft. Result: Additional fuel consumed to get to the higher altitude.
6. Maximum speed: 417 mph
7. Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (a living Marine F4U combat pilot/instructor I spoke with took all of his students to 30,000 ft, but it took some time to do so. While flying CAP for US fleet in 1945 their normal cruising altitude was 10,000 to 14,000 ft).
8. Armament: Six 50 cal MG (three in each wing)
9. Even though the F4U used the same engine as the USAAF's P-47, the Corsair had a less advanced carburetor than the Thunderbolt and the F4U would require a major rebuild to include the advanced carburetor. 

Keep in mind that the P-47 didn't start receiving its first drop tank (single 75 gallon belly tank) until late Sept/early Oct 1943. The single tank gave them @ 10 min more flying time before they had to turn for home. The Merlin P-51B Mustangs first flew long range escort in the ETO in Dec 1943. 

So could a test bed of say 25 Corsairs be delivered to the 8th AF for evaluation? 25 FAA Corsairs be rerouted to England via a British carrier for the USAAF 8th AF? I know, I am dreaming! But June to Dec is just less than 6 months. Plenty of time for trials.
If we use the closest fighter base in England, the F4U could easily have flown a mid-distance relay mission? But what was really needed is a fighter to go as far as the bombers, and back. German factories were the main targets.

Three Problem areas:
1 - Cruising speed too slow for adequate interception to protect bombers.
- Internal fuel insufficient for return trip based on one single 237 gal self-sealing tank. 
2 - internal fuel with two converted wings to self sealing . . Insufficient ?
3 - Carburetor cannot perform well at the high altitudes of 22,000 to 28,000 ft to take on current Luftwaffe fighters.

Also, 
Can the Corsair out climb a ME 109 or FW 190 to gain advantage? The pilots at the Joint Fighter Meet, Elgin, FL that flew the F4U-1 in mid 1943 . . . but were much lower than 20,000 ft. Yes, in close combat the F4U can easily get behind an early FW 190, as demonstrated with a captured Focke Wulf 190 in air to air manuvers in 1944.

The F4U was designed around naval requirements. The FAA Hellcats just had to keep the Luftwaffe off the FAA's attacking planes. It did not require 27,000 ft to do its job. The USN used the F6F-5 Hellcat during the landings of Southern France 17 days after Allies landed at Normandy. In this role, Hellcats proved very capable air to air and air to ground engagements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 1, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I know this is an old thread, but the USAAF 8th AF force was suffering severe losses as it flew progressively closer to bombing Germany. So much so that Gen Hap Arnold put out a letter in June 1943 . . . directing that a fighter either be developed or an existing fighter modified . . . to provide deep penetration escort of his bombers.
> In May 1943 the USAAF hosted a 'Joint Fighter Meet' where all services (USAAF, USN, RAF etc) were invited to fly any of the fighters present (P-47, F4U-1, Seafire, etc). Every Army pilot who flew the Corsair gave it raved reviews, as the Corsair easily outmaneuvered their primary fighter . . . the P-47.
> I spent a lot of time evaluating the F4U for the ETO. This is what I looked at:
> ...


Great post Naval.

Corsair was truly a war winning fighter with a big place in history, and much deservedly so. Ironic to me that the Marines, who were famous for getting Navy leftovers, were the first to get arguably the best fighter plane in the world in February 1943 at Guadalcanal. Which they used to dramatic effect until the end of the war, and then on into Korea.

But it's internal fuel capacity would preclude it from escorting bombers in the ETO. If the Thunderbolt couldn't do it with 300 gallons internal, then the F4U wouldn't have a chance with 237 gallons. Even if the wing tanks were made self sealing (at a cost of, say 20 gallons) then the Corsair would still have only 340 gallons internal. Using 190 gallons per hour at normal power would only add another half hour or so with the additional wing tanks.

Then again, ETO escort was done in relays. Even the Mustang didn't take the bombers all the way to the target and back. So the Corsair could have helped like the Thunderbolt and early Lightnings, but it wouldn't solve the ultimate problem.

When Hap Arnold wrote his letter in June '43 wanting a long range escort fighter he had to have known that P-38Hs would be coming in October and the Mustang would arrive in December, surely long before any new or existing fighter could be produced or modified.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 1, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Great post Naval.
> 
> Corsair was truly a war winning fighter with a big place in history, and much deservedly so. Ironic to me that the Marines, who were famous for getting Navy leftovers, were the first to get arguably the best fighter plane in the world in February 1943 at Guadalcanal. Which they used to dramatic effect until the end of the war, and then on into Korea.
> 
> ...


Cont:
One other thought, how much extra room would a FG-1A have without the folding wing assemblage? Would there have been room for additional internal storage for fuel tanks? Also, were the non-folding wing variants lighter than the standard F4U-1A?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 1, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Cont:
> One other thought, how much extra room would a FG-1A have without the folding wing assemblage? Would there have been room for additional internal storage for fuel tanks? Also, were the non-folding wing variants lighter than the standard F4U-1A?




I'd have to dig through the drawings to try to estimate both, but I'd not be surprised if the wing folding mechanism and required structural mods added over a hundred pounds to the Corsair's wing weight. I'd use some of that saving to put in a cockpit floor, which would probably save dozens of pounds in weight due to lost pencils.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 1, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I'd have to dig through the drawings to try to estimate both, but I'd not be surprised if the wing folding mechanism and required structural mods added over a hundred pounds to the Corsair's wing weight. I'd use some of that saving to put in a cockpit floor, which would probably save dozens of pounds in weight due to lost pencils.


Resp:
Seriously, would there be room for self sealing fuel tanks. If so, is there a way to estimate number of gallons of fuel?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 1, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Seriously, would there be room for self sealing fuel tanks. If so, is there a way to estimate number of gallons of fuel?



I couldn't even guess how much self-sealing fuel tankage could be added by removing the wing-fold mechanism. For one, it would depend on how the wing was redesigned with the folding removed. I'd guesstimate that about 15% of the 124 gallons in the wing tanks would be lost due to self-sealing. Adding another tank -- perhaps under the cockpit (another reason to put a floor in) -- could add a few more gallons.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 1, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I couldn't even guess how much self-sealing fuel tankage could be added by removing the wing-fold mechanism. For one, it would depend on how the wing was redesigned with the folding removed. I'd guesstimate that about 15% of the 124 gallons in the wing tanks would be lost due to self-sealing. Adding another tank -- perhaps under the cockpit (another reason to put a floor in) -- could add a few more gallons.


Cont:
There must be some engineering/assembly drawings that you could compare to a standard folding wing F4U. We don't have to have an answer today. Thanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 1, 2020)

The existing fuel tanks were in the wing leading edge outboard of the guns. I beleive they were integral tanks. Rear of tank was the main spar and the leading edge skin was top, bottom and front. Wing ribs were the ends. There appear to be multiple ribs in the tank area so fitting self sealing tanks/cells, while possible, would not be easy.
The fixed wing Corsairs were a simple conversion. They left out the hydraulic actuators and basically bolted the existing folding wing part to the fixed wing part. The matching bulkheads in each part also acting as wing ribs so you can't eliminate both of them. 
Please look at a cutaway drawing. There isn't a lot of room in an F4U wing that isn't being used until you get outboard of the ammunition storage. The wing center section under the cockpit was a multi cell structure that I believe was welded. I don't know if you could put a tank in the wing root between the fuselage and the landing gear wheel well which is about the only large unused space in the wing inboard of the guns.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 1, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Great post Naval.



It is and it isn't. While Naval warrior's post certainly goes into detail, it doesn't in fact dispute my question of who was to use it at the time in the ETO. By 1944 the desire for a long range escort was being met by the P-51, P-47 and P-38, ground attack was being handled by aircraft like the Beaufighter and Typhoon, with the Tempest as a supreme low altitude fighter entering service and the likes of the Spitfire XIV on the way as a great all rounder, excellent performance down low and up top, the Allies have some serious capability at their disposal. Now sure, every airframe counts and there's no doubt the Corsair would have been welcome in larger numbers, but if Corsairs were being diverted to the ETO, where are they _not_ being used? There was a need for them in the Pacific, so that's where they were best served. Not even a Corsair can be in two places at once.

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


----------



## Dana Bell (Jan 2, 2020)

Nearly one fourth of the approximately 4,000 FG-1s were delivered without folding wings in a successful effort to save weight. The wing structure could not accommodate additional fuel tanks - the maximum wing tankage had been designed around the leading edge "wet wing" tanks, which leaked under most conditions. Efforts to replace the wet wing with sealed tanks were abandoned because the small amount of additional fuel wasn't worth the increased weight.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 2, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Mustang! - Documents


I'm curious about something: Does anybody have any idea how much weight was to be added to the Naval Mustang proposal over the baseline P-51D?


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 4, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious about something: Does anybody have any idea how much weight was to be added to the Naval Mustang proposal over the baseline P-51D?



According to the Bureau of Aeronautics there was a 48 lb reduction in the Corsair's all-up weight when the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment were removed. Something similar to this would have been added, along with the additional weight of the reinforced tail bulkhead and strengthening of the air frame at vital spots. Not sure how much this added up to though. By comparison the empty weight of the Seafire Mk. IIc was about 200 lbs more than the Spitfire Mk. Vc it was based on so maybe this is a good ballpark estimate for the Mustang as well??? 

If Mustangs were selected for carrier use it _probably_ would have required additional strengthening (added weight) beyond what was needed for testing so it could endure the regular abuse found during daily carrier operations.


----------



## MIflyer (Mar 4, 2020)

An old issue of Airpower had an article on the navalization tests of the P-51 and had a be-you-tea-full painting on a P-51D about to tun final onto a carrier.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 4, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> According to the Bureau of Aeronautics there was a 48 lb reduction in the Corsair's all-up weight when the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment were removed. Something similar to this would have been added, along with the additional weight of the reinforced tail bulkhead and strengthening of the air frame at vital spots. Not sure how much this added up to though. By comparison the empty weight of the Seafire Mk. IIc was about 200 lbs more than the Spitfire Mk. Vc it was based on so maybe this is a good ballpark estimate for the Mustang as well???
> 
> If Mustangs were selected for carrier use it _probably_ would have required additional strengthening (added weight) beyond what was needed for testing so it could endure the regular abuse found during daily carrier operations.


Resp:
In addition to the issues you pointed out, the Merlin was a liquid cooled vs the traditional air cooled engine. There is limited space on carriers and coolant would require additional storage space. I think that the US Navy was hesitant to employ a non-purpose built design for Naval use. The only good multi-service fighter that I am aware of was the F-4 Phantom, which began with Naval use that migrated to USAF use. Marines were considered a 
part of the Navy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 4, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> According to the Bureau of Aeronautics there was a 48 lb reduction in the Corsair's all-up weight when the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment were removed.


Yes, but that doesn't factor in the fundamental airframe strengthening that mounts the catapult hook, arresting hook, and associated equipment. So you'd have well over 48 pounds.


> By comparison the empty weight of the Seafire Mk. IIc was about 200 lbs more than the Spitfire Mk. Vc it was based on so maybe this is a good ballpark estimate for the Mustang as well???


Did the Spitfire VC have a tougher gear than the P-40 or P-51? I ask because of the fact that the P-40 had difficulty doing a three point landing, which the Hurricane (and possibly Spitfire) could.


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 4, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Did the Spitfire VC have a tougher gear than the P-40 or P-51?



My general impression is that the P-51 probably had much stronger gear but I will leave that to the experts here to decide. 

Don't know much about the P-40 or it's landing gear as well....sorry.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> My general impression is that the P-51 probably had much stronger gear but I will leave that to the experts here to decide.
> 
> Don't know much about the P-40 or it's landing gear as well....sorry.



Until the experts arrive...
P-40 was tested with 2x225 gal drop tanks (= 450 gals = 2700 lbs, plus how much the drop tanks weighted empty) of fuel. Landing gear didn't break.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 4, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Until the experts arrive...
> P-40 was tested with 2x225 gal drop tanks (= 450 gals = 2700 lbs, plus how much the drop tanks weighted empty) of fuel. Landing gear didn't break.


Reap:
The only mention that I have come across was when the Navy pilots recruited by Chennault for his Flying Tigers, landing his Tomahawks as if they were trying to 'catch a wire' on a carrier. At which point several Tomahawks never flew again, having been retained for spare parts to repair combat damaged P-40s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 4, 2020)

It is not the take-off but the landing that beats up the landing gear (anad structure) .

Sometimes you can find the vertical impact speeds certain aircraft were designed for and once again, the energy needing to be absorbed (or dealt with ) goes up with the square of the speed, vertical impact of 6fps means 2.25 times the force of a 4fps impact. 7fps is about twice a 5fps impact and 36% higher than the 6fps impact. 

for "rough" field use a similar problem exists. What you can manage from a concrete runway (or a good Marston mat= freshly topped and rolled) vs a field made with hand tools or rutted due to rains are not the same thing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2020)

The USN actually trialled four P-51s over the years: a P-51 (41-37426), a P-51D (44-14016) and P-51H (44-64420) and P-51H (44-64700).

The P-51D (designated ETF-51D) trialled, had a reinforced bulkhead at the tail for the tail-hook, a reinforced center-section for the catapult hook, modified shocks at the Oleo to reduced "bounce" on touchdown along with firmer tires. It also had reinforcing at key points around the frame.

I haven't seen any hard data on what all the modifications would weigh, but it would have weighed a more than a standard P-51D-5-NA due to those modifications.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 5, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> In addition to the issues you pointed out, the Merlin was a liquid cooled vs the traditional air cooled engine. There is limited space on carriers and coolant would require additional storage space. I think that the US Navy was hesitant to employ a non-purpose built design for Naval use. The only good multi-service fighter that I am aware of was the F-4 Phantom, which began with Naval use that migrated to USAF use. Marines were considered a
> part of the Navy.



Don't forget the A-7 to the USAF and the FJ, T2V from the USAF. (F-18 from the YF-17.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 5, 2020)

jetcal1 said:


> Don't forget the A-7 to the USAF and the FJ, T2V from the USAF. (F-18 from the YF-17.)


Resp:
Thanks. Never knew the F-18 actually came from a USAF prototype. I wouldn't call the FJ successful, as it was short lived (we have one example at a museum fairly close). As for the A-7 Corsair II, it was an overly dangerous aircraft to fly from a carrier, as per a High School friend who flew one for three years. According to him, it required too much attention for a single crewman. I can't challenge his assessment, as he tended to be a 'dare devil' individual who I never knew showed any fear . . . that those around him normally did. So when he threw his 'wings' on the carrier CAPT's desk . . . indicating he wouldn't fly anymore . . . we knew there was justification. It may have been different in USAF use, as runways are longer and don't 'rise and fall' during rain storms. The A-7 handling was in direct contrast to Vought's F-8 Crusader . . . which I'm told was a dream to fly.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 5, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The USN actually trialled four P-51s over the years:


I wonder why they bothered. They already had the Hellcat, tough as sh#t, fast and powerful, arguably the best carrier fighter of WW2. 

Perhaps North American or the USN procurement folks had some extra budget they had to blow. No one I expect wanted a naval Mustang. The Brits wanted more Hellcats and Corsairs, the USN had no shortage of either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 5, 2020)

The USN was looking at the P-39 and P-51 early in the war as a possible alternative to the F4F, which neither went any further than the test stage - the F6F came later, of course.

The P-51D was tested as a potential escort for the B-29, and several factors eliminated it, one of which, was it's potential for a "torque roll" during a wave-off, where the need for rapid throttle-up from the 85mph approach made it dangerous. One of the others, was the capture of Iwo and Okinawa making the need for a carrier-based P-51D moot.

The one positive feature discovered during trials, however, was the great visability over the engine during approach...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 5, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Thanks. Never knew the F-18 actually came from a USAF prototype. I wouldn't call the FJ successful, as it was short lived (we have one example at a museum fairly close). As for the A-7 Corsair II, it was an overly dangerous aircraft to fly from a carrier, as per a High School friend who flew one for three years. According to him, it required too much attention for a single crewman. I can't challenge his assessment, as he tended to be a 'dare devil' individual who I never knew showed any fear . . . that those around him normally did. So when he threw his 'wings' on the carrier CAPT's desk . . . indicating he wouldn't fly anymore . . . we knew there was justification. It may have been different in USAF use, as runways are longer and don't 'rise and fall' during rain storms. The A-7 handling was in direct contrast to Vought's F-8 Crusader . . . which I'm told was a dream to fly.



Interesting as CVW-20 had both the RF-8G (VFP-206) and the A-7E, the boarding rate was significantly better for the A-7.

My command also had four pilots and 3 RIOs drop their wings on night on the skipper after we lost two F-14's in three days. It was more of an indictment of the skipper than the airplanes.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 5, 2020)

jetcal1 said:


> Interesting as CVW-20 had both the RF-8G (VFP-206) and the A-7E, the boarding rate was significantly better for the A-7.
> 
> My command also had four pilots and 3 RIOs drop their wings on night on the skipper after we lost two F-14's in three days. It was more of an indictment of the skipper than the airplanes.


Resp:
I saw him at a USAF funeral 4 years ago, at which time he expressed regret on his decision quit flying for the Navy. I encouraged him not to beat himself up about it. After all, he had a wife and a infant child at the time.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 5, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> P-40 was tested with 2x225 gal drop tanks (= 450 gals = 2700 lbs, plus how much the drop tanks weighted empty) of fuel. Landing gear didn't break.





Navalwarrior said:


> when the Navy pilots recruited by Chennault for his Flying Tigers, landing his Tomahawks as if they were trying to 'catch a wire' on a carrier. At which point several Tomahawks never flew again


My understanding is that for a P40 to make a full stall "chop and drop" threepointer, it would be operating on the very margins of elevator authority, making it hard to control the attitude at touchdown and likely resulting in either a "tail bash" or a "crow hop", neither a carrier-friendly behaviour. This is not conducive to good aircraft availability numbers, either, as it tends to bend a lot of metal. In all the airshows and videos I've seen I've never seen anything but wheel landings. Speed = Life.
Dashes my dreams of being a P40 pilot, as I suck at wheel landings in taildraggers.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 5, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> As for the A-7 Corsair II, it was an overly dangerous aircraft to fly from a carrier, as per a High School friend who flew one for three years. According to him, it required too much attention for a single crewman


After I finished my aircrew survival training in preparation for my first F4 ride, I had a several hours wait for my ride back to homeplate, so I was invited by my fellow TDs to observe a training session in their A7 Carrier Landing Trainer. Well they had the rig all tweaked up when they got a call cancelling the training session, so (knowing I had a pilot's license) they asked me if I wanted to hop in and take it around the pea patch. Did I ever! They flew it regularly on daily maintenance checks, were pretty good at it, and were looking for a little entertainment. I promptly provided said entertainment, crashing the dang thing in just about every way imaginable. I'm no Naval Aviator, but I can definitely concur with Navalwarrior that it's a twitchy little bastard to fly, not to mention the most distracting and confusing telltale panel I've ever seen and the cacophony of alarm bells, whistles, screeches, clackers, buzzers, and voices that seem to go off at the slightest provocation.
Out of ten tries, I made one successful trap (three wire!), two ramp strikes, three bolters, two waveoffs, and went swimming twice, all at night. A blast, nonetheless!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 5, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder why they bothered. They already had the Hellcat, tough as sh#t, fast and powerful, arguably the best carrier fighter of WW2.



Range, climb, speed, altitude.

These are a few things a naval P-51 would have over a Hellcat.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 5, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> After I finished my aircrew survival training in preparation for my first F4 ride, I had a several hours wait for my ride back to homeplate, so I was invited by my fellow TDs to observe a training session in their A7 Carrier Landing Trainer. Well they had the rig all tweaked up when they got a call cancelling the training session, so (knowing I had a pilot's license) they asked me if I wanted to hop in and take it around the pea patch. Did I ever! They flew it regularly on daily maintenance checks, were pretty good at it, and were looking for a little entertainment. I promptly provided said entertainment, crashing the dang thing in just about every way imaginable. I'm no Naval Aviator, but I can definitely concur with Navalwarrior that it's a twitchy little bastard to fly, not to mention the most distracting and confusing telltale panel I've ever seen and the cacophony of alarm bells, whistles, screeches, clackers, buzzers, and voices that seem to go off at the slightest provocation.
> Out of ten tries, I made one successful trap (three wire!), two ramp strikes, three bolters, two waveoffs, and went swimming twice, all at night. A blast, nonetheless!
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp:
I did a fair amount of flying (no license) w my 1st landing at age 15. My last was for several months at age 28. However, like you, I got to fly an A-6 Intruder simulator at age 39. However, I chose to to take off and land at a NAS. Since I first rode R seat and was able to observe someone else fly it, I made mental notes of air speed, flap settings, etc before It was my turn to take her up. While doing so I did a single 'barrel role' without losing to much altitude. It really made me think that I bit off more than I could chew. However, the instructor came on the R/T asking if I had flown an A-6 before. Aside from a hard landing for an airfield, he said that the aircraft would have been fine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2020)

The Navy was always interested in liquid cooled engines/aircraft. Even if only to see if they were being left behind by sticking to the air cooled engines.
If the performance gap had opened up to a really large amount they would have gone for the Liquid cooled engine.

However to make such a change requires that the liquid cooled engine aircraft show enough of a performance difference that it is not just the "flavor of the month" but that whatever new aircraft the navy has in development cannot match or at least come close. 

The most extensive trials during WW II with the Mustang were in Sept-Nov of 1944, at which point the Navy had the F8F in the works (F.F.21 August 1944 ) , the F4U-4 (FF Sept 1944) The F4U-5 (Mock up inspected Feb 1945) and was working on the R-4360 version,F2G-1, the F6F-5 (F.F. April 1944) and the F7F (F.F Nov 1943) 

It is not really a matter of _converting_ existing P-51s. Navy P-51s would have to be built as such, perhaps on a dedicated production line, in order to get anti corrosion treatments/coatings into all the needed spaces that may not be accessible (or poorly accessible ) in a completed aircraft. plus using whatever accessories the navy deemed suitable for the marine environment. 

This would delay the deployment of true navy P-51s as opposed to using a few carriers as short term fighter bases to escort the B-29s as an emergency solution.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 6, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Range, climb, speed, altitude.
> 
> These are a few things a naval P-51 would have over a Hellcat.



A navalized P-51 would incur weight and drag penalties that would reduce overall performance to some degree. Deck space on a flat top is also limited and a folding laminar flow wing would obviously lose some of it's stellar low drag properties, further reducing performance (probably even more so than with contemporary airfoils). I assume it would still have a performance edge over the F6F, but it's hard to tell just how much. But even with the required modifications it still lacked the low-speed flight characteristics to make it a viable carrier fighter so this in itself would make it less effective than a Hellcat for the task at hand.

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


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2020)

The P-51 had plenty of performance margin over the F6F that it would still be superior.

Low speed handling may have been a problem.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 6, 2020)

Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 6, 2020)

The carriers would need to be modified as well in order to store the "prestone" that the liquid cooled engines required.

This may not seem like a big deal, but carriers, like most warships, have every square inch dedicated to a function and making room for x-amount of glychol storage would require some rework.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The carriers would need to be modified as well in order to store the "prestone" that the liquid cooled engines required.
> 
> This may not seem like a big deal, but carriers, like most warships, have every square inch dedicated to a function and making room for x-amount of glychol storage would require some rework.


Resp:
Agreed. Space is always a factor. How did the FAA handle glychol for Seafire/Sea Hurricane?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 6, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The P-51 had plenty of performance margin over the F6F that it would still be superior.
> 
> Low speed handling may have been a problem.




The US Navy investigated the possibility of operating P-51s from carriers and for several reasons found the idea lacking merit. Apparently any possible performance gains were overshadowed by the design attributes of the F6F, which made it superior to the P-51 in this capacity.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2020)

The glycol argument is a bit over blown. Stick a few 55 gallon drums in the paint locker. 
Glycol was *NOT *a consumable, like oil. No engine was rated at lbs per hp hour of coolant. 
Granted there was leakage but not to the tune of 12-24 gallons per flight like the lubricating oil. Nobody stuck bigger header tanks on a liquid cooled fighter (or bomber) for ferrying purposes. 

and once again, check the timing. The Navy would be comparing (in late 1944) the P-51D against the XF6F-6 and F4U-4 with the P & W R-2800-18 engine. Same engine as the P-47M but with two stage supercharger instead of turbo. Xf6F-6 did 417mph at 20,000ft, Mustang is still better but the margin is reduced.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 7, 2020)

Sounds like, despite all its performance advantages, the Mustang's low speed handling characteristics would have made it an "Ensign eater" getting aboard the boat. Like the Gutless and the Vigilante. If I was the skipper, I'd take an Ace Maker over an Ensign Eater on my ship any day.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2020)

I may have mentioned it in an above post, but the one glaring drawback to the Mustang on approach, was it's null response once it reached the 85 mph approach threshold. Add to that, a wave-off and you had a recipe for disaster.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Sounds like, despite all its performance advantages, the Mustang's low speed handling characteristics would have made it an "Ensign eater" getting aboard the boat. Like the Gutless and the Vigilante. If I was the skipper, I'd take an Ace Maker over an Ensign Eater on my ship any day.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp:
Cannot afford to lose pilots or planes unnecessary, especially during a major conflict.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Mar 7, 2020)

These epic posts are always the best reads. Having just read it from start to finish, here are my thoughts (which aren't worth a hill of beans):

1. The F6F and F4U would have had little useable value for bomber escort as they lacked the qualities most needed to be successful in that application: performance at altitude and speed to engage. I know there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about range, how to calculate it, and whether the Hellcat and Corsair had sufficient range for escort operations, but this overlooks the defining characteristics of escort combat in the ETO. In addition to having sufficient range, the P-47 and P-51 (in particular) were able to operate at an altitude that allowed them to locate LW aircraft attempting to engage the bomber stream and then the speed at those altitudes to obtain the initiative and engage the opposing fighters at a distance from the bomber stream. As fine an aircraft as the Hellcat and Corsair are they do not possess these qualities and would have struggled to be effective in this application.

2. It seems logical to me that the Hellcat would have been used principally as carrier based fighter where it is outstanding but limiting to its role in the ETO. If it were adapted for a more land based mission I think ultimately it would have occupied a similar niche to the P-40 as a multirole FB in less contested airspace like the MTO where the combat envelope was at lower altitudes and the Hellcat would have advantages against likely opposition aircraft.

3. It seems logical to me as well that the Corsair would find a role similar to that in the PTO in close air support and tactical combat air cover. In this role I think it would be outstanding and possibly superior to any other allied aircraft in that role. One can wonder how the evolution of CAS in the ETO/MTO would have evolved had the Corsair been in theater beginning in early 1944.

A couple speculations:

4. Had the Hellcat and Corsair found major use in the MTO/ETO its not hard to imagine that an evolutionary path similar to other ETO fighter aircraft would have been taken:

The development of a lightened version of each aircraft stripped of excess weight associated with shipboard operations,
The development of an improved visibility version of each aircraft with cut-down fuselage and bubble canopies.
The development of a high performance version with uprated engines and improved propellors and cleaned up skin.
The development of a new wing and further lightened airframe.
In Grumman's case, I think we have an idea where this would head with the F8F Bearcat. 
In Vought's case my guess is this would look like a cross between the F4U5 and the F2G

Those are my thoughts. Worthy or not. FWIW, I think both aircraft are fantastic and while I don't think either was suited for the ETO in an escort fighter role each would have found meaningful use in an appropriate role in the theater had they been needed there.

On the other hand, I wonder how late model Corsairs would have faired against Lovochkin LA-5/7's or Yak - 3/9's? But, that's a question for another thread...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Mar 7, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> These epic posts are always the best reads. Having just read it from start to finish, here are my thoughts (which aren't worth a hill of beans):
> 
> 1. The F6F and F4U would have had little useable value for bomber escort as they lacked the qualities most needed to be successful in that application: performance at altitude and speed to engage. I know there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about range, how to calculate it, and whether the Hellcat and Corsair had sufficient range for escort operations, but this overlooks the defining characteristics of escort combat in the ETO. In addition to having sufficient range, the P-47 and P-51 (in particular) were able to operate at an altitude that allowed them to locate LW aircraft attempting to engage the bomber stream and then the speed at those altitudes to obtain the initiative and engage the opposing fighters at a distance from the bomber stream. As fine an aircraft as the Hellcat and Corsair are they do not possess these qualities and would have struggled to be effective in this application.
> 
> ...



I really like what you have to say here but with one caveat:

If for some reason a need did developed for extensive US Naval involvement in ETO there would probably have been a greater urgency for the better performing F6F-6 variant to be produced until F8F production could fully spin up. To free up factory floors for the newest Grumman product existing F6F-5 air frames _may_ have been retrofitted with the more powerful R-2800-18W engine, as both F6F-6 prototypes were basically re-engined F6F-5s with minimal modifications made to the air frame as a whole. Just an opinion however.

And let's not forget about the hot-rod F4U-4. Entering production in early 1945, It's performance certainly matched or bettered most any land-based piston-engined fighter of it's day. German pilots would definitely have had their hands full fighting this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 7, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I really like what you have to say here but with one caveat:
> 
> If for some reason a need did developed for extensive US Naval involvement in ETO there would probably have been a greater urgency for the better performing F6F-6 variant to be produced until F8F production could fully spin up. To free up factory floors for the newest Grumman product existing F6F-5 air frames _may_ have been retrofitted with the more powerful R-2800-18W engine, as both F6F-6 prototypes were basically re-engined F6F-5s with minimal modifications made to the air frame as a whole. Just an opinion however.
> 
> And let's not forget about the hot-rod F4U-4. Entering production in early 1945, It's performance certainly matched or bettered most any land-based piston-engined fighter of it's day. German pilots would definitely have had their hands full fighting this one.


Resp:
Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 8, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.


Late to the party.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 8, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.


But the F8F contemporary is the P-51H.

I agreed most of the above comments about the F6F and F4U (any variant), with the following points for consideration..
1. Their ability to secure battlefield air superiority in CAS role IMO would have been as good or maybe better than all the AAF fighters heavily engaged in Air-Ground support. In addition the F6F was superior re: battle damage vulnerability over both the F4U and The P-51 and P-38. Have to ponder the P-47 comparison. Oil cooler location and added vulnerability of the Turbo would have to be considered, but think F6F superior.
2. OTOH the payload/range comparison in which external racks were devoted to weapons, both the Navy fighters had greatly reduced combat radius compared to all AAF fighters. The F4U-1 should not be used in comparison because its auxiliary wing tanks were not self sealing and would have been restricted from AAF ops.
3. Their ability to escort at medium altitudes would have been good but not great and well into their top performance strike zone in air-air. What they lacked in speed comparison to Merlin P-51 (until F4U-4) but balanced with better turn, would have served well against Fw 190A and Bf 109G. Pilot skill and tactical advantage IMO would be te primary determinant of 'which is best'.
4. Due to relatively low internal fuel, both would have been relegated to high altitude Penetration and Withdrawal Support greater than Spitfire but much less range than even the P-47. That said, the critical altitudes for their R-2800s, while less than P-47D, was in the same envelope as the Fw 190 and Bf 109. All would have been more or less equal with respect to design HP available in just about any envelope. It was above 20K where the P-51B/P-47D and P-38J increased their margin of HP available to HP required for maneuverability, speed and acceleration at higher altitudes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Mar 12, 2020)

R Leonard said:


> Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.



What Rich said. Bob was one of the most accomplished aviators of his generation, and of course that's saying something.

BTW: his colleague in the Shangri-La tests was former VB-3 squadronmate Sid Bottomley who flew the PBJ (B-25) tests. Sid was a grand gent--used to see him regularly in San Diego's Hangar Flier Liars meetings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 13, 2020)

R Leonard said:


> Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.


Resp:
I would think that aircraft designed for Naval use from carriers would have a greater lift rate for lesser speeds. Of course aircraft weight, or lack of it would provide better lift. Greater lift would necessitate shorter distance for takeoff. Thoughts?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> I would think that aircraft designed for Naval use from carriers would have a greater lift rate for lesser speeds. Of course aircraft weight, or lack of it would provide better lift.


Goes with the territory. Up until the advent of J57/J79 class engines, carrier ops were essentially STOL operations compared to their land based counterparts. Carrier aircraft were always marginally inferior performance wise to their terrestrial cousins. (Zero and Bearcat excepted)
The aerodynamics demanded for low speed handling tend to be an obstacle to high speed performance. And the ruggedness required for a lifetime of "bash and dash" ops tends to exact a weight penalty that further degrades performance. Witness the P51 carrier ops test pilot who said that a lifetime of deck ops "just wasn't in the cards" for the ponybird. A too lightly constructed carrier bird tends to gain weight like a dieter at Christmastime due to all the crack patches and structural repairs and reinforcements it undergoes to keep it airworthy. At NATTC they had an FJ Fury (the latest swept wing version) that had more patches, straps, and braces to deal with fatigue cracking than you could point a stick at. It was a thousand pounds overweight, and kept as an example to impress AMS (Aviation Maintenance, Structural) trainees of the seriousness of their trade.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 13, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Goes with the territory. Up until the advent of J57/J79 class engines, carrier ops were essentially STOL operations compared to their land based counterparts. Carrier aircraft were always marginally inferior performance wise to their terrestrial cousins. (Zero and Bearcat excepted)
> The aerodynamics demanded for low speed handling tend to be an obstacle to high speed performance. And the ruggedness required for a lifetime of "bash and dash" ops tends to exact a weight penalty that further degrades performance. Witness the P51 carrier ops test pilot who said that a lifetime of deck ops "just wasn't in the cards" for the ponybird. A too lightly constructed carrier bird tends to gain weight like a dieter at Christmastime due to all the crack patches and structural repairs and reinforcements it undergoes to keep it airworthy. At NATTC they had an FJ Fury (the latest swept wing version) that had more patches, straps, and braces to deal with fatigue cracking than you could point a stick at. It was a thousand pounds overweight, and kept as an example to impress AMS (Aviation Maintenance, Structural) trainees of the seriousness of their trade.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp: 
Thanks much. It explains a lot. In reading about the restoration of a Brewster F3A-1 Corsair, they mentioned the large number of bolts, rivets, braces, etc. that went into its assembly was more than what the rebuilder's were used to. I believe that in 1930s to early 1940 the manufacturers tended to over engineer aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Mar 13, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> How did the FAA handle glychol for Seafire/Sea Hurricane?


Carefully.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> I believe that in 1930s to early 1940 the manufacturers tended to over engineer aircraft.


Let's not forget that all-metal stressed skin, monocoque, cantilever monoplane technology was a relatively young art at the time. The highly detailed computer based stress analysis we have today just wasn't as robust in the day of the slide rule, so the temptation to add a little extra "beef" for "safety's sake" tended to settle in. Some designers (Horikoshi and Heinneman come to mind) managed to resist this temptation, but so many did not. And this "overbuilding" did in fact often enhance survivability under combat damage conditions. The "Grumman Iron Works" EARNED their title!
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 14, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> In addition to the issues you pointed out, the Merlin was a liquid cooled vs the traditional air cooled engine. There is limited space on carriers and coolant would require additional storage space. I think that the US Navy was hesitant to employ a non-purpose built design for Naval use. The only good multi-service fighter that I am aware of was the F-4 Phantom, which began with Naval use that migrated to USAF use. Marines were considered a
> part of the Navy.



Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:



> ALL AIR COMBAT REPORTS BATTLE OF MIDWAY EMPHASIZE EXTREME
> AND APPARENTLY INCREASED SUPERIORITY PERFORMANCE OF 0 FIGHTERS
> X ALTHOUGH THESE PLANES ARE MORE VULNERABLE THAN OURS THE
> PRIMARY SOURCE OF ANY COMBAT SUCCESSES TO DATE BY NAVY FIGHTING
> ...



So I guess someone in the USN would have been happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, glycol and all. At the time the message was sent CCF was building Hawker Sea Hurricane IIs for Operation Torch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 14, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
> Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
Very interesting. I suspect it was one of only a few options at the time. You should note that the initial comment was for Marines at 'outlining bases' which I interpret as land bases (islands). Yes, he did want the Merlin engined P-40F to be considered for carrier use. As you know, P-40s launched from carriers for 'Operation Torch' which was a one way trip; which was successful.
Knowing King, there was no way King would authorize USAAF aircraft for Naval use. King didn't even want the US Army anywhere near the Pacific! Just as Gen Marshall wanted no Marines in the ETO!
However, the Naval msg from Nimitz to King is very interesting. Thanks much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 14, 2020)

Glider said:


> Just a thought, but woulld the Hellcat have been a reasionable long range escrot


Did the FAA Corsairs operating from HM‘s RN carriers escort RAF or USAAF bombers?


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 14, 2020)

They accompanied Barracudas against the Tirpitz on the initial raids. Not sure if they escorted Bomber Command on the later raids

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> So I guess someone in the USN would have been happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, glycol and all. At the time the message was sent CCF was building Hawker Sea Hurricane IIs for Operation Torch.


They would have been very happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, assuming such fighter could actually take-off from and land on US carriers carrying an operational war load. 

See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf 

and http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-3_Wildcat_(Land)_PD_-_14_August_1942.pdf 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-4_Wildcat_ACP_-_1_July_1943_(Tommy).pdf 

The P-40E went about 8255lbs _without_ drop tank. 

P-40E needs 800ft to take off with a 17kt head wind at 155lbs under clean gross weight. 
F4F-3 needs 359ft clean and 480ft with a pair of drop tanks with 15kt head wind. 
F4F-4 needs 410ft clean and 550ft with a pair of drop tanks with 15kt head wind. 
An F6F-3 needs 418ft clean and 519ft with a 150 gal drop tank with a 15kt head wind. 

You can look at the figures for other speeds and weights (and yes a P-40E is not a Merlin powered P-40) but it just shows pretty much the same thing. The existing liquid cooled USAAC fighters weren't going to _operate_ off a carrier deck very well. Fly off with reduced loads was obviously possible but that is not the same thing. How much modification was needed is certainly subject for debate, bigger wings? different flap systems?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 14, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> They would have been very happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, assuming such fighter could actually take-off from and land on US carriers carrying an operational war load.


Of course they would, if it was available before the folding wing Wildcat was in widespread fleet service.

Had Packard started making Merlins earlier, the US might have designed the wide track, robust undercarriage, credibly-ranged, folding-wing, single-seat Merlin-powered fighter the FAA never managed to get for itself. And it needn’t be a P-40 or P-51 variant, but something entirely new.

But there’s no point in the US making a Merlin-carrier fighter by mid 1943 when Wildcats, Hellcats and soon Corsairs will be plentiful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2020)

Packard made Merlins about as soon as could be reasonably expected. 
Unless you claim that Packard and the British should have signed the deal before France fell or was even attacked. And that only gains a few months.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Packard made Merlins about as soon as could be reasonably expected.


Agreed. But this is where your hypothetical exercise needs to begin.

Otherwise, as I wrote above; in a sea of Wildcats, Hellcats and soon Corsairs, they’ll be no Merlin naval fighter for the USN.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> They would have been very happy to have a Merlin engined fighter, assuming such fighter could actually take-off from and land on US carriers carrying an operational war load.
> 
> See; http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40TOCLC.pdf
> 
> ...



First off, the immediate issue is whether the USN would operate a liquid cooled fighter, and I think the answer is yes, especially since the request for higher performance most likely originated from carrier based line officers, and not by whim from Nimitz.

2ndly Nimitz stated:

_"IF P-40F *OR COMPARABLE TYPE* CAN BE MODIFIED FOR AIRCRAFT CARRIER OPERATIONS PROVIDE THESE
PLANES FOR CARRIER FIGHTING SQUADRONS" _

Nimitz doesn't specify US made aircraft.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 15, 2020)

The USN trialled several water-cooled types : P-39 (XFL), P-51, P-51D (ETF-51D) during the war and rejected them.
They didn't even consider Lockheed's model 822 proposal (navalized P-38).
The USN did well enough with the F4F, SBD, F6F and F4U to not warrant water-cooled types.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> "*IF* P-40F OR COMPARABLE TYPE *CAN* BE *MODIFIED*



Well, we had *IF* and *CAN BE* *MODIFIED*.

and the answer is no, the P-40F or comparable type (say a P-51 with a single stage Merlin) cannot be *easily modified* to operate off carriers. 
Modifications would be extensive, you need a lot more lift to get both the take-off run down and the landing speed down. The Hurricane and Spit worked because they were lighter aircraft than the American planes and had bigger wings. 
Yes you could extensively modify the P-40 (or comparable type?) but that wasn't going to solve the problem in the next few months or perhaps even a year. Let's remember that the both the British and the Americans started work on Merlin Mustangs within a few weeks of the Nimitz memo and they went into service when?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> How much modification was needed is certainly subject for debate, bigger wings? different flap systems?


Modifications to get a P40 flight deck compatible certainly wouldn't get away with the designation "minor". This raises the old bugaboo of delays while the modifications are incorporated into production. I'm thinking Fowler flaps, drooping ailerons, perhaps an airfoil change, and (per Nimitz) reduce to four .50s with more RPGs. Also, some judicious weight reduction might be in order, and maybe a more efficient prop. (Ditch that gaudawful Curtiss electric)
It's still going to be a big deck bird, and after being butchered up like this, may not have the performance margin to be worth the effort. As I remember, the F4F wasn't much of a climber, but then again, neither was the E-hawk.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## P-39 Expert (Mar 15, 2020)

Nimitz's telegram seems to be going a long way to say a couple of things:

1. We need Army planes for the land based Marines so we can put all available Wildcats on carriers. Okay. Not that there were any Army planes available in June '42, but not impossible depending on the number of land based Marine squadrons.
2. We need to lighten the Wildcats and increase ammunition capacity. Okay, that could have been done immediately aboard the carriers. Remove two of the six guns and put more ammunition in the Wildcat's four remaining ammo boxes in the wings. 

Converting P-40s for carrier use may have been an impossible job. Folding wings, tail hook, big weight reduction (P-40F weighed 8500#), strengthened landing gear and who knows what else. 

Corsair didn't get into combat until Feb '43 and that was for Marine/land use. Hellcat didn't get into combat until fall of '43. Probably could have had the Corsair ready for carrier use before a reworked P-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
> Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:
> 
> 
> ...





RCAFson said:


> Here is the text of a despatch from Admiral Nimitz to
> Admiral King sent on 20 June 1942:
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
The Naval msg also shows that Nimitz was aware of measures taken in theater to improve the F4F's ability to combat enemy aircraft. One example; removing two wing guns to provide additional space for ammo for remaining 50 cal MG, etc.. To me this is significant in that local squadrons were experimenting in trying various methods to improve performance in air combat. I like initiative!


----------



## NevadaK (Mar 15, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> The Naval msg also shows that Nimitz was aware of measures taken in theater to improve the F4F's ability to combat enemy aircraft. One example; removing two wing guns to provide additional space for ammo for remaining 50 cal MG, etc.. To me this is significant in that local squadrons were experimenting in trying various methods to improve performance in air combat. I like initiative!



I recall reading that the gap in training and experience between IJN/USN pilots during the first 12 months in the Pacific was a greater issue than the gap between the Zero and the Wildcat. As experience grew, American pilots fairly quickly developed effective tactics against the A6M. Nimitz' cable also comes shortly before a Zero was captured in the Aleutians and testing added to the development of combat tactics as well as informed the development of the Hellcat. 

To me, Nimitz' cable is written at a time when the war is still a toss up and American combat skill has not fully developed in experience, training, and numbers.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 15, 2020)

If any naval aviation force needed access to land aircraft it was the IJN. The IJAF progressed from the A6M’s contemporary Ki-43 to the Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-84, Ki-100, etc. while the IJN had to settle for the Zero for the entire war.

The IJN had superlative single engine fighters like the Kawanishi N1K and Mitsubishi J2M. But these were land based.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 15, 2020)

Hmmm . . . A lack of viable carrier decks might have had something to do with that.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 15, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> To me this is significant in that local squadrons were experimenting in trying various methods to improve performance in air combat. I like initiative!


Initiative is a great thing, when done properly, but it has great potential to throw a wrench in the works if done in "black market" fashion.
When I was in, during waning years of VN war, one of the NARFs (Naval Air Rework Facilities) that overhauled war weary USN/USMC F4s created a flap when they complained to BUAER that they were getting in a lot of "jury rigged" planes with undocumented and unauthorized field modifications. It turns out that squadrons in the field had figured out "better" ways to rig and wire such things as bomb rack intervalometers and fuel tank sequencing valves. The "underground documentation" of such mods didn't make it to NARF along with the plane, making for labor intensive detective work if or when the mods were discovered. If not detected, said mods could wreak havoc when the repaired bird was test flown. One such plane was reputed to have jettisoned its wing pylons when the pilot retracted the landing gear. Another was said to have jammed open its fuel dump valves when afterburner was selected for takeoff. I remember the consternation in our local fighter squadron when the nastygram from BUAER arrived, followed by a brass-heavy inspection team.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 15, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed. But this is where your hypothetical exercise needs to begin.
> 
> Otherwise, as I wrote above; in a sea of Wildcats, Hellcats and soon Corsairs, they’ll be no Merlin naval fighter for the USN.



The USN didn't begin to operate Hellcats and Corsairs in any number till mid 1943, that's very long time from Nimitz's request of June 1942.


P-39 Expert said:


> Nimitz's telegram seems to be going a long way to say a couple of things:
> 
> 1. We need Army planes for the land based Marines so we can put all available Wildcats on carriers. Okay. Not that there were any Army planes available in June '42, but not impossible depending on the number of land based Marine squadrons.
> 2. We need to lighten the Wildcats and increase ammunition capacity. Okay, that could have been done immediately aboard the carriers. Remove two of the six guns and put more ammunition in the Wildcat's four remaining ammo boxes in the wings.
> ...



There was no shortage of F4F-4s in the Pacific, especially given the reduced number of carriers available to the USN. 

There were field mods to reduce guns to four and increase ammo, but the net result was that TO weight remained the same and there was no increase in performance.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 15, 2020)

RCAFson said:


> The USN didn't begin to operate Hellcats and Corsairs in any number till mid 1943, that's very long time from Nimitz's request of June 1942.


A year. Less time than it would take to get a V12 powered fighter modified and into combat service.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 17, 2020)

The U.S. Navy got P-40F 41-13701 on June 6th 1942 to Anacostia Naval AIr Station for comparative tests against the F4F-4, results were mixed. 

The Navy found that the P-40F was superior in speed and climb below 20,000ft with the F4F-4 superior above 20,000ft. At 24,000ft the F4F-4s advantage in speed and climb was marked but the P-40 could easily dive away. (no numbers are given in the acount)
The P-40F had the 52 gallon drop tank (otherwise the two planes were within a few gallons of each other) and while the there were under wing tanks for th ef4F-4 under test they were not operational at this time. 
Visibility from cockpit was markedly better in the F4F-4. The P-40F had a better gunsight but the Navy thought the F4F-4 was a much better gun platform, due to the poor visibility over the nose of the P-40F, high rudder forces, tendency to abrupt high speed stalls. All these made close-range, full deflection shooting very difficult. 
The Navy thought the P-40F had a quieter cockpit with better temperature control and ventilation but thought the cockpit was cramped compared to the F4F-4. The P-40F had a much higher rate of roll. 
Wither CinCPAC was even aware of this test (being thousands of miles away) is questionable. 

No mention is made of any carrier suitability tests done with this aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Mar 18, 2020)

Here's a comparison of the F4F-4 and a P-39K (early P-39 with 8.8 supercharger). The P-40F performance was almost exactly the same as the early (8.8) P-39(D/F/K/L).


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> At NATTC they had an FJ Fury (the latest swept wing version) that had more patches, straps, and braces to deal with fatigue cracking than you could point a stick at. It was a thousand pounds overweight, and kept as an example to impress AMS (Aviation Maintenance, Structural) trainees of the seriousness of their trade.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Do they still make such repairs today?
I frequently hear in the news about airframe fatigue as a reason for aircraft retirement.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Let's not forget that all-metal stressed skin, monocoque, cantilever monoplane technology was a relatively young art at the time. The highly detailed computer based stress analysis we have today just wasn't as robust in the day of the slide rule, so the temptation to add a little extra "beef" for "safety's sake" tended to settle in. Some designers (Horikoshi and Heinneman come to mind) managed to resist this temptation, but so many did not. And this "overbuilding" did in fact often enhance survivability under combat damage conditions. The "Grumman Iron Works" EARNED their title!
> Cheers,
> Wes



This seems to be how the P51-H came about.
Field use revealed that the earlier versions could indeed be lightened.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> This seems to be how the P51-H came about.
> Field use revealed that the earlier versions could indeed be lightened.


Experience counts.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Do they still make such repairs today?
> I frequently hear in the news about airframe fatigue as a reason for aircraft retirement.


Fatigue will always be with us, especially in high-cycle aero-elastic structures. At this time, we have 70 years experience with flexible swept wing airplanes, and we still don't know it all. The only way we get 50K+ hours and cycles out of them is by constant inspection and repair. Cracks WILL form, and cracks WILL propagate as the cycle count goes up, no matter how badly we curse and complain. Repair techniques have become more sophisticated over the decades, but they still owe homage to patches and straps and braces. Composite materials have added a few more arrows to the quiver. And I'm sure there's new stuff out there I haven't heard of yet.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> This seems to be how the P51-H came about.
> Field use revealed that the earlier versions could indeed be lightened.


I think you will find that the P51H came about because it was designed using UK standards for airframe design not American. Supermarine were consulted in the early days of the design regarding the approach used by the UK.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

Glider said:


> I think you will find that the P51H came about because it was designed using UK standards for airframe design not American. Supermarine were consulted in the early days of the design regarding the approach used by the UK.


And once again the mutha country asserts her mastery.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Fatigue will always be with us, especially in high-cycle aero-elastic structures. At this time, we have 70 years experience with flexible swept wing airplanes, and we still don't know it all. The only way we get 50K+ hours and cycles out of them is by constant inspection and repair. Cracks WILL form, and cracks WILL propagate as the cycle count goes up, no matter how badly we curse and complain. Repair techniques have become more sophisticated over the decades, but they still owe homage to patches and straps and braces. Composite materials have added a few more arrows to the quiver. And I'm sure there's new stuff out there I haven't heard of yet.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I’ve flown Eagles with wing straps, patches, cracks and stop drilled cracks. Very flexible plane I guess! The interesting thing is how long the planes stay around given how hard we whale on them. I flew 1975-76 F15A models into the 2007-2009 timeframe.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And once again the mutha country asserts her mastery.



Oh yea of little faith. I suggest you have a look at the attached

P-51 Mustang Variants - P-51H - MustangsMustangs.com


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I flew 1975-76 F15A models into the 2007-2009 timeframe.


How about Tomcats of that vintage who were still bashing the boat when their wings were clipped in 2006? Patches on top of patches.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> The interesting thing is how long the planes stay around given how hard we whale on them.


And didn't a few of them come unglued midair?


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> How about Tomcats of that vintage who were still bashing the boat when their wings were clipped in 2006? Patches on top of patches.



Yeah, they were just kept around as training aids for the rest of us. 😉

In reality they flew with a lot of restrictions, at least when I fought them. Not sure on their utilization rates or traps to hours flown (wear and tear markers). It’s a cool plane to look at but was designed to shoot down bombers over water and wasn’t optimized for fighter versus fighter operations. It was cool fighting them after watching Top Gun.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And didn't a few of them come unglued midair?



Several have, mostly from the pilot pulling the wings off. The St Louis ANG crash was one of the top five over G’d F15s in the USAF, AND there was a structural defect in its longeron (fore aft spar if you will). Don’t forget the plane initially had a 7.3 g limit until the F16 came out. Then MacAir invented a overload warning system (OWS) to allow pulls of up to 9 G’s if they were symmetric. Nothing was beefed up structurally to go from 7.3 to 9. Old guys with Slide rules Rule! If you get a chance to look down a DC-8 fuselage you will notice the skin is without wrinkles regardless of its age. Not so on Boeing or Airbus. MacD made aerial tanks.

WGASF (Worlds Greatest Air Superiority Fighter).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> It’s a cool plane to look at but was designed to shoot down bombers over water and wasn’t optimized for fighter versus fighter operations.


Interesting. That's not the hype we were given when it was being developed. I'm sure you've seen the promotional film "No Points For Second Place", n'est-ce pas? All about ACM and furballs. MiG killer par excellence. Interesting to hear a different perspective. Of course high speed standoff missiles launched from supersonic bombers were always a concern, and I believe, the impetus for the Phoenix missile.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 21, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Don’t forget the plane initially had a 7.3 g limit until the F16 came out. Then MacAir invented a overload warning system (OWS) to allow pulls of up to 9 G’s if they were symmetric. Nothing was beefed up structurally to go from 7.3 to 9. Old guys with Slide rules Rule!


Since they couldn't compute exact strength, they usually erred on the side of caution. That's why a modern plane rated to a given amount seems flimsy to an older design. It actually is, in a way, since people can better compute what the exact limit is, they can build right onto that limit.

If you really wanted to evaluate strength, you'd want to evaluate an old plane's strength with modern technology; then use the figures you got out of that as a baseline figure, and you'd be building as tough as the past.


> If you get a chance to look down a DC-8 fuselage you will notice the skin is without wrinkles regardless of its age. Not so on Boeing or Airbus. MacD made aerial tanks.


That had to also do with older-fashioned ideas about how a design should last as long as the customer wants it to. If you want to keep it a long time, we'll keep repairing it. Boeing, from what it appeared, seemed to subscribe less to the idea: The 707 for example was expected to last 40,000 hours. While the plane could probably be repaired and maintained past that point, there was the presumption that people would probably just buy the newer model.

This idea, when carried to conclusion, results in what's called planned obsolescence: You design a product to fail after a certain amount of time, so people would have to buy a newer model. I'm not a big fan of this practice.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> there was a structural defect in its longeron (fore aft spar if you will).


Not to be a nitpicker, but in the airframe terminology I was taught, the main fuselage longitudinal structural member (fore - aft spar if you will) is the keel. Longerons (always in the plural) are smaller distributed-stress longitudinal members in the fuselage. Since the advent of aluminum monocoque construction, keels have become less common (except in boat bashing birds), since longerons are more readily integrated into monocoque construction.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not to be a nitpicker, but in the airframe terminology I was taught, the main fuselage longitudinal structural member (fore - aft spar if you will) is the keel. Longerons (always in the plural) are smaller distributed-stress longitudinal members in the fuselage. Since the advent of aluminum monocoque construction, keels have become less common (except in boat bashing birds), since longerons are more readily integrated into monocoque construction.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Roger, copy! It was a longeron in aircraft specific speak. When the canopy is raised and the pilots arm is resting on the rail, that is the top of the longeron in the Eagle (can’t speak to other aircraft and am not trying to be sarcastic/ humorous). It’s a C shaped beam, or half an I beam that had several manufacturers or methods in which some were not to spec.

Cheers,

Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Since they couldn't compute exact strength, they usually erred on the side of caution. That's why a modern plane rated to a given amount seems flimsy to an older design. It actually is, in a way, since people can better compute what the exact limit is, they can build right onto that limit.
> 
> If you really wanted to evaluate strength, you'd want to evaluate an old plane's strength with modern technology; then use the figures you got out of that as a baseline figure, and you'd be building as tough as the past.
> That had to also do with older-fashioned ideas about how a design should last as long as the customer wants it to. If you want to keep it a long time, we'll keep repairing it. Boeing, from what it appeared, seemed to subscribe less to the idea: The 707 for example was expected to last 40,000 hours. While the plane could probably be repaired and maintained past that point, there was the presumption that people would probably just buy the newer model.
> ...



An interesting thing was MacD / Boeing had gone to the USAF asking for money plus an old Eagle so they could test it to destruction to determine its actual failure point in hours. The USAF said nope, so the engineers did some calculations to determine best guess when the average jet would fail. They had a formula that included hours, over Gs plus who knows what else. They came up with 12000 hours. The MOGUARD Eagle that broke up in mid air was put thru the formula and was determined to have about 11700 hours ish on it when it failed with a defective structural part.

Not bad hypothesizing on the engineers part, that includes the guys who designed and built as well as their protégés who figured out the failure formula.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Since they couldn't compute exact strength, they usually erred on the side of caution. That's why a modern plane rated to a given amount seems flimsy to an older design. It actually is, in a way, since people can better compute what the exact limit is, they can build right onto that limit.
> 
> If you really wanted to evaluate strength, you'd want to evaluate an old plane's strength with modern technology; then use the figures you got out of that as a baseline figure, and you'd be building as tough as the past.
> That had to also do with older-fashioned ideas about how a design should last as long as the customer wants it to. If you want to keep it a long time, we'll keep repairing it. Boeing, from what it appeared, seemed to subscribe less to the idea: The 707 for example was expected to last 40,000 hours. While the plane could probably be repaired and maintained past that point, there was the presumption that people would probably just buy the newer model.
> ...



Please don't forget that systems wear out long before the airframe. We've pulled a few corporate jets through the hangar to part out with less than 12,000 hours TT time because the engines were at TBO. And the overhaul costs were close to, or in some cases exceeded the value of the jet.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2020)

jetcal1 said:


> We've pulled a few corporate jets through the hangar to part out with less than 12,000 hours TT time because the engines were at TBO.


Just curious, were those engines in an "on condition" maintenance program? Our turboprops at the commuter came from the factory with 5300 hour TBOs, but went "on condition" immediately, and most were still on their original airframes when the company went T.U., some with 20K+ hours/cycles. Our average leg was 50-55 min, so time and cycles tracked pretty close. We did a lot of single engine turns in the Podunk airports, so you could usually tell which side of the plane an engine came from by its hours/cycles ratio. We were the only operator in our neck of the woods whose Ops Specs allowed single engine turns, so we could get in and out of the back country places faster than the competition.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Just curious, were those engines in an "on condition" maintenance program? Our turboprops at the commuter came from the factory with 5300 hour TBOs, but went "on condition" immediately, and most were still on their original airframes when the company went T.U., some with 20K+ hours/cycles. Our average leg was 50-55 min, so time and cycles tracked pretty close. We did a lot of single engine turns in the Podunk airports, so you could usually tell which side of the plane an engine came from by its hours/cycles ratio. We were the only operator in our neck of the woods whose Ops Specs allowed single engine turns, so we could get in and out of the back country places faster than the competition.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I do not believe they were on condition. I do know in one case the engines had 8000 + hours (Don't remember cycles and the RR people were quoting just over $1.3 mil each to overhaul

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 22, 2020)

jetcal1 said:


> I do not believe they were on condition. I do know in one case the engines had 8000 + hours (Don't remember cycles and the RR people were quoting just over $1.3 mil each to overhaul


Speys? Or Tays? RRs are pricey beasts. The Darts on our Fokkers cost near twice/flt hour compared to the GEs on the SAABs that replaced them. The extra 12 seats on the Fokker only paid for the extra cost if you could fill them on every leg. How do I, a lowly wrench twister, know all this? My then girlfriend, now ex-wife, was the Manager of Purchasing and a former wrench twister herself.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Mar 22, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Speys? Or Tays? RRs are pricey beasts. The Darts on our Fokkers cost near twice/flt hour compared to the GEs on the SAABs that replaced them. The extra 12 seats on the Fokker only paid for the extra cost if you could fill them on every leg. How do I, a lowly wrench twister, know all this? My then girlfriend, now ex-wife, was the Manager of Purchasing and a former wrench twister herself.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Due to NDA's, I don't to get into a lot of details. (Geez,I feel like a prick writing htat.) BR710's

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 18, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> It is and it isn't. While Naval warrior's post certainly goes into detail, it doesn't in fact dispute my question of who was to use it at the time in the ETO. By 1944 the desire for a long range escort was being met by the P-51, P-47 and P-38, ground attack was being handled by aircraft like the Beaufighter and Typhoon, with the Tempest as a supreme low altitude fighter entering service and the likes of the Spitfire XIV on the way as a great all rounder, excellent performance down low and up top, the Allies have some serious capability at their disposal. Now sure, every airframe counts and there's no doubt the Corsair would have been welcome in larger numbers, but if Corsairs were being diverted to the ETO, where are they _not_ being used? There was a need for them in the Pacific, so that's where they were best served. Not even a Corsair can be in two places at once.


Cont:
My theory was based on a relatively small number of F4Us being used as a stopgap measure for the period of June to Nov/Dec 1943. It was available during this this time as they US was furnishing them to the FAA and later the NZAF. 8th AF in the ETO was losing a lot of B-17/B-24s during this pre-P-51 operation time period. I recently came across a currently produced profile print of an F4U painted as if operating as a P-47 unit. Just brought back thoughts on this discussion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 20, 2020)

drgondog said:


> he F6F had 250 gallons and had less one way range than the P-47D. It could carry a lot more for ferry but once the xternals are gone you have to come home with what you have internally





Glider said:


> would stick to using them to escort the 1943 B17/B24 raids.



I've evaluated the high altitude escort radius of the F6F and determined that with the 150 gallon belly tank the range was about equal to P-47 with the early ferry tank filled with 100 gallons of fuel. The 150 gallon drop tank utilized by the Hellcat was much more streamlined than the ferry tank and should have provided more range if total air frame drag between the two aircraft were similar (each aircraft having a total of about 400 gallons). It wasn't because the Hellcat's wing was both larger and thicker than the Thunderbolt's and created even more induced drag as altitude increased (due to inherent increases in wing AoA). This was one reason why it wasn't as efficient and burned more fuel for a given cruise profile, even with similar drop tank configurations. The engine driven supercharger also robbed valuable power and required more boost pressure than the turbocharger for the same output power.

The best configuration for the Hellcat would be the 150 gallon belly tank and 100 gallon wing tank. This gives a perfect 250 internal/250 external fuel load. By my estimations (using metrics provided by Bill) the conservative ETO escort radius would have been about 265 miles, allowing for the outskirts of Aachen to be reached. This was only marginally better than a P-47D equipped with a 75 gallon belly tank and roughly equal in range if the 108 gallon belly tank was installed so there's really no need whatsoever to consider using Hellcats for escort in place of the Thunderbolt during the summer of '43. Besides, during this time they were needed in significant numbers in the PTO, as was the Corsair.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> An interesting thing was MacD / Boeing had gone to the USAF asking for money plus an old Eagle so they could test it to destruction to determine its actual failure point in hours. The USAF said nope, so the engineers did some calculations to determine best guess when the average jet would fail. They had a formula that included hours, over Gs plus who knows what else. They came up with 12000 hours. The MOGUARD Eagle that broke up in mid air was put thru the formula and was determined to have about 11700 hours ish on it when it failed with a defective structural part.
> 
> Not bad hypothesizing on the engineers part, that includes the guys who designed and built as well as their protégés who figured out the failure formula.
> 
> ...



This was one of the sorts of tasks I did when I was a test engineer at Sikorsky. During thar time, AHS did a study where they sent fatigue test data for a component to the big helicopter makers, Bell, Boeing, Sikorsky, and Aerospatiale. Same part, same data, and the results differed by a factor of about 500. I don’t remember the ranking


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I've evaluated the high altitude escort radius of the F6F and determined that with the 150 gallon belly tank the range was about equal to P-47 with the early ferry tank filled with 100 gallons of fuel. The 150 gallon drop tank utilized by the Hellcat was much more streamlined than the ferry tank and should have provided more range if total air frame drag between the two aircraft were similar (each aircraft having a total of about 400 gallons). It wasn't because the Hellcat's wing was both larger and thicker than the Thunderbolt's and created even more induced drag as altitude increased (due to inherent increases in wing AoA). This was one reason why it wasn't as efficient and burned more fuel for a given cruise profile, even with similar drop tank configurations. The engine driven supercharger also robbed valuable power and required more boost pressure than the turbocharger for the same output power.
> 
> The best configuration for the Hellcat would be the 150 gallon belly tank and 100 gallon wing tank. This gives a perfect 250 internal/250 external fuel load. By my estimations (using metrics provided by Bill) the conservative ETO escort radius would have been about 265 miles, allowing for the outskirts of Aachen to be reached. This was only marginally better than a P-47D equipped with a 75 gallon belly tank and roughly equal in range if the 108 gallon belly tank was installed so there's really no need whatsoever to consider using Hellcats for escort in place of the Thunderbolt during the summer of '43. Besides, during this time they were needed in significant numbers in the PTO, as was the Corsair.



What is the "high altitude" you speak of?

What speed is it cruising at?


----------



## DarrenW (Jun 20, 2020)

wuzak said:


> What is the "high altitude" you speak of?
> 
> What speed is it cruising at?



25,000 feet and a cruise speed of 283 mph (from pilot's manual).

I compared the F6F with a 150 gallon drop tank to the P-47 with a ferry tank at this altitude and the two airplanes have roughly the same cruise speed, range, and fuel burn rates.

AC / altitude / engine output / RPM / MP / fuel setting / fuel use rate / airspeed / max. range

P-47D / 25,000ft / 1200hp / 2250rpm / 32" Hg / auto lean / 105gph / 295 mph / 960 miles / 2.81 mpg

F6F-5 / 25,000ft / 1225hp (Low Blower) / 2300rpm / 36" Hg / auto lean / 106gph / 283 mph / 935 miles / 2.67 mpg

At 30,000ft things are even a bit closer:

AC / altitude / engine output / RPM / MP / fuel setting / fuel use rate / airspeed / max. range

P-47D / 30,000ft / 1200hp (est.) / 2250rpm / 32" Hg / auto lean / 110gph / 303 mph / 960 miles / 2.75 mpg

F6F-5 / 30,000ft / 1125hp (High Blower) / 2300rpm / 34" Hg / auto lean / 111gph / 299 mph / 935 miles / 2.67 mpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 21, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> 25,000 feet and a cruise speed of 283 mph (from pilot's manual).
> 
> I compared the F6F with a 150 gallon drop tank to the P-47 with a ferry tank at this altitude and the two airplanes have roughly the same cruise speed, range, and fuel burn rates.


Resp:
This same issue applies to the F4U. Initially I didn't figure in the speed necessary that the escort fighters had to maintain with the bombers in order to effectively intercept the Lufwaffe. My fuel consumption figures did not take the aforementioned into account.

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


----------

