# American Hellcats vs the LW



## Jenisch (Mar 12, 2012)

I know there were some combats between LW aircraft and Hellcats (I think most British Hellcats). 

Comparing the Hellcat being flown by the USN against LW aircraft, specially the MW50 Bf 109s, the plane seems to be inferior for a not so small margin. Howerver, I think the Hellcat didn't have a disadvantage that many other aircraft of the war that were also inferior in the speed against the competition have: inferior structrural strenght. The Hellcat was very strong, and could dive with the German planes. Perhaps more importantly: it could dive from an advantageous position to very high speeds for a successful energy attack, standard tactic. The aircraft was also more agile than the German planes, and the USN pilots were very good in teamwork in the Pacific; familiar with tactics to deny similar superiories the Zero had with the Wildcat, such as the Thach Wave, and in deflection shooting they probably were the best trained of the war. The Hellcat also had superior range over the German machines, specially the 109, which is a very valid advantage as well.

I think the Grumman cat was a competitive machine against the LW in the hands of the USN (and probably the FAA).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 12, 2012)

Tens of thousands of heavily armored IL-2 attack aircraft were shot down with 2cm or 3cm mine shells. The F6F won't fare any better.


----------



## Erich (Mar 12, 2012)

a couple of questions, what theater of ops was the hellcat used ?

did it ever face Bf 109's in combat and where ?

or was it used in the over the See capacity against LW recon A/C ?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 12, 2012)

if i remember right some were used in the sbark in south france


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> Tens of thousands of heavily armored IL-2 attack aircraft were shot down with 2cm or 3cm mine shells. The F6F won't fare any better.



I meant strong structurally, but it certainly was able to take some good punishment. Figthers differ from ground attack planes in the sense they are less exposed to enemy fire, and are in better conditions to avoid it at least partially. Even so, the IL2 was a fast, agile and heavily armored plane when it was introduced as a single-seater. When the two-seat models came, it lost a lot of speed and maneuverbility. The IL-10 came to adress the problems.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2012)

For a comparison, the P-47 and the F6F were very similiar. The "Jug" could take a serious beating and dish out a world of hurt.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 12, 2012)

In USN service the only F6F action over Europe transpired during Operation Dragoon, the invasion of southern France in August 1944. USS Tulagi with VOF-1 (Lieut Comdr WF Bringle, USN) and USS Kasaan Bay embarking VF-74 (Lieut Comdr HB Bass, USN), both squadrons, operating F6F-5s, provided coverage for the landings. VF-74 also operated a 7-plane F6F-3N night fighter detachment from Ajaccio on the island of Corsica. On the day of the invasion, 15 August, VF-74 flew 60 sorties, VOF-1, 40 sorties, all ground support missions.

On the morning of 19 August, the first German aircraft, three He 111's, were spotted by a four-plane division of VOF-1 pilots. The Americans were too short on fuel and could not attack. Two of the Americans were forced to land on HMS Emperor due to their fuel state. Later that day, two He 111's were spotted by another VOF-1 division and were promptly shot down, this occurring near the village of Vienne. Lieut Poucel and Ens Wood teamed up to bring down one and Ens Robinson brought down the second. Soon thereafter, in the same vicinity, a third He 111 was shot down by Ens Wood. 

That same morning, a division of VF-74 pilots led by Lieut Comdr Bass brought down an Ju 88 and in the afternoon another division attacked a Do 217 with split credits to going to Lieut (jg) Castanedo and Ens Hullard.

On 21 August, pilots from VOF-1 shot down three Ju 52 transports north of Marseille. Two were credited to Lieut (jg) Olszewski; one went to Ens Yenter. Operating for two weeks in support of the invasion, these two squadrons were credited with destroying 825 trucks and vehicles, damaging 334 more and destroying or otherwise immobilizing 84 locomotives. German aircraft shot down: VOF-1: 6, VF-74: 2. 

Although the two navy squadrons lost some 17 aircraft, combined, all were to ground fire or operational accidents. None were shot down by German aircraft. Among the 7 pilots lost (2 from VOF-1 and 5 from VF-74) was the CO of VF-74, Lieut Comdr H. Brinkley Bass, awarded 2 Navy Crosses from early actions, killed by antiaircraft fire while strafing near Chamelet on 20 August. 

The Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm also employed the F6F in air action over Europe. The only fighter-to-fighter FAA F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut Comdr SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me 109's and FW 190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the Germans lost 2 Me 109's and one FW 190. The FW 190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut Ritchie. Luftwaffe losses in the area for this date were noted as three 109G’s, #14697 (Ofw Otto) and #10347 (Uffz Brettin) both from 10/JG5, and another from 8/JG5 #unknown piloted by Fw Berger; there no record of an FW 190 loss. On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Ltn Prenzler claimed one.

On 14 May, 800 Squadron's leading scorer, Sub-Lieut Ritchie (now with 4.5 victories) added an He 115 to his tally and the shared another He 115 with the CO of 804 Squadron, Lieut Comdr Orr, giving him a total of 6 victories for the war. Interestingly enough, for this date, the Luftwaffe losses noted as specifically to F6Fs numbered five, all He 115 from 1/406; these were #2738 (Obltn Gramberg), #1879 (Obltn Zimmermann, #2085 (Fw Jänisch), #1867 (Ltn Carstens), and #2721 (Obltn Ladewig)

Prior to these actions, FAA F6F's were used for anti-aircraft suppression on raids against Tirpitz on 3 April 44 (Operation Tungsten). These included - from Emperor - 800 Squadron (Lieut Comdr Hall) and 804 Squadron (Lieut Comdr SG Orr, DSC, RNVR).

USN F6F pilots's were credited with bringing down 8 German aircraft, 3 He 111; 3 Ju 52; and 1 each Ju 88 and Do 217 with no air combat losses. In Fleet Air Arm service, F6F pilots were credited with bringing down 5 aircraft to 1 loss: 2 He 115; 2 Me 109G; and 1 FW 190. The F6F loss was in the 8 May 1944 FW 190/Me 109 engagement. 

Rich


----------



## davebender (Mar 12, 2012)

Are there historical statistics which show how many 2cm mine shells were required to shoot down a P-47? That data must exist somewhere.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2012)

davebender said:


> Are there historical statistics which show how many 2cm mine shells were required to shoot down a P-47? That data must exist somewhere.


Among many well documented cases, one that might interest you is the experience that Major Robert Johnson, of the 56th FG, had on 26June43 versus Fw190s.

His P-47 was hit by 20mm cannon fire, damaging his tail, the canopy and shattering his engine. Unable to bail out (cannon damage to the canopy) he headed for home, but not before being attacked repeatedly by another Fw190, who tore his aircraft up with MG fire. Long story short, he made it home safely...


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2012)

So davebender thinks the Hellcat ... the fighter with the best kill-to-loss ratio in history until the F-15 ... is roughly similar to the IL-2? Must be smoking a strange weed or maybe had too much beer.

The Mustangs were not shot down in tens of thousands and neither were the Thunderbolts. Methinks the Hellcats would do just fine, and maybe better due to maneuverability combined with enough speed and climb and toughness. 

Comparable with an IL-2? I'm not even in the same universe, metaphorically speaking. Doesn't mean dave is wrong ... it means I doubt it in the extreme and would even bet beer on it. Too abd we can't get together and discuss it over beer. Even if we disagreed, we'd still have the beer and maybe a steak.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 13, 2012)

The sample size of the Hellcat vs the Luftwaffe S/E fighters is probably too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

My opinion (apologies for length):

Compared to the primary USAAF fighters in the ETO – the P-51 and the P-47 - I’d suggest that the Hellcat enjoyed an advantage in terms of slow speed manoeuvrability – particularly right near a stall - overall controllability, control harmonisation and maybe overall dogfight ability under about 20,000.

With its large wing, lower stall speed and excellent controllability, the F6F would handily turn inside a P-51 or P-47 in a slow/sustained turn. 

This is gleaned from an old discussion on the Aces High BB, but data from the Society of Experimental Test Pilots gives the F6F a 95 knot stall speed at 3g, compared to 109 knots for the P-51D and 122 knots for the P-47D 

STEP also has the following data for a level 180degree turn around at METO power at 220 knots at 10,000 feet:

P-47D: 9.7 sec 
F6F-5: 9.9 sec
P-51D: 10 sec
(F4U: 8.5 sec)

America’s Hundred Thousand list the F6F-5 with a 3 g turn radius of 16.5 ‘units’, while the P-51D was at 21.5 and the P-47D was at 24.7.

This suggests very little advantage to any aircraft in hard manoeuvring, at least at lower altitudes. I’d need to see an EM diagram, or – heaven forbid – do some of my own calculations, on harder manoeuvring – although from what I can recall, the P-51 was better above 275-300 mph. 

I’d suggest that the P-47D and P-51B/C/D had outright advantages in speed and rate of climb – particularly as altitude increased – as well as rate of dive, rate of roll and possibly high speed manoeuvrability. Moreover, I’d also posit that these traits were more favourable for combat in the ETO than the better slow speed handling of the hellcat.

Pilots at the post-war Patuxent River evaluation trials listed the P-51 as a better fighter below 25,000 ft and both the P-51 and P-47 as a better fighter above 25,000 feet. 

Just 2% of pilots surveyed listed the F6F as the best fighter below 25,000 ft and just 3% as the best fighter above 25,000 ft. 

There two sets of USAAF and USN (TAIC) comparative trials against the Zero, one with P-51, P-38 and P-47 and the other with the and FM-2, F4U-1 (maybe) and F6F (not sure if -3 or -5) that would allow for some reasonable although not direct comparisons. 

On speed, the USN and RAF tests give the F6F top speeds of around 370 for -3s without WEP, all the way up to about 391 for later -3 and -5s with WEP. Peak performance altitude was between 23,000 and 25,000 ft.

There is a TIAC test out there that suggests that the F5F-5 was only 8-10 knots (9-12 mph) slower than the F4U-1, which would give it a top speed of a little over 400 mph. However, I don’t think this is the place for that discussion.

At high altitudes, the P-51 and P-47 appear to have a decisive speed advantage over the F6F. Hellcat’s top speed at 30,000 ft was reported as 355-360 mph and 320 mph at 35,000 ft.

In comparison, P-51D’s were pulling 410-430 mph at 30,000 ft and 400-425 mph at 35,000 ft. 

P-47s were capable of 420-430 mph at 30,000 ft and 395-415 mph at 35,000 ft. 

Rate of climb for the Hellcat seems to have been about 2700-2900 fpm for early versions, reaching about 3600 fpm for the later, more highly powered versions. Better than most of the P-51s and P-47s (yes, even the paddle bladed ones) at sea-level, but falling behind by about 20,000 ft. 


For me, the two most outstanding features of the USAAF front line fighters in the ETO in 1944/45 was their excellent high altitude performance and their excellent manoeuvrability at high speeds. 

Combined with excellent pilot training and sufficient weight of numbers, this was enough to defeat the Luftwaffe - and its more manoeuvrable S/E fighters - over Germany.

While the Hellcat had the range to go to Germany, I believe that the margin of performance in the ETO lies in favour of the 109 and 190 from the time the F6F could be introduced (around mid to late 1943).

I believe the Hellcat performed so well in the Pacific because it had a sufficient reservoir of performance (both speed and altitude) over the most common Japanese types, combined with enough manoeuvrability to force Japanese into combat.

In the ETO, I believe that the situation would be reversed. The 109G and 190A would be at least as fast as the Hellcat at medium to low altitudes and faster at higher altitudes, although less so for the 190A. If the Hellcat had been a primary USAAF fighter in the ETO, a very different style of combat may have evolved, one fought at slightly lower altitudes and one that may have emphasised the better turn and slow speed performance of the Hellcat.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2012)

GregP said:


> So davebender thinks the Hellcat ... the fighter with the best kill-to-loss ratio in history until the F-15 ... is roughly similar to the IL-2? Must be smoking a strange weed or maybe had too much beer.



Errr...the Buffalo had a better kill-to-loss ratio than the Hellcat, indeed it probably had the best kill-to-loss ratio of any fighter in WWII. Just goes to show statistics aren't worth a damn...unless "best kill-to-loss ratio in history" is shorthand for "best by a US-built aircraft flown by US pilots". 

We will now return to our regularly scheduled programme.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2012)

Are we clear about the kill ratio Hellcat scored, and I'm not talking about the claims?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 13, 2012)

Corsair might fair a bit better.


----------



## Ratsel (Mar 13, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> Among many well documented cases, one that might interest you is the experience that Major Robert Johnson, of the 56th FG, had on 26June43 versus Fw190s.
> 
> His P-47 was hit by 20mm cannon fire, damaging his tail, the canopy and shattering his engine. Unable to bail out (cannon damage to the canopy) he headed for home, but not before being attacked repeatedly by another Fw190, who tore his aircraft up with MG fire. Long story short, he made it home safely...


Neat story. I surprised that any P-47s were shot down by the inferior Me 109 Fw 190 weapons platform (2cm 3cm cannon very effective against B-17 B-24, useless against P-47/Hellcat if I read various threadsright). Its also clear that the RAF, USAAF, USN, had much greater pilots, and a much more sound tactical planning to face every scenario presented by the Luftwaffe. Thanks for the information!


----------



## Erich (Mar 13, 2012)

to set the record straight for DaveB about 2cm Minengeschoss it was not standard on LW fighters until spring of 1944. so what was used was HE and HEI but not the concentrated form of the (M) round.


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2012)

On the Williams site there is a comparison run by the USN between an FW190A-4 and an F6F3 and F4U1. Makes for interesting reading. The FW out climbed and was faster than the F6F and was not as dominant with the F4U but the two Navy fighters could follow the FW in any maneuver and the FW could not follow the Navy fighters in maneuvering. The Navy advised that the FW should be closed with but not to try out climbing or out running. Of course the 6-50s and large ammo capacity of the Navy planes made them extremely dangerous to any German fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## riacrato (Mar 13, 2012)

I think the report shows the three to be very close overall, i was actually astonished a "used" Fw 190 A-5 held up so well against a factory-fresh F4U-1D. It's a good example how top speed figures don't tell as much as some people think they do. The American fighters were, no contest, the better in-fighters but if the Fw pilot played his cards correctly he could probably escape combat with a climb in his comfort zone.


----------



## Ratsel (Mar 13, 2012)

Erich said:


> to set the record straight for DaveB about 2cm Minengeschoss it was not standard on LW fighters until spring of 1944. so what was used was HE and HEI but not the concentrated form of the (M) round.


Thanks for the additional info! I doubt however the Brandsprenggranatpatrone/Brandgranatpatrone /Minengeschosspatrone /Panzergranatpatrone /Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Phosphor) /Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Elektron) rounds would make any difference against the P-47/Hellcat. One needs pilots that can shoot accurately, and weapon platforms that can catch turn with them, which the Luftwaffe did not have. I could be wrong? I read that some German pilots were aces (maybe not becouse of their exagerated/overinflated kill counts)? Thanks again for the info.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Mar 13, 2012)

> I think the report shows the three to be very close overall, i was actually astonished a "used" Fw 190 A-5 held up so well against a factory-fresh F4U-1D. It's a good example how top speed figures don't tell as much as some people think they do. The American fighters were, no contest, the better in-fighters but if the Fw pilot played his cards correctly he could probably escape combat with a climb in his comfort zone.



I agree

It was a FW 190 A5-U3 what was definitive a fighter bomber and the prequel to the FW 190 F-2 serie.

So in reality it would be a FW 190 A-6 clean fighter with 4x 151/20, 2 x 131 or 2 x 151/20, 2 x 131.

To my opinion the FW 190A had an advantage against the Hellcat because it could outclimb, outdive, outrun and outroll the Hellcat and we all know that the FW 190A wasn't a turn fighter in all it's career and the pilots don't fly her as turnfighter.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Mar 13, 2012)

DonL said:


> I agree
> 
> It was a FW 190 A5-U3 what was definitive a fighter bomber and the prequel to the FW 190 F-2 serie.
> 
> ...



Sounds like the same situation the Mark V Spitfire was in when it first faced the 190, although I'm not sure if the 190 could outdive a Hellcat or if it could outroll it significantly, but the 190 would surely outrun and outclimb it.


----------



## davebender (Mar 13, 2012)

Rudel once flew a Ju-87 back to base after it was hit with six 37mm AA rounds. I would hazard a guess six 37mm rounds would normally bring down a Ju-87. Rudel simply got lucky.

Hence the reason for official damage statistics. How many 20mm rounds can an average (i.e. not lucky) P-47 or F6F absorb and still limp back to base?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2012)

If the Hellcat's pilot can keep the game above 25000 ft, he is likely to come off 1st v. the Fw-190As. Since the usage of any US fighter in ETO almost automatically points into the bomber escort job, that would most likely be the case. The Fw-190A-5/A-6 are fastest at 20300 ft (410 mph), F6F-3 at 23000 ft (385 mph). In 1944 Hellcat gets another 10 mph there, plus water injection, Fw-190A-8 gets more weight drag (= 400 mph at 20160 ft), some receiving MW kit (less usable than for F6F because of some 5000 ft of altitude difference). 
In other words, if the combat is taking place in 1943, under 25000 Fw should be better. Above that, or in 1944, the Fw-190 is at disadvantage. The Focke Wulf able to beat Hellcat is the 190D. 

Bf-109 is another story.The Gustavs with gondola cannons should achieve parity in Oct 1943, and upper hand with the advent of AS engine.
The one's without extra cannons are competitive for the most part of 1943, but better from Oct 1943, let alone wit the DB-605AS (or better) on board. The pilot better be a good shooter, though


----------



## DonL (Mar 13, 2012)

> If the Hellcat's pilot can keep the game above 25000 ft, he is likely to come off 1st v. the Fw-190As. Since the usage of any US fighter in ETO almost automatically points into the bomber escort job, that would most likely be the case. The Fw-190A-5/A-6 are fastest at 20300 ft (410 mph), F6F-3 at 23000 ft (385 mph). In 1944 Hellcat gets another 10 mph there, plus water injection, Fw-190A-8 gets more weight drag (= 400 mph at 20160 ft), some receiving MW kit (less usable than for F6F because of some 5000 ft of altitude difference).
> In other words, if the combat is taking place in 1943, under 25000 Fw should be better. Above that, or in 1944, the Fw-190 is at disadvantage. The Focke Wulf able to beat Hellcat is the 190D.



From the comparison report, the FW 190 A5-U3 was clearly faster at 25000 ft then the F6F-3 Hellcat.
I don't know which supercharger the Hellcat had and which was it's best altitude performance. Can anybody help?

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report

Also the report says that the FW 190A and the Corsair were clearly superior in rates of roll to the Hellcat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2012)

Thanks, I've seen the report. The Fw-190 from that test lacks the (outer, I presume) cannons their ammo, while the US fighters are flown with full armament ammo. That skews the results in favor of the 190, in speed, climb and roll rate. 

The R-2800-10, in military rating (30 min), has a full throttle height at 22500 ft, the R-2800-8 from Corsair has a FTH at 21000, all in high gear. In a 30 min rating (Steig und Kampfleistung), the BMW-801D has the FTH at 17100 ft (5300m).
In 5 min rating, WEP, avilable with water-injection, the FTH is at 20000 ft for the our R-2800, while the 3 min rating (Notleistung, no water injection, but with higher boost and RPM) for the BMW 801D is 18400 ft (5700 m). All walues WITHOUT ram effect.
The Fw-190A-5/A-6 makes almost 395 mph at 19000 ft on 30-min rating, F6F-3 380 mph at 23000 ft, F6F-5 390 at 24000, early Corsairs 395 at that 23000, the -1D 405-410 mph at 1000 ft more.
In the short time ratings, 190 makes 410 mph at 20300, F6F-5 almost 400 at 20000 ft, F4U-1D 420 at 20000 ft. 
Data for US fighters from US 100000 book, data for Fw-190 from manual.

Agree that Hellcat was not such a great roller; the Corsair, overall, seem as a more competitive of the two US birds.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 13, 2012)

davebender said:


> Rudel once flew a Ju-87 back to base after it was hit with six 37mm AA rounds. I would hazard a guess six 37mm rounds would normally bring down a Ju-87. Rudel simply got lucky.
> 
> Hence the reason for official damage statistics. How many 20mm rounds can an average (i.e. not lucky) P-47 or F6F absorb and still limp back to base?



Dave, My question about the relative or comparable durability of any WW2 fighter or ther tac-air aircraft would start with the question: "_*What is the equivelant caliber of a water tower*_?" IIRC, Johnson flew his Jug through a water tower by accident and got back to base. That's my standard. Don't know if any other aircraft had similar instance I assume there are some, and would love to know. I also have seen photos (link and lowest photo below) of a P-47 that impacted the ground during a low level strafing run, bent the prop and broke its "nose" but got home. Another is shown above the first after a similar run in with grounded objects (trees) 



Lower than a Snake's Belly in a Wagon Rut > Vintage Wings of Canada


----------



## riacrato (Mar 13, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks, I've seen the report. The Fw-190 from that test lacks the (outer, I presume) cannons their ammo, while the US fighters are flown with full armament ammo. That skews the results in favor of the 190, in speed, climb and roll rate.


 
The Fw 190 also was a fighter-bomber version that had been repaired at least once and whose previous record is unknown. The US fighters were brand new. That skews the results in favour of the Hellcat and the Corsair.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2012)

From what I can gather from the report, the plane was being smoothed and painted, and the engine was capable for maximum power output.


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2012)

Actually riacrato, the comparison test I am referring to has the standard F4U1, not an F4U1D and neither Navy plane has WEP. The Corsair and the FW were actually pretty close in performance with the F6F being the laggard. According to the comparison the Navy planes were much more maneverable than the FW. The FW could not follow either in a loop. One edge the FW had was that it was much easier to get full power since the throttle, prop pitch control and mixture are all combined. Correction, both Navy planes had WEP but I could not see where both Navy planes were factory fresh. In fact the Corsair engine was overheating at times. Those high powered birds could be troublesome.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 14, 2012)

renrich said:


> Actually riacrato, the comparison test I am referring to has the standard F4U1, not an F4U1D and neither Navy plane has WEP. The Corsair and the FW were actually pretty close in performance with the F6F being the laggard. According to the comparison the Navy planes were much more maneverable than the FW. The FW could not follow either in a loop. One edge the FW had was that it was much easier to get full power since the throttle, prop pitch control and mixture are all combined. Correction, both Navy planes had WEP but I could not see where both Navy planes were factory fresh. In fact the Corsair engine was overheating at times. Those high powered birds could be troublesome.


 Hmm didn't know there were two tests from the Navy, but would love to read it. But the results from the test I read which got pretty much the same results were definetly flown with an F4U-1D (it's mentioned several times in the report). As for factory fresh: "The comparisons were made with new production models of the F4U-1D(Corsair) and F6F-3(Hellcat) airplanes". True meaning debatable, probably. But I read that the birds were new.

As for tomo's comment: True, the Fw was stripped and repainted, still it is specifically mentioned that the previous flight time is unknown. The outer cannons make up for only a small portion of weight and it was not unusual for them to be removed if the Fw was used in the air superiority role. Even with just the 2 MG151 and 2 MG17 it was potent versus any contemporary fighter.

Note that the max boost setting they used is 1.42ata, contemporary (it's february 1944) Fw 190 A-5s usually could use C3-injection which enabled a boost setting of 1.65ata, significantly increasing climb, acceleration and level speed. This should more than level out the 4% weight decrease this Fw had over a standard production model.

Had they flown longer time spans to determine level speed, the F4U-1D would've likely pulled away at some point. But they tested, what they thought was realistic for a combat evaluation and the two aircraft were shown to be on par.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 14, 2012)

When "Boost" is quoted for the FW 190 it is normally assumed that it was emergency via Water Methanol injection. In fact "Boost" on the FW 190 was through injection of the C3 fuel into the eye of the supercharger. MW-50 did come in but only late in the war on A-9's and perhaps A-8's (thus late 1944 time period). I have read that some A5's in 1943 or so used MW50 for low level strikes had the systems though I am lead to believe it cause maintenance problems (cracked cylinder heads). The A5 was rather a rare aircraft, I think only 76 were produced before moving on to the A6.


A number of captured FW 190's were tested. It should be noted that one involved in manouvering tests suffered from such severe aileron flutter that it caused premature stall and the pilots blackout. The problem was bady tuned ailerons, the FW 190's push rod system being difficult to adjust correctly without proper instruction so the tests on manouvering are quite suspect. Also note that the F ground attack versions and G long range strike versions had different propellors, WEP, systems of armour and can't be used a proxies for a series fighter evaluation.

The FW 190 did have its flaws: the stiff twin spar wing that gave the 190 its famously high roll rate wssn't perfectly stiff, so under heavy manouvering the washout angle would reduce which could lead to a premature tip stall and the aircraft spinning out. The recovery was instant however as the wings aeroeleastic twist relaxed. It should therefore no be assumed that the Ta 152 had handling anything like the FW 190 as the Ta had a completely new wing structure of completely new materials.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 14, 2012)

So, the Fw 190 had washout on the wings?


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2012)

The report I am referring to is on the Williams Site and was posted on 15 October,2006, and is entitled, Comparative test of FW190A-4 airplane. Another interesting test is a comparison of the F4U1 and the P51B. The P51B overall was the best performing Mustang used in WW2 and some might be surprised at the outcome.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 14, 2012)

Can't find it
Care to share a link?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2012)

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


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks, Vincenzo. I am so computer illiterate I don't know how to put that link up without actually typing it out and I am a hunt and peck typist.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2012)

you're welcome

copy and past


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Hmm didn't know there were two tests from the Navy, but would love to read it. But the results from the test I read which got pretty much the same results were definetly flown with an F4U-1D (it's mentioned several times in the report). As for factory fresh: "The comparisons were made with new production models of the F4U-1D(Corsair) and F6F-3(Hellcat) airplanes". True meaning debatable, probably. But I read that the birds were new.
> 
> As for tomo's comment: True, the Fw was stripped and repainted, still it is specifically mentioned that the previous flight time is unknown. The outer cannons make up for only a small portion of weight and it was not unusual for them to be removed if the Fw was used in the air superiority role. Even with just the 2 MG151 and 2 MG17 it was potent versus any contemporary fighter.



Hi,
I can readily agree that the best cards for Fw-109A-7 and earlier were their roll rate, climb rate under 20000 ft and speed under 25000 ft (even if we don't look just at USN birds), IIRC the test are pretty clear about that anyway. Since/if the outer guns ammo were being removed, I'd say the main purpose of that is to increase all of those 3 attributes - the conclusion is that weight and drag penalty of those cannons was considered as not negligible. 



> Note that the max boost setting they used is 1.42ata, contemporary (it's february 1944) Fw 190 A-5s usually could use C3-injection which enabled a boost setting of 1.65ata, significantly increasing climb, acceleration and level speed. This should more than level out the 4% weight decrease this Fw had over a standard production model.



The quirk is the altitude where the 1,65 ata pressure can be attained. 
The 'Notleistung' setting was increasing both the RPM and manifold pressure, hence both the power AND the full throttle height were increased. 
The C3 injection increases only the manifold pressure, NOT rpm. That means that (in Fw-190A-8's case) the full throttle height is some 750m (2420 ft) under the FTH of the Notleistung. So in pre A-8 planes that could mean that FTH is just under 18000 ft, instead at 18400 ft - no doubt good for some short time climbs under the FTH altitude, or to chase some pesky Tempests down low. However, not the greatest help if the enemy's fighters are incoming at 25000-30000 ft.



> Had they flown longer time spans to determine level speed, the F4U-1D would've likely pulled away at some point. But they tested, what they thought was realistic for a combat evaluation and the two aircraft were shown to be on par.



In overall, I agree.
I've numbered the strong points of the Fw-190 vs USN birds. The later need to make their sweeps high up, in order to downplay the good sides of the 190.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 15, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi,
> I can readily agree that the best cards for Fw-109A-7 and earlier were their roll rate, climb rate under 20000 ft and speed under 25000 ft (even if we don't look just at USN birds), IIRC the test are pretty clear about that anyway. Since/if the outer guns ammo were being removed, I'd say the main purpose of that is to increase all of those 3 attributes - the conclusion is that weight and drag penalty of those cannons was considered as not negligible.


The reasaon the U3 doesn't have the outer cannons was to make sure it could take off with a 500kg bomb. For the role this aircraft was modified for (fighter-bomber) the extra 2 MG/FF simply weren't neccessary.





> The quirk is the altitude where the 1,65 ata pressure can be attained.
> The 'Notleistung' setting was increasing both the RPM and manifold pressure, hence both the power AND the full throttle height were increased.
> The C3 injection increases only the manifold pressure, NOT rpm. That means that (in Fw-190A-8's case) the full throttle height is some 750m (2420 ft) under the FTH of the Notleistung. So in pre A-8 planes that could mean that FTH is just under 18000 ft, instead at 18400 ft - no doubt good for some short time climbs under the FTH altitude, or to chase some pesky Tempests down low. However, not the greatest help if the enemy's fighters are incoming at 25000-30000 ft.


I don't claim the 1.58 / 1.65 ata improve performance across the whole envelope but they do so in some (all?) of the altitudes that were measured here. I'm just saying I don't think the Fw had any sort of significant advantage because it was a bit lighter than normal, for me it seems the results could be considered representative for the type, not just this particular example.

Btw Siegfried: The A-5, though an intermediate Type, was produced in much larger numbers (600-700 iirc).


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 15, 2012)

Hi,
I'm aware that U3, as a fighter-bomber subtype had it's gun armament reduced, no issues about that  My point is that a fighter version has all of the cannons, with consequences at firepower, but also at performance. I've already stated that in standard fighter configuration (all 4 cannons aboard), Fw-190 was a tough opponent for the USN birds (not just for them...). 
I'll attach the speed vs. altitude chart for some Fw fighters. You can see that 1,65 ata is only applicable under the FTH for Notleistung, loss in FTH being some 750 m for the A-8.


----------



## jpatrick62 (Jun 21, 2012)

Overall, I think the FW190 and the F4U-1 were very similar in performance with the F4U having better manuverability and the FW190 (depending on model) a better arsenal of weapons. What would have been a real treat would have been a showdown between a F4U-4 and some Dora models of FW190 or even a Ta-152. As for the Hellcat, I believe a showdown with a FW190 would have been interesting as well. The Hellcat would have a role-reversal from it's use in the Pacific: it would have been the turn and burn fighter while the 190 would have tries slashing attacks from above. The initiative would obviously have been with the German aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2012)

The Buffalo did NOT have a good kill-to-loss ratio at all. It had a good one in Finish service alone. The British and the Dutch lost 150 in the first months of the ar for almost no victories in return. So the type had an abysmal kill-to-loss ratio, and performed abysmally ... except in Finland. We should have shipped ALL of them to Finland.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2012)

The Hellcat, in later versions, outclimbed the Fw 190, so maybe the Hellcat would have been slashing from above.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 21, 2012)

> and performed abysmally...



Not strictly true. The Buffalo was not the reason why the RAF and Commonwealth units did so poorly in Singapore. This was largely down to lack of early warning, small number of airframes, i.e overwhelming superiority in numbers by the enemy, inexperienced pilots, lack of supplies etc. Kiwi ace Geoff Fisken rated the Buffalo as a fighter and did manage to shoot down an A6M in one. His and the other pilots' criticisms of the Buffalo were its armament (for which a fix was found before capitulation) and poor climb performance, but it could withstand a heck of a beating and still get home, also it could outdive the Zero. In a dive it was faster than all its Japanese opponents.

Read the book Buffaloes over Singapore - good account, also Air-to-air, about RNZAF kills of WW2. 

The reality in Singapore was that even if the Brits had Spitfires or any better aircraft, the outcome would have been the same. You are right about the Buffalo's kill to loss ratio though - terrible.


----------



## GregP (Jun 21, 2012)

Doesn't matter what the reasons were, the record speaks for itself. It did what it did and all the what-ifs in the world won't change the numbers.

It was a lousy aircraft which the Fins employed quite well. I wonder what they'd have accomplished with better planes.

Almost ANY plane would have been better ...


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 22, 2012)

Let's agree to disagree; the fact that the Finns made something of it proves it was better than the current perception of it. Sure, the Buffalo was no Mustang, nor was it even an F4F, clearly the better of the two, but even if the RAF was equipped with these, the result would have been the same. The RAF also had Hurricanes in Singapore; didn't make a difference.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2012)

The Finns definately used the Buffalo to bleed the Soviets...they even used the P-36 (Hawk 75) above and beyond what others thought possible.

With that in mind, how would those same Finn pilots in the F2A and P-36 have fared against the Japanese instead of the Soviets?

In other words, the conditions and enemy that the Finns fought in were totally different than the situation in the far east where the commonwealth were pitted against experianced IJN/IJA pilots, so the outcome may have been much different.

Something to think about...

Now that almost looks like a discussion worthy of it's own thread!!


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 22, 2012)

GregP said:


> Doesn't matter what the reasons were, the record speaks for itself. It did what it did and all the what-ifs in the world won't change the numbers.
> 
> It was a lousy aircraft which the Fins employed quite well. I wonder what they'd have accomplished with better planes.
> 
> Almost ANY plane would have been better ...




I bet you'd consider the Hurricane a better option? But how did the Hurri fare against the Japs in the same timespan?
The Fins flew both. I should look up how the rated them.

Chrzzzz


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 22, 2012)

How much of the poor early-war performance (from many types) was attributable to the aircraft and how much was attributable to poor tactics.
It seems there was a learning curve, and perhaps older aircraft get more blame than they deserve.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2012)

Perhaps they do but better aircraft do give beginning pilots a better chance. I forget the numbers but Spitfires lasted longer on average in the BoB than Hurricanes. This gives the new pilots a better chance of living to become old (or at least experienced) pilots. 

Same with the Hellcat. Somebody has asked if the US could have won the war in the Pacific using just F4Fs and the answer is probably yes. But we would have lost a lot more planes, pilots and even ships doing it. The Hellcat was enough better than the opposition that even novice pilots (novice in the sense of combat experience, US pilots having more flight training that Japanese pilots) had a good chance of surviving their first combat encounters. No plane can give a guarantee of immunity no matter how good. In warfare it was seldom one on one but 12 on 12 or 50 on 50 or hundreds of engagements per month at times. Better planes will help on the average.


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2012)

The Hellcat was a good design from the standpoint of it had better performance than the Zeke in most areas and was a relatively easy airplane to operate off of carriers. As SR said it gave low time pilots a good chance to live in air to air engagements in the Pacific operating from a carrier. The F6F3's performance advantage over the Zeke was not as great as desired and the F6F5's was better. At altitudes below 25000 feet the Hellcat would have probably been decent against the LW fighters, depending as in most ACM upon how well it was piloted. One big advantage it had over the FWs and 109s is what many of us ignore in our discussions and that is range. The F6F as well as the F4U outranged the majority of the LW single engined fighters.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 22, 2012)

Discussions about the Buffalo and comparisons made about its performance should take into account the version or mark. The Brewster Buffalo may have possessed among the greatest variablilty in pilot opinion among marks of any aircraft in the war. I had the opportunity to speak with retired USN Buffalo pilot Commander Tom Cheek before he passed away. (As you might imagine, one of my most treasured memories.) He flew the F2A-1 (Finn B-239) and remembered it with immense fondness for the plane. It was handy and peppy, possessed of essentially few vices. He also flew the F2A-2 (w/o armor and SS tanks) and thought it a better platform than the F4F-3, based on the engine upgrade's added 250 hp and light weight. In contrast, he had little good to say about the F2A-3 except that its range was so great he and his squadron mates believed it might be able to reach the US Mainland. 

The B-339 was NOT the same airplane as either of its better performing forebearers. The added weight of armor and ss tanks and the increase in fuel tank size to increase range degraded its performance significantly. The exports were moreover evidently equipped with used DC-3 engines. The weight increase were not accomodated by an increase in landing gear strength or design which would likely have aggravated the weight problem. Worse, the quality of the later marks' manufacturing evidently reflected the company's progressively more serious managerial problems combined with serious manufacturing infrastructure issues that hindered and hampered both production and quality control. IIRC, the landing gear would not retract properly and the organizational maintenance fix entailed filing metal from a strut which was weakened with each occurrence making the problem progressively worse, and eventually led to gear failure. The F2A-1, -2 and B239 were not the terrible B-339 (B-439) and F2A-3 that were considered to be flying coffins by many pilots. The wing area of all Buff marks was about 209 square ft, compared to the 236 of the P-36C and 260 for the F4F-3, aircraft with similar weight and engine horsepower.


----------



## GregP (Jun 22, 2012)

I consider the Skua better than the Buffalo, as well as the Avia B.35 and B.135 are better, as is the Romanian IAR.80 series. None of the alternates were bad aircraft ... and the Buffalo was. Ask anyone except a Finn! Heck, I'd probabluy have taken a Dewoitine D.510 over a Buffalo.

The Brewster Buffalo is sort of like a blender. It might be nice to have one, but nobody knows quite why. Come to think of it, that is kind of like a chronically complaining girlfriend, too.

OK, we agree to disagree ... NO BUFFALO!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 23, 2012)

If the Finns could make the Buffalo do so well inspite of it's shortcomings, just imagine what would have happened to the Russians if the Finns had Hellcats!!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> I consider the Skua better than the Buffalo, as well as the Avia B.35 and B.135 are better, as is the Romanian IAR.80 series. None of the alternates were bad aircraft ... and the Buffalo was. Ask anyone except a Finn! Heck, I'd probabluy have taken a Dewoitine D.510 over a Buffalo.
> 
> The Brewster Buffalo is sort of like a blender. It might be nice to have one, but nobody knows quite why. Come to think of it, that is kind of like a chronically complaining girlfriend, too.
> 
> OK, we agree to disagree ... NO BUFFALO!




I assume you mean all buffaloes. Your alternative's do appear to be marginally faster except for the later Romanian A/C which is apparently competitive woth the Hurricane. The wing of the Avia B.35 looks a bit like that of the Spitfire but was apparently deleted in tha follow on 135. However, if you wanted to plant one on the deck of an aircraft carrier you might have a problem. Of course, the buff also flew considerably earlier than the your preferred examples and was the first naval fighter to introduce all the combined modern innovations of monoplane, retractable landing gear, heavy MG battery and long range. To me it was a revolutionary aircraft. But OK let's agree to disagree... I think of it as the I-16 of naval aviation.

PS The Skua? As a divebomber of course, but as a fighter? You gotta' be pullin' my chain!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 23, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> If the Finns could make the Buffalo do so well inspite of it's shortcomings, just imagine what would have happened to the Russians if the Finns had Hellcats!!



Shortcomings? Let's see: First flight December, 1937. Production F2A-1 (as reported in F2A in action by Maas) With ony 54 units constructed, America's HUndred Thousand doesn't really provide much detail on the F2A-1. 

Speed: 311 mph at 18,000'
Initial Climb Rate: 2,750 fpm. 
Ceiling 33,000 feet
Range 950 miles
Battery: 3 x .5" and 1 x .3" MGs or 4 x .5" MG (reported armament for Finn B-239)

In March '38, the XF2A-1 beat out some serious competition for its initial USN contract or 54 aircraft including:

Seversky P-35 (Navalized as the XNF-1)
Curtiss P-36 (navalized) Thought I read this aircraft was considered but have found no confirmation.
Grumman XF4F-2 (progenitor of the more successful F4F-3 and subsequent series)


----------



## Timppa (Jun 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> The Buffalo did NOT have a good kill-to-loss ratio at all. It had a good one in Finish service alone. The British and the Dutch lost 150 in the first months of the ar for almost no victories in return. So the type had an abysmal kill-to-loss ratio, and performed abysmally ... except in Finland. We should have shipped ALL of them to Finland.



Finns would have been eternally grateful for the 500+ F2A's.
As it was, Finn's bought 44 F2A-1 airframes with a unit price of $54,000 (not cheap at the time), paid upfront. That did not include engine, guns, instruments, etc.Those had to bought separately, for example, engines were from the DC-3 airliners.

Big difference from the Lend-Lease "Pay back when you want" - terms with the Soviets, for arms against (also) the Finns..


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 23, 2012)

Timppa said:


> Finns would have been eternally grateful for the 500+ F2A's.
> As it was, Finn's bought 44 F2A-1 airframes with a unit price of $54,000 (not cheap at the time), paid upfront. That did not include engine, guns, instruments, etc.Those had to bought separately, for example, engines were from the DC-3 airliners.
> 
> Big difference from the Lend-Lease "Pay back when you want" - terms with the Soviets, for arms against (also) the Finns..



I thought that the use of used DC-3 engines was due to the cut off of "_lend lease_" (sic) supplies later in the war but was a delivery item for the later exported B-339s. I wonder how the Finn Pilots would have felt about the F2A-2 and 3 or exports B-339s. Despite the pilots of LeLv 24 being among the best in the world, I wonder what they would have thought of 500 B-339 after the first landing gear failure, a defect that actually was foreshadowed even in the relatively light F2A-1 version. Apparently the F2A-1 were relatively servicable until replacement parts became scarce but held up reasonably well under combat conditions. IIRC, the F2A-1 also fared well when relegated to the perhaps somewhat less elite (by reputation at least?) LeLv 26. I don't get that impression from what I've heard about the exported B-339s or domestic F2A-3s.


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2012)

Notwithstanding the Legend of the Finns; 18 F2A3 Buffalos and 6 F4F3 Wildcats from VMF221 met the Japanese raid 30 miles out from Midway with altitude advantage. The Japanese lost one or two fighters and two carrier attack planes. The IJN shot down 13 F2As and 2 F4Fs. Enough said about Buffaloes.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 23, 2012)

I can't come close to the technical expertise in this group but I do know a lot said here comports with what I heard from my dad who flew these. Their basic advantage in the Pacific was their supercharger and ceiling enabling them to dive on their opponents then zip right back up, plus their heavier armor. Roosevelt, because of his former ties to the Navy, really pushed these into production. The F4U, as some others of you had noted, was no slouch, either. Clearly these two were the class of the fighters in the Pacific. I'm totally unfamiliar with the LW fighters so needless to say this thread is a fascinating read for me on how these machines rate vs. one other.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 23, 2012)

the Buffalo go bad v/s Japanese fighters in 41/2 but was not the alone. The finnish used that more times that others we can NOT take out finnish performances for judging Buffalo, the finnisch claimed a around a 20:1 ratio v/s enemy fighters (the buffalos in pacific get around a actual 1:5 ratio v/s japanese fighters), the finish losses are around 1/3 of that in Pacific


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 23, 2012)

> It seems there was a learning curve, and perhaps older aircraft get more blame than they deserve.



That's a fair comment. Sure, Greg, the Buffalo wasn't as good as the F4F, nor the Zero, nor even the Hurricane, but under more favourable conditions, like say, in Finland it proved its worth. Yes, indeed the conditions between Singapore and Finland were very different, but as I stated earlier, even if the Allies were equipped with better aircraft over Singapore, the situation there would not have been any different. So it wasn't as good a fighter as an F4F, that doesn't make it awful. Although I would rather have gone to war in an F4F over a Buffalo!


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2012)

OK, you guys have somewhat comvinced me that it was only the worst American fighter ... not the worst fighter.

Still, I am struggling to identify any that were, in fact, worse. Nope, can't think of a contemporary that was worse ... but maybe it will surface. Sort of like the PZL Zubr of fighters.

Maybe the Bachem Natter? It killed German tets pilots almost at will, and didn't kill any Allied people at all. Perhaps that IS worse, but not really contemporary with the Buffalo, is it?

Sorry, I am struggling with anything worse ... and not finding any answers ...


----------



## cimmex (Jun 24, 2012)

@GregP
regarding the Bachem Natter you should do some research. In this case even wiki is a good source. Pilot Lothar Sieber was killed on 1. März 1945 during a test flight. This was the only deadly accident during evaluation of the project. BTW it was the first manned vertical rocked lift off ever. 
How many pilot whole over the world were killed during testing a prototype of a plane which was successful later.
cimmex


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2012)

The P-80 must have been a bad a/c as it killed its test pilot(s) using Greg's criteria of killing test pilots.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

GregP said:


> OK, you guys have somewhat comvinced me that it was only the worst American fighter ... not the worst fighter. Still, I am struggling to identify any that were, in fact, worse. Nope, can't think of a contemporary that was worse ... but maybe it will surface. Sort of like the PZL Zubr of fighters. Sorry, I am struggling with anything worse ... and not finding any answers ...



I believe the F2A-3 was one of the two worst american fighter used in WW2. The other contender? The Sevrsky P-35. Although in their infancy both were somewhat revolutionary aircraft for their time. I personally believe the F2A-1 to be historically more important as the first modern naval fighter. 

As to naval aircraft of other nations that fought in WW2:

Well for starters, the Skua as a fighter. IUC it was procured to provide a carrier's aerial defense (CAP) while also fulfilling an offensive role (fairly effectively) as a dive bomber. I'd also include the A5M as inferior to the F2A-3. 

I believe in general, there are many fighters that, at a given moment in time, were successfully employed but time passed them by. The I-16 comes to mind. The Gloster Gladiator, Cr-42 and so on. Few of these enjoyed as celebrated a moment in time as did the B-239/F2A-1. I can only repeat my call to distinguish among the types. I personally don't regard the F2A-1 or B-239 as Buffalos. The name Buffalo wasn't given to them. It was assigned to a very inferior mark that enjoyed virtually no success whatsoever beyond a few individual a2a victories. It was then popularly broadened to include all of the marks. It's easy to ascribe success of the B-239 to the superb pilots of LeLv 24, but it also had some limited success when used by a less celebrated group LvLe-26 who were able to shoot down advanced types including an La-5, a Lend Lease Tomahawk, and a P-39 late in the war.

Enemy types claimed by the Finn B-239 included 15 Spitfires, about 60 Hurricanes, about 50+ Mig-3, 45+ Lagg-3, about 20 La-5, and 5 Tomahawks and 1 P-39.

These are listed at the Buffalo's website:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm

So, after this information, are we really talking about the same aircraft when folks talk generically about the *Buffalo*!


----------

