# F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt



## Clay_Allison (Jan 31, 2009)

The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing. 

No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.

People eaither love the P-47 (like me) gushing about its toughness, firepower, number of kills, number of sorties (most in Europe), realiability (mission ready %), and dive speed. Or they hate it because it was no dogfighter, turning like a city bus and only fit for the climb and dive.

The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft, though many would say this would not have been the case that the F4U not been only barely carrier capable due to dangerous landing qualities.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2009)

The F-3 or F-5 and the M or N version of the Hellcat and Thunderbolt? Of the two, my guess is the P-47, aren't they both in somewhat similar size btw?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 31, 2009)

I think an F6F would handle the P-47 anywhere but at very high altitudes.


----------



## Catch22 (Jan 31, 2009)

I agree Mike. I think it was more maneuverable. And Jan, the Thunderbolt and Hellcat were 1 and 2 respectively in regards to biggest single engined fighters (at least for the US, I know the Jug was the biggest period).


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 31, 2009)

Talk about a slug fest though, two brutes, heavy weights, with tremendous firepower and the ability to take a pounding.

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


----------



## Amsel (Jan 31, 2009)

I would have to go with the F6f5 myself. Manueverability being the key issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2009)

P-47 is my bird here. 
Not only because it could take it on the V-1 if needed.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2009)

P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).

P47 for fighter bomber role.

F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed).

P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance.

When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 31, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).
> 
> P47 for fighter bomber role.
> 
> ...


they did have a ton of similarities though. Same engine, similar philosophy, I don't think you could find two much more alike at first glance.


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 31, 2009)

I wouldn't say the F6F had "Tremendous" firepower. 

I would have liked to seen a land based version of the F6F w/o the extra weight needed for carrier operations.

Like any similar planes, it would come down to the pilot, chance and like SYS mentioned, the altitude of the scrap.

Pretty cool duel!... if I had to choose... I'd go for the Hellcat

.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Feb 1, 2009)

The P-47 did not have tremendous firepower either. By 1943 most fighter aircraft had firepower superior to the 8 x .50cal MGs carried by the P-47.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Feb 1, 2009)

By European standards the P-47 armament was not the greatest, but for air-to-air combat against fighters 8 .50 caliber machine guns were more than enough and remained apropiate for the rest of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.
> 
> No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.
> 
> ...



The Mustang killed nearly as many in the air as the P-47 and P-38 combined, nearly as many as the F6F in the air but far more on the ground.

Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter, and arguably against a much more dangerous opponent than the F6F

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).
> 
> P47 for fighter bomber role.
> 
> ...



very good summation. For the USN, the F6F was the right airplane at the right time. IIRC it shot down more Japanese aircraft than all the USAAF and USN and USMC aircraft combined in the PTO. Its performance matched the prime mission against the Japanese aircraft extremely well.

While I believe it would have accounted itself well for several mission profiles it would have had a much tougher role escorting in the ETO and would have been evenly matched and probably outperformed by the 109G-6 and Fw 190A7 which would have been their initial foes in ETO in late 1943.

IMHO the F6F was superior in PTO and inferior in the ETO/MTO

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 1, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The Mustang killed nearly as many in the air as the P-47 and P-38 combined, nearly as many as the F6F in the air but far more on the ground.
> 
> Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter, and arguably against a much more dangerous opponent than the F6F


Then I am misinformed. I had thought the longer time and more sorties by the P-47 had made up for the P-51's superiority.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Then I am misinformed. I had thought the longer time and more sorties by the P-47 had made up for the P-51's superiority.



Clay - you are right about the huge sortie disparity but that didn't come close to closing the gap against the LW.

The P-47 had nearly 2x the sorties but the difference between the two, - particularly in the ETO, was that the P-47 was basically second team in 8th AF after March 1944 - until their shorter range was no longer a huge disadvantage during the Normandy campaign, then back to second team again untiul the Bulge - at which time only the 56th had Jugs..

The P-47 basically flew Penetration and Withdrawal Support, leaving and picking up the bombers from Munster to Stuttgart and the 51's picked up the heavy lifting against the Luftwaffe from Central Germany through Poland and Czechoslovakia and Austria. 

The P-38 wings briefly numbered 3, then 4, before they started conversions to 51s in July, 1944 - and they simply were not very effective until the late J and early L's which did not start to show up until June. Only the 479th FG (38s) and 56th (47s)had a high air to air ratio comparable to the Mustangs.

I am not yet 100% with the below numbers for 8th AF, but here they are:
Air to air--------------------------Ground
A/c -----Dest------Lost*****Dest****Lost
Spit-------2-------- 3 *******0******0
P-47-----1550------214*****739*****200
P-38------278------101*****161*****109
P-51-----3328------326****4113*****839

The 'ground losses' in these columns are a/c that went down while strafing, whether flak or collisions. The 'air losses' are those that were seen to be shot down, or MIA to unknown causes returning from a fight, or simply MIA when German aircraft were seen in same area.

The air awards are from USAF Study 85 with cross reference to Olynyk. The ground awards are from USAAF 8th AF Victory Credits Board.

All the above are solely 8th AF and do not include for example the 354th FG Mustang/P-47 scores nor any of the 9th/12th or 15th AF totals.

Note an interesting point considering the 'vulnerability' of the Mustang. Both the air to air ratios and the strafing ratios for the Mustang are better than the P-47 and P-38. The twin engine P-38 was the worst of all for losses while strafing (ratio)


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2009)

With my preliminary data I would select the P-47D-25 over the F6F-5, both contemporaries. At SL, both aircraft have similar airspeed and climb. As altitude increases, the P-47 exhibits an increasing advantage in both air speed and climb, at 10k, P-47 airspeed is 395 mph to 375 mph for the F6F, climb for the P-47 is 3260 ft/min to the F6F's 2800 ft/min. The advantage increases as the altitude goes up. Add to that a better diving speed and faster roll rate, and the P-47 just has more tools to work with.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

davparlr said:


> With my preliminary data I would select the P-47D-25 over the F6F-5, both contemporaries. At SL, both aircraft have similar airspeed and climb. As altitude increases, the P-47 exhibits an increasing advantage in both air speed and climb, at 10k, P-47 airspeed is 395 mph to 375 mph for the F6F, climb for the P-47 is 3260 ft/min to the F6F's 2800 ft/min. The advantage increases as the altitude goes up. Add to that a better diving speed and faster roll rate, and the P-47 just has more tools to work with.



I agree with everything you said Dave. I do like the 2x 20mm/4 x .50 firepower of some of the F6F-5's but I'm not sure how many saw combat.

The F6F-5 could probably out-turn the Jug below 20K but turn is highly over rated when outperformed in climb, dive, roll and raw speed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fly boy (Feb 2, 2009)

that would be one big fight


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 2, 2009)

I feel the need for speed. I would take the P-47 for its speed if nothing else over the F6F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I feel the need for speed. I would take the P-47 for its speed if nothing else over the F6F.



especially for ETO escort

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 2, 2009)

drgondog said:


> especially for ETO escort



And for ground attack.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Feb 2, 2009)

davparlr said:


> With my preliminary data I would select the P-47D-25 over the F6F-5, both contemporaries. At SL, both aircraft have similar airspeed and climb. As altitude increases, the P-47 exhibits an increasing advantage in both air speed and climb, at 10k, P-47 airspeed is 395 mph to 375 mph for the F6F, climb for the P-47 is 3260 ft/min to the F6F's 2800 ft/min. The advantage increases as the altitude goes up. Add to that a better diving speed and faster roll rate, and the P-47 just has more tools to work with.



I always found it interesting that the P-47 was so much faster at 10K than the F6F. The P-47 has the weight of the turbosupercharging system but I guess its bigger 4 bladed prop made the difference.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I always found it interesting that the P-47 was so much faster at 10K than the F6F. The P-47 has the weight of the turbosupercharging system but I guess its bigger 4 bladed prop made the difference.



It depends on which apple is being compared - but if P-47D-25 and beyond there was a lot more HP available at WEP in the 47 (2550 for -59) than the -10 in the F6F-5 (2000hp). 

The F6F-6 is the only version other than the two experimental F6F-3's that had the two stage/two speed turbosupercharger and engine dash number to take advantage of it. It (F6F-6 never saw combat)

By the time the 47M was introduced with all the weight stripped out and wing span and area increased - the 47 outclimbed the F6F everywhere and far faster at all altitudes above 5K. It was by then a match for the P-51H in speed and climb.

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


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 2, 2009)

Gentlemen,

This is a tough call as both were war winning aircraft! The P-47 does not get it due for its early escort work in Europe as it is a fact that most of the skilled German pilots were killed by P-47s(and P-38s) before the Mustang came on the scene as the lead escort and air superiority aircraft. The P-51s faced a less well trained German pilot many of which were easy kills. The Jug was the ultimate fighter bomber and could take hits that a Mustang would have crumbled under. If the P-47 M and N had been introduced in Europe in the same quantity as the Mustang the results would have been the same. As for the F6F it won the war in the Pacific after the line was held by the F4F and P40. It was the top scorer period and that speaks for itself. Comparing the P-47 and F6F is like comparing two different types of Apples. Both were sturdy, powerful, well armed, and could climb and dive very well. Both represented what was best in US WW2 aviation design. The P-47 was better at high altitude and the F6F at lower. I have to give the edge to the P-47 simply because it was an excellent fighter like the Hellcat but had the edge as a multirole fighter bomber. Neither of these aircraft get their true due as the P-51 and Corsair were sexier and were later developments. The P-47 and F6F won the war and set the stage for the others to be successful. The 
P-47N was the ultimate US Fighter of WW2 if both air superiority and ground attack roles are considered.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Feb 2, 2009)

The F6F had 5257 kills allegedly in the PTO. The P47, 697. The F6F had 8 kills in the ETO. The P47, 2686. Altogether, the P51 had 5944, F6F had 5265 and P47 had 3662, all allegedly. The F6F was a nice safe airplane to fly and to operate off a carrier. It was also very rugged and was easy to maintain. It did not have the overall performance of the P47 but if used in the ETO, extensively, IMO it would have given a good account of itself. One advantage it would have had over the P47 would have been that it could have operated off of much shorter airfields and early in the war would have had better range. The P47 initially was very short legged. The F4U was developed and went into action before either the F6F or P47. The P47N had the same climb rate as the early P47C, D which was lousy.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> This is a tough call as both were war winning aircraft! The P-47 does not get it due for its early escort work in Europe as it is a fact that most of the skilled German pilots were killed by P-47s(and P-38s) before the Mustang came on the scene as the lead escort and air superiority aircraft.
> 
> ...



Back to the nagging proof thing- the F4U-4 and the 51H were great aircraft. Maybe a moderate percentage of increased losses would have occurred on ground support but the 354th FG jumped at the chance to get rid of the Jug and get back into Mustangs.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 2, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Back to the nagging proof thing- the F4U-4 and the 51H were great aircraft. Maybe a moderate percentage of increased losses would have occurred on ground support but the 354th FG jumped at the chance to get rid of the Jug and get back into Mustangs.



DRGONDOG, Thanks for the info. I am at work enroute home soon. I'll try to back up what I am saying with fact. Thanks for keeping us sharp!


----------



## MikeGazdik (Feb 2, 2009)

I answered this based off the question; P-47 vs F6F. And my answer was F6f. I take the question as meaning you vs the other guy. IF I had to choose one and then dogfight the other, I would take the F6F. I think my chances would be slightly better.

If I was supposed to answer as to which was the best aircraft based upon history and what it accomplished, then once again another tough argument, and I am not sure which to pick.

I personally like the P-47 better. But I wouldn't want to dogfight a Hellcat if I didn't have to while flying the Jug.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 2, 2009)

They are both cool planes. One was in the Navy, one was in the army, a lot of argument right there! 

The P-47 was a good plane, because it was so massive and able to take a lot of hits, but then again so could the Hellcat. The Hellcat was a better dogfighter, so perhaps if you were fighting Dora's or 109's then that would be the better plane to pick. 

On Carrier operations the P-47 would probably be too slow to take off and crash into the sea, so it's not a plus there. 

It's a tough one. But I guess I'll stick with the P-47, by just a little bit. It could dive something terrible!


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> I answered this based off the question; P-47 vs F6F. And my answer was F6f. I take the question as meaning you vs the other guy. IF I had to choose one and then dogfight the other, I would take the F6F. I think my chances would be slightly better.
> 
> If I was supposed to answer as to which was the best aircraft based upon history and what it accomplished, then once again another tough argument, and I am not sure which to pick.
> 
> I personally like the P-47 better. But I wouldn't want to dogfight a Hellcat if I didn't have to while flying the Jug.



Except in ground support role - If I see the other guy first I would prefer the 47 in comparable year versions, particularly mid 1944 forward. I know the F6F is superior in low altitude but not by much! 

The 47 had so many options including dive/zoom for superior altitude, faster, rolled better, much better climb above 25K.. much faster abover 10K, heavier fire power. The Jug doesn't have to play 'turn' unless on the deck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMustangRider (Feb 2, 2009)

Both the P-38 and the P-47 were excellent fighters and were lethal countering Luftwaffe fighters when they fought under their terms but in the ETO where endurance was the name of the game the contributions of the P-51 are impossible to deny nor ignore, the Mustang didn't just offer the capability to protect bombers until their targets and back but also the capacity to hunt down German fighter in their own skies until the allies had the solid ground in Europe and long range was not longer a necesity. By the end of the war both the P-38 and the P-47 had matured greatly but earlier it was the Mustang which helped greatly in achiving air superiority for the allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

Just realized that the P-47 was more than twice as expensive as the F6F; owning, no doubt, to the complex and expensive turbocharger (as opposed to the Supercharger on the F6F).

F6F: $35,000 in 1945
P-51: $50,985 in 1945
P-47: $85,000 in 1945
P-38: $97,147 in 1944


----------



## davebender (Mar 20, 2009)

*F6F.* Empty weight = 9,238 lbs.
$35,000 in 1945
A reasonably effective fighter aircraft for an inexpensive price. The USN equivalent to the Me-109.

*P-47.* Empty weight = 10,000 lbs (for P-47D).
$85,000 in 1945
The aircraft use similiar quantities of aluminum and have similiar engines. Even the machineguns are similiar. Either the P-47 turbocharger is outrageously expensive or the P-47 airframe is very expensive to manufacture.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> *F6F.* Empty weight = 9,238 lbs.
> $35,000 in 1945
> A reasonably effective fighter aircraft for an inexpensive price. The USN equivalent to the Me-109.
> 
> ...


I have read previously that Turbochargers were outrageously expensive.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 20, 2009)

"The Cat" was 1 ton lighter comparing all-up weight (15,400 vs 17,500) and had a larger wing. The difference in speed (380 vs 433) is obvious as the Jug was a cleaner machine.


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

Sweb, the Jug may have had slightly less drag than the Hellcat, but the main reason the Jug had a higher vmax than the Cat was that it's engine made more power high up where the air was thinner and an airplane could go faster because of less drag. The F6F5 was a legitimate 400 plus MPH AC at critical altitude. For a WW2 recip AC to go fast it had to get high.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 21, 2009)

That the P-47 was overshadowed by P-51 is exactly the same with the Hawker Hurricane which had shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain campaign. Spitfire, P-51 as well, just grew to people's hearts.

When it comes to these two aircraft, Hellcat and Thunderbolt, I would go for F-6F Hellcat when we talk about a fighter, while P-47 found its true role as a far-ranging hard-hitting ground-attack aircraft.

Cheers


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2009)

Sweb said:


> "The Cat" was 1 ton lighter comparing all-up weight (15,400 vs 17,500) and had a larger wing. The difference in speed (380 vs 433) is obvious as the Jug was a cleaner machine.



Sweb - I don't have the facts at hand but if I was trying for a 'kentucky windage' comparison on drag I woul lay the charts of speed vs Hp at several altitudes to be able to draw some conclusions..

Is that what you did - or did you just compare Vmax with no reference to Hp-altitude for the Vmax comparison?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2009)

Milos Sijacki said:


> That the P-47 was overshadowed by P-51 is exactly the same with the Hawker Hurricane which had shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain campaign. Spitfire, P-51 as well, just grew to people's hearts.
> 
> When it comes to these two aircraft, Hellcat and Thunderbolt, I would go for F-6F Hellcat when we talk about a fighter, while P-47 found its true role as a far-ranging hard-hitting ground-attack aircraft.
> 
> Cheers



Milos - for that analogy to work the P-47 would have had to shoot down more aircraft than the Mustang. That was not the case.

The P-47 and P-38 totals - air to air - Combined achieved the Mustang totals for the entire war despite much longer operational time in theatres.


----------



## davebender (Mar 21, 2009)

It appears to me that a F6F fighter-bomber could perform at least as well as the P-47 fighter-bomber. For half the price.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> It appears to me that a F6F fighter-bomber could perform at least as well as the P-47 fighter-bomber. For half the price.



I would not only agree, but add that an 'army' version would not require folding wings or arframe structure/weight to mount arresting gear. The F6F-5 'Army should be nearly 6% lighter with attendent boost in climb and acceleration and range.

The 9th AF could have easily substituted the F6F-5 for P-47D with zero loss in mission flexibilty...


----------



## davebender (Mar 21, 2009)

I wouldn't count on that. If the Army F6F is designed as a fighter-bomber then it will gain some additional cockpit armor. Plus it will come standard with extensive bomb racks. Similiar to the Fw-190F variant.


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

The F6F3s and 5s were used as fighter bombers extensively in the Pacific. There were 553 lost to AA and they dropped over 6500 tons of bombs. At the fighter conference the F6F was ranked third as a FB, just behind the P47. The Corsair was ranked number one. A couple of hundred pounds of armor, if needed, would not probably effect performance much if 6% of weight had been deleted as an Army fighter.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

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


Table 19 presents the record for individual types of aircraft for the entire war. It will
be clear from the foregoing data that direct comparisons cannot always be made between various
types of aircraft, because of the varying tires and conditions under which they engaged in combat.
Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated
from the sanm ships during the sam periods.

Certain tentative conclusions may Ee reached from these two tables: 

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to tie F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its
greater ability to survive damage.

P. 58 Naval Air Combat Statistics

(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same
conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the
F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.

P. 79 Naval Air Combat Statistics

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister said:


> Polling can be affected by bias...
> Best Strafer
> 
> (1)P-47
> ...


You're telling me
Best strafer: What did the F7F do?
Best all-round fighter below 25,000ft: The Mosquito's up there but the P-38 isn't?
Best all-round fighter above 25,000ft: The F6F is better than the P-38?


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

I'm telling you what the polling of the Joint Conference revealed. Nothing more. Another poster listed some data from the Conference and I just added some more along with an actual study based on data collected by the USN. 

Pilots from the various air services and aircraft companies were given opportunities to fly these aircraft at the Conference and were then given questionnaires. Not all questionnaires were returned. The returned questionnaires were tallied up. 

Industry folks may have been partial to their own aircraft. Naval pilots may have been more comfortable and biased in favor of their own aircraft. The Brits may have been biased in favor of their aircraft and so on and so forth.

The "Division of Votes" were as follows:

Army - 9
Navy - 15
British - 7
Contractors - 20

Chance Vought (Corsair) had 16 members present at the conference, Grumman (Hellcat) had 8. Republic (Thinderbolt) had 5, Lockheed (Lightning) had 2.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister said:


> I'm telling you what the polling of the Joint Conference revealed. Nothing more...


That's right, you said 'polling can be affected by bias'
I simply said 'You're telling me'

No messenger boys getting shot here...


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister, your data must be from a different fighter conference and I question the accuracy not of you but of the data itself. To begin with, what I posted from was the Oct. 16-20th, 1944. There was no F8F, F7F or Mosquito listed in the polls I saw or any foreign AC at all. Mine came from the book by Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand." Also there are some obvious inconsistencies in your data. To say that the F4U1 ranks ahead of the F4U4 as a fighter at any altitude smells funny. Where did you get the poll you quoted. It obviously is a different one than I quoted. By the way a rather well known AAF pilot, Rex Barber, said that if the US had only produced one fighter bomber, it would have to be the Corsair. As far as drag is concerned, again from Dean, the following: Profile Drag Coefficient Summary- P51D-with DC of .0176, P47B DC of .0213, F6F3 DC of .0272. Has the others also, P51 best, P47 in the middle, F6F3 worst except for P61.


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

For the best all around fighter above 25,000 feet, only 82% of the questionnaires were returned. The breakdown was:

(1)P-47 -45% of vote
(2)P-51 -39% of vote
(3)F4U-1 -7% of vote
(4)F6F -3% of vote
(5)F4U-4 -3% of vote
(6)Seafire -2% of vote
(7)P-38 -1% of vote

I would add that if you are not used to flying a twin engined P-38, it would be difficult to be comfortable putting the aircraft through a battery of flight maneuvers to enable a good evaluation.


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

Renrich, my copy is of the Report itself and is for the entire 8 day conference. October 16-*23*. It sounds like you have portions of data taken from the Conference that were printed in Dean's book. As such, your source is somewhat secondary.

"To say that the F4U1 ranks ahead of the F4U4 as a fighter at any altitude smells funny. Where did you get the poll you quoted."

I agree. Again, the data I posted is from* Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River MD, 16-23 October 1944*. As I have pointed out, there are certain biases that stem from a variety of sources. If we assumed that the same 20 pilots (or however many) flew both the F4U-1 and F4U-4, then your criticism of the recorded polling would smell very funny indeed. This is what we know about the evaluators though. 

F4U-1 - Army 13, Navy 4, British 3, Contractors 8.

F4U-4 - Army 0, Navy 2, British 1, Contractors 0.

P-47 - Army 1, Navy 14, British 4, Contractors 10

"By the way a rather well known AAF pilot, Rex Barber, said that if the US had only produced one fighter bomber, it would have to be the Corsair."

Not sure how that is relevant but I'm sure that in hindsight, Hitler wouldn't have opened a second front against Russia either.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> Sweb, the Jug may have had slightly less drag than the Hellcat, but the main reason the Jug had a higher vmax than the Cat was that it's engine made more power high up where the air was thinner and an airplane could go faster because of less drag. The F6F5 was a legitimate 400 plus MPH AC at critical altitude. For a WW2 recip AC to go fast it had to get high.



The Cat was as aerodynamic as a brick. It was all up front and about as bluff as one could design a plane to be. The Jug was a pretty clean design frontally by comparison and it had a much more graceful (lower Reynolds Number) fuselage than the Cat did. The Cat pretty much bullied itself through the air. Heck, it was less aerodynamic than its predecessor. The Jug was heavier and had a higher wing loading so it couldn't turn with the Cat. In a turning, descending battle that was usually its heaviest in heavy air the Cat had to be the better airplane. The Cat is cited as being the highest scoring plane in the war. That's an easy boast considering most of its adversaries were new inexperienced pilots woefully untrained to take on the sheer weight of numbers the Navy threw at them. So, I don't take the Cat's kill ratio into consideration when contrasting types. But, I will make a guess that because of similar power and better turning ability the Cat had an advantage over the Jug, piloting skills being equal.


----------



## renrich (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister, thanks for your reply and clarification. Perhaps the F4U4 had the colic and was not performing well but it was a real hot rod compared to the earlier Corsairs or according to your post not many flew it. Sweb, if you look at my post your observations about relative drag are dead on. I agree that a lot of the Hellcat kills were against IJN pilots who were rookies. The Corsair kills early in the war when in the Cactus Air Force, look better. And, of course the Wildcat went against the cream.


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

In similar fashion, the P-47M at the conference was flown by very few pilots and there were no comments about less that optimal mechanical performance. It got rave reviews by those that flew it but there were not enough votes for it to register in any of the categories. For instance, there were comments that it was the flat out best fighter in the ETO at higher altitudes and yet the P-47D was voted best fighter above 25,000ft. ???

An interesting exchange at the Conference related to fighter bomber survivability:

P. 87 of Report -

*Colonel Garman*: "I can speak only for the African theatre and only for a particular type of operation. The P-38 was used at low altitude on many occasions and we found that it was quite vulnerable to ground fire - any type of ground fire, even small arms fire. But other planes also experienced that same ground fire and the radial engines brought the planes home. You can't lay down any hard and fast rule and say the in-line engine is no good at low altitude as far as ground fire is concerned, It all depends on the operation entirely."

*Lietenant Colonel Tyler*: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47 is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. That may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which, but it certainly can take it better than other types."


----------



## JoeB (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister said:


> Polling can be affected by bias.
> 
> We can see that biases are not always born out when data is collected for an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> ...


That's a good point to compare sources like that. Those polls are interesting historical artifacts about contemporary opinions of various people, but next to useless IMO to objectively determine which a/c did what best. 'Bias' implies that people have all the facts, but for non-rational or self interested reasons ignore or put less emphasis on some facts. That may have been true of some of those opinions, but also a lot of the voters simply lacked certain important facts. None of them had actually flown *all* the a/c in question in combat. Many hadn't flown more than one, some none. And even that is just first hand experience. The point about F4U v F6F ground fire vulnerability really needed statisical operations analysis to quantify. And even statistical operations analysis is only as good as the data, which in some cases (though not in the case you cite) really requires the other side's accounts, which you can't do till after the war...

The F7F as great strafer is another example of opinion without all the relevant facts available. It had great fwd firing armament (especially the non-radar versions), so that's a reasonable theory, but there was no actual combat experience to demonstrate it as of the time of that poll. In Korea the USMC used the F7F-3N variant, albeit a night fighter so without the nose mg's, only the fuselage 20mm's. But VMF(N)-542 use of the plane for night and day close support in the early going led to the conclusion it was just too vulnerable in daylight to ground fire, more so than the F4U, just because it was bigger. But in long use in night interdiction alongside the F4U-5N VMF(N)-513 concluded the F7F was the distinctly superior plane for that mission: two men for a super-high workload mission, night attack on road convoys under flare light in mountainous terrain; and the second engine was highly desirable for those missions well inside NK.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

The USN fully appreciated the difficulty in comparing data between aircraft in dissimilar situations and periods in time and stood by the statistical analysis. 

Page 58. 

It will be clear from the foregoing data that direct comparisons cannot always be made between various types of aircraft, because of the varying tires and conditions under which they engaged in combat. *Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated
from the same ships during the same periods.*

*Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables;

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.*

The Corsair sported performance well beyond the abilities of the Hellcat and yet the Hellcat was adjudged slightly superior in combat. I suspect that this remarkable admission by the USN was the result of the astonishing 57% increased likelihood of being brought down by ground fire. Such vulnerability would certainly erode the combat effectiveness of an aircraft.

I recall that someone once posted an account by a pilot in Korea who said that the Corsair was vulnerable to being brought down even by small arms fire.


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

I just found something that appears related. Crimson Sky The Air Battle For Korea by John R. Bruning Jr.

Under the Notes for Chapter 3 on page 215

#6 *Though well armored and generally able to withstand battle damage, the Corsair had an Achilles heel in its oil system. ... After a hit in the oil cooler, the Corsair pilot had only seconds either to bail out or crash-land his plane as the engine overheated and seized. More Corsairs were lost than any other type of Naval aircraft during the first six months of the war as the result, in large measure, of this weakness.*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2009)

Magister said:


> #6 *Though well armored and generally able to withstand battle damage, the Corsair had an Achilles heel in its oil system. ... After a hit in the oil cooler, the Corsair pilot had only seconds either to bail out or crash-land his plane as the engine overheated and seized. More Corsairs were lost than any other type of Naval aircraft during the first six months of the war as the result, in large measure, of this weakness.*



Actually that could be said about any aircraft that has an oil cooler and a radial engine, but at the same time I think the "seconds" comment is a bit exaggerated as even with catastrophic oil loss most radials would probably run for more than seconds.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually that could be said about any aircraft that has an oil cooler and a radial engine, but at the same time I think the "seconds" comment is a bit exaggerated as even with catastrophic oil loss most radials would probably run for more than seconds.



I might add that a fatal hit on a radiator or oil cooler is about the same on a heart, lung or Brain. Somebody demonstrate that the armor on the oil cooler is less than on the head of the pilot?

I'll take my chances on an oil cooler hit!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I might add that a fatal hit on a radiator or oil cooler is about the same on a heart, lung or Brain. Somebody demonstrate that the armor on the oil cooler is less than on the head of the pilot?
> 
> I'll take my chances on an oil cooler hit!


 gotta agree there Bill!!!


----------



## Magister (Mar 21, 2009)

I agree with your point about exaggeration but see its value more as further corroboration of the vulnerability due to oil cooling design issue. It would appear that not all recip oil cooling design layouts were equally vulnerable.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 22, 2009)

Magister said:


> I agree with your point about exaggeration but see its value more as further corroboration of the vulnerability due to oil cooling design issue. It would appear that not all recip oil cooling design layouts were equally vulnerable.



It might help if you had a notion which layout was more vulnerable and why?


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

The following post has some interesting discussion. What do you think Bill? Do you think there might be another cause of the vulnerability of the Corsair that was noted by the USN?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hardest-plane-take-down-ww2-3114-15.html

*Post #214 *

The other R-2800 powered fighters do not have these interesting tidbits inserted into the pilots manuals.

The Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for the F4U-4 (October 1944 T.O. No. AN-01-45HB1) warned that there was only enough oil for a maximum of ten seconds of inverted flight. Also, where there was damage to an oil cooler with resulting loss of oil, neither the oil pressure gauge nor the oil temperature gauge would register the change in pressure or temperature until all of the oil was out of the system. (See Manual at page 10) Pilots were warned during combat to check the oil coolers and trailing edges of the wings often for damage that could prove catastrophic.

I have checked the pilots manuals for the P-47 and Hellcat and no such caveats or warnings are present. Nor have I ever heard of any noteworthy vulnerability of the oil cooling systems for either.

As JoeB has pointed out, the oil cooler vulnerability issue is further supported by reports from those who fought in Korea. I have been reading various references to the vulnerability of the oil coolers in Corsairs elsewhere on the web (as I am sure you have) as well.

*Post # 216*, same thread

The author, Walter Boyne, mentions that with respect to operations in Korea, the oil cooler in the Corsair was vulnerable to even small arms fire.

"The airplanes would be hit by nothing more serious than a singe rifle bullet, and then their engines would seize when all the engine oil leaked from the oil cooler. They would then be forced to land behind enemy lines minutes after being hit. ... We were losing many F4U pilots and hoped they were being captured, not killed out of hand" (Page 174)


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

The Corsair being 57% more likely to be brought down would certainly qualify the Hellcat as having a "considerable advantage." I cut and pasted this from that thread as well.


*Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29 of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII:

(e) The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.*


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2009)

In WW2, the F4U flew 64051 sorties, dropped 15621 tons of bombs and lost 349 AC to AA. The F6F flew 66530 sorties, dropped 6503 tons of bombs and lost 553 AC to AA. Statistically it seems like the Corsair is a lot more durable in the bomber role. Now maybe the Corsair carried a huge load of bombs and the Hellcat carried a lot less. Maybe the F4Us bombed where there was no AA( and no rifles) and the Hellcat bombed where there was a lot. The Wildcat had an oil cooler in a similar position as the Corsair and we hear little about it's vulnerability. The USN in 1944 decided the Corsair was a better carrier plane and declared the Hellcat should be replaced as soon as possible. I wonder if the USN knew about the infamous oil cooler of the Corsair. Perhaps the Corsair was picked because it could dive bomb and the Hellcat(nor the P47) could not.


----------



## davebender (Mar 22, 2009)

> The USN in 1944 decided the Corsair was a better carrier plane


The Corsair was inheritly superior as a fighter aircraft. I suspect that was considered more important then the higher price tag and oil cooler vulnerability.


----------



## Timppa (Mar 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Just realized that the P-47 was more than twice as expensive as the F6F; owning, no doubt, to the complex and expensive turbocharger (as opposed to the Supercharger on the F6F).
> 
> F6F: $35,000 in 1945
> P-51: $50,985 in 1945
> ...



The F6F price is not directly comparable. The often quoted F6F price (starting from $50,000 and dropping to $35,000 by the end of the production run) did not include the so called "Government Furnished Equipment", like engines, propellers, wheels, brakes, tires and tubes, auxiliary power plant, radio receivers and transmitters, starters, batteries, generators.

"American Hundred Thousand" gives a price for F4U of $75,000 (1944). That is likely the total price. Still the F6F was cheaper than the F4U and P-47, though.


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

"_Wildcat had an oil cooler in a similar position as the Corsair and we hear little about it's vulnerability_."

I don't know. I have seen diagrams of the Hellcat's and Corsair's and they are very different. I have not seen a diagram the layout for the Wildcat. 

We just don't have hard data between the Wildcat and other Naval fighters flown under what the Navy described as the "same conditions" in the same operations, at the same time and off of the same ships to compare losses where actual AA fire was suffered. 

Up until recently, I had not heard about survivability issues with the Corsair. It would appear that not having heard about the 26% Hellcat loss rate vs. 41% Corsair loss rate under what the Navy stated were the "same conditions" does not mean that this 57% increased likelihood of being brought down did not exist.

The Corsair was a great plane despite any survivability issues acknowledged by the USN. It's contributions to the war effort were enormous. Keep in mind that it took an enormous 57% increased likelihood of being brought down to move the Hellcat's evaluation to "slightly superior" in combat. 

As for why the USN or USAAF made the production decisions they did, all I can say is that they did not always act in accordance with principles of cost efficiency or effectiveness. You yourself mentioned earlier that for the ETO, the USAAF should have gone with the Corsair over the Thunderbolt and Mustang. Are you now asserting that the fact that they didn't is evidence that such a decision would have been a poor one?

Do you think it may be possible that the Navy's data compilation and analysis of all that data may have occurred after the war? In similar fashion and in hindsight you and some others have stated that the Corsair should have been adopted by the USAAF in the ETO. These sorts of could have, should have, would have analysis and conclusions invariably always take place well after the fact and always clash with the decisions that were actually made. As such, the fact that different decisions were actually made would not be evidence that the after the fact analysis and conclusions are faulty.

I understand that later post WWII variants of the Corsair did modify the oil cooler design as a result of what was perceived to be problematic systemic vulnerability.


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

"Wildcat had an oil cooler in a similar position as the Corsair and we hear little about it's vulnerability."

I don't know. I have seen diagrams of the Hellcat's and Corsair's and they are very different. I have not seen a diagram the layout for the Wildcat. 

We just don't have hard data between the Wildcat and other Naval fighters flown under what the Navy described as the "same conditions" in the same operations, at the same time and off of the same ships to compare losses where actual AA fire was suffered. 

Up until recently, I had not heard about survivability issues with the Corsair. It would appear that not having heard about the 26% Hellcat loss rate vs. 41% Corsair loss rate under what the Navy stated were the "same conditions" does not mean that this 57% increased likelihood of being brought down did not exist.

The Corsair was a great plane despite the serious survivability issues acknowledged by the USN. It's contributions to the war effort were enormous. Keep in mind that it took an enormous 57% increased likelihood of being brought down to move the Hellcat's evaluation to "slightly superior" in combat. 

As for why the USN or USAAF made the production decisions they did, all I can say is that they did not always act in accordance with principles of cost efficiency or effectiveness. You yourself mentioned earlier that for the ETO, the USAAF should have gone with the Corsair over the Thunderbolt and Mustang. Are you now asserting that the fact that they didn't is evidence that such a decision would have been a poor one?

Do you think it may be possible that the Navy's data compilation and analysis of all that data may have occurred after the war? In similar fashion and in hindsight you and some others have stated that the Corsair should have been adopted by the USAAF in the ETO. These sorts of could have, should have, would have analysis and conclusions invariably always take place well after the fact and always clash with the decisions that were actually made. As such, the fact that different decisions were actually made would not be evidence that the after the fact analysis and conclusions are faulty.

I understand that later post WWII variants of the Corsair did modify the oil cooler design as a result of what was perceived to be problematic systemic vulnerability.


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

Incidentally, the Thunderbolt could and did dive bomb. I have a P-47 maual that has an entire section devoted to dive bombing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Hal Shook, CO 506th F.S. 404th F.G. 9th AF ,Winkton, D-Day 1944.
This P-47 Thunderbolt was flown by Major Hal Shook prior to and throughout the days after D-Day, what follows is his account of several of his actions.







In the summer of 1944, we were flying near the Seine River, trying to stop the German Army from crossing over and regrouping on the other side. Crossing points along the river were under constant aerial attack and were heavily defended with anti aircraft guns. Approaching the river, we ran into heavy flak, ugly black puffs of smoke so thick it looked like you could walk on it. We were dodging and changing altitude trying to outguess the gunners, when we saw five barges on the water, 10,000 feet below. They were heavily loaded with enemy equipment and troops.
As I rolled into my dive bomb run, almost straight down, my P47 Thunderbolt shuddered as heavy shrapnel slammed into the propeller and engine. Oil streamed out to cover my windscreen ... Bobbing and Jigging from side to side, and with oil still blowing back. I pulled up and away from the river and the flak. Miraculously, the engine was still running. It carried me to an emergency landing strip in Normandy.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2009)

Whoa, I have never said that the F4U should have been chosen over the Mustang and P47. I have said that if the US could have only built one fighter, it would have had to be the Corsair and I do think that the Corsair if adapted to AAF use would have been a better choice than the Jug. The Corsair could never have fulfilled the long range escort mission of the P51. Ideally IMO the US would have built two fighters only, Corsair and Mustang. All effort being expended on them would have made them both better AC. Kind of like although not strictly analogous to 109 and 190. My suspicion is that what the pilot is calling a dive bombing run was really a glide bombing run. I don't believe the P47 had dive brakes and if it was put into an 85 or 90 degree dive it would have not been able to bomb accurately. The Corsair was found to have better accuracy dive bombing than the SB2C and almost as good as the Dauntless. My mistake on the oil cooler of the F4F. I just looked it up in Dean and it is located low and behind the engine. I was talking from memory and thinking of Wildcat pilots saying they were hit in the wing and the oil cooler was punctured.


----------



## davebender (Mar 22, 2009)

There are different ways to solve the same problem. The USAAF could purchase the F4U ILO the P-38, P-40, P-47 and P-51 beginning in early 1943. However the P-51 with Packard Merlin engine was relatively effective and inexpensive. I would prefer to purchase the P-51B beginning in early 1943 for the air superiority role plus the F6F for use as a fighter-bomber. The obsolecent P-40 and problem plagued (not to mention expensive) P-38 end production. The P-47 becomes just another prototype that never enters mass production. 

Meanwhile the USN and USMC get the Corsair as happened historically. They don't need as many aircraft as the USAAF so the high price tag isn't as big an issue.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 22, 2009)

renrich said:


> Whoa, I have never said that the F4U should have been chosen over the Mustang and P47. I have said that if the US could have only built one fighter, it would have had to be the Corsair and I do think that the Corsair if adapted to AAF use would have been a better choice than the Jug. The Corsair could never have fulfilled the long range escort mission of the P51. Ideally IMO the US would have built two fighters only, Corsair and Mustang. All effort being expended on them would have made them both better AC. Kind of like although not strictly analogous to 109 and 190. My suspicion is that what the pilot is calling a dive bombing run was really a glide bombing run. I don't believe the P47 had dive brakes and if it was put into an 85 or 90 degree dive it would have not been able to bomb accurately. The Corsair was found to have better accuracy dive bombing than the SB2C and almost as good as the Dauntless. My mistake on the oil cooler of the F4F. I just looked it up in Dean and it is located low and behind the engine. I was talking from memory and thinking of Wildcat pilots saying they were hit in the wing and the oil cooler was punctured.


If it was just going to be two, I'd say the Mustang and Hellcat, taking into account the production qualities, costs, aforementioned Corsair sensitivity to ground fire, and takeoff and landing characteristics. The F4U was a bit of a widowmaker on the ground. The Hellcat was easy to fly, easy to land.


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

Renrich, he did say "almost straight down." Were you there? Later models of the P-47 (I think D-28 or maybe 30) had dive brakes. You may be correct about "glide bombing" as the Thunderbolt accelerated very quickly in a dive and had a higher dive speed than the Corsair. This valuable air combat characteristic would probably be less than ideal for 60 degree bombing angles. At any rate, you don't need to be at 85 or 90 degrees to dive bomb. Anything 60 degrees or more would technically qualify.

Interesting information about the dive bombing accuracy of the Corsair. Do you have a source?


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

I notice that the Joint Fighter Conference Summary of Questionnaires presents the following:

The Division of Votes for the Summary was:

Army 9
Navy 15
British 7
Contractors 20

Note that the Navy votes outnumbered the Army by 40%. We do not know the breakdown of the 20 contractors who voted in the Summary but we do know that Chance Vought contractors outnumbered the Republic contractors at the conference by 320%. 

Fighter Appearing to Have the Best Stability and Control in a Dive

(1) F4U-1 -- 25%

(2) P-47 -- 23%

(3) F6F -- 13%


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2009)

> .....I would prefer to purchase the P-51B beginning in early 1943 for the air superiority role plus the F6F for use as a fighter-bomber. ......P-38 end production. ....



If the AAF had thrown full support and priority to the P38 in 1939 and 1940, it would have been in full production by the time of Pearl Harbor.

Imagine P38's actually doing deep penetration missions into Germany early in 1943. 

Same with the Hellcat being on the drawing boards after hearing about the AVG experiences with the IJA/IJN fighters early on.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 22, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> If the AAF had thrown full support and priority to the P38 in 1939 and 1940, it would have been in full production by the time of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Imagine P38's actually doing deep penetration missions into Germany early in 1943.
> 
> Same with the Hellcat being on the drawing boards after hearing about the AVG experiences with the IJA/IJN fighters early on.


Full support would have required some serious development of the engine mountings. IIRC the 38 had serious issues in the ETO. If that was fixed, The P-38 would have been a great all-rounder until the P-51 started doing the same job for half as much cost per unit later in the war.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Full support would have required some serious development of the engine mountings. IIRC the 38 had serious issues in the ETO. If that was fixed, The P-38 would have been a great all-rounder until the P-51 started doing the same job for half as much cost per unit later in the war.



The P38's in the MTO didnt have many problems.

P38's used in the recon role (F4 and F5) were in production and in use, and didnt have many issues.

P38's used up in Alaska by the 11th AF also didnt have many problems.

Although this should be the subject of a different thread, If the AAF threw all of their resources at the P38 problems that surfaced in 1940 and 1941, then the axis would be at a disadvantage in Jan 1942 onwards.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2009)

pg 519, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," March 18, 44, "The Corsair is first used as a dive bomber, it is found that the AC can be used safely in dives up to an angle of 85 degrees." Pg 80, "Corsair," by Barrett Tillman, " In other words the SBD-- designed and built as a dive bomber-- was barely 10% more efficient in that esoteric role than the F4U." This was based on a comparison of results between 3 squadrons of Marine F4Us and 3 squadrons of Marine SBDs. Also, in Tillman's book on SBDs, pg 180, he states that Corsairs replaced SBDs as the fleet dive bombers. The SB2C was considered as not as accurate as the SBD and was somewhat of a failure. I can't find the exact source of the comparison between Corsair, Dauntless and Helldiver, most of my books are packed but I will continue to search. The problem with any fighter dive bombing without dive brakes and the P47 had the reputation of losing altitude very quickly when pointed down is that the faster you go, the harder to make fine adjustments and the faster you are the sooner you have to pull out before making ground to metal contact. I don't believe the Jug was ever as effective as the Corsair as a dive bomber.


----------



## Magister (Mar 22, 2009)

_"Corsair," by Barrett Tillman, " In other words the SBD-- designed and built as a dive bomber-- was barely 10% more efficient in that esoteric role than the F4U." This was based on a comparison of results between 3 squadrons of Marine F4Us and 3 squadrons of Marine SBDs._

How did they measure "efficiency"? What exactly is the data of results from the two groups of three squadrons? Is this a large enough sample? Is this really an apples to apples comparison? How do we know? Did they operate under the same conditions, against the same targets in the same time frame with presumably the same defensive interference from the enemy? 

If the massive Corsair loss rate over the Hellcat had been asserted on the basis of two groups of three squadrons, with a summary conclusion about the Corsair's relative vulnerability, do you think you might be wondering the same thing? Moreover, if the data about the Corsairs v. Hellcats could not be analyzed on the same basis, do you think you would just accept the conclusion about the Corsair's vulnerability compared to the Hellcat? I think we both know that you would argue very hard against such a conclusion.

Why are you accepting the conclusions regarding the Corsair and SBD?

_Also, in Tillman's book on SBDs, pg 180, he states that Corsairs replaced SBDs as the fleet dive bombers. _

I did not know that but do we know that the replacement was just due to dive bombing ability? Did the ability to field a good fighter with some dive bomber ability play a role in the decision? The SBD was getting pretty long in the tooth and was limited in the roles in which it could be employed.

Tillman, in his book on the Dauntless, claims that the Dauntless had a "plus" score against enemy aircraft. Is that true? Sounds a bit hard to swallow. If it is not true, I wonder what other claims are not trustworthy.

As I already indicated, the "Thunderbolt accelerated very quickly in a dive and had a higher dive speed than the Corsair. This valuable air combat characteristic would probably be less than ideal for 60 degree bombing angles."

Do you know if the Hellcat was used in dive bombing operations?


----------



## davebender (Mar 22, 2009)

Turning the Jug into a dive bomber would have required dive brakes the size of a garage door.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Mar 22, 2009)

Magister said:


> 1. _Also, in Tillman's book on SBDs, pg 180, he states that Corsairs replaced SBDs as the fleet dive bombers. _
> 
> 2. Tillman, in his book on the Dauntless, claims that the Dauntless had a "plus" score against enemy aircraft. Is that true? Sounds a bit hard to swallow. If it is not true, I wonder what other claims are not trustworthy.
> 
> ...


1. To clarify, that quote refers to landbased USMC units, not USN carrier units. On carriers, dive/scout bomber outfit eventually shrank from 2 to a single squadron, to fit more fighters aboard (either F4U's or F6F's or both) to defend against kamikazes, but neither fighter type literally replaced the SB2C, which replaced the SBD. The AD mainly replaced the SB2C, after the war.

2. No that's not true. Few SBD claims against Japanese fighters check out in Japanese accounts: Zeroes surely had a plus outcome v SBD's in reality. But this gets back to what facts people have. The USN believed during WWII what Tillman said, and that series of books (Dauntless, Hellcat, Corsair, etc) while highly valuable, tells things pretty exclusively from the US side. It doesn't IMO call into question statements he makes about facts the USN or USMC had, like how effective F4U's and SBD's were in ground attack. But again, those statements are about the USMC ground attack missions ca. 1944, mainly against bypassed Japanese garrisons. The USN did not conclude during WWII that fighters bombers could entirely replace divebombers aboard carriers, and the postwar attack plane concept as in AD still had big dive brakes.

3. In part this is a matter of semantics. What fighter units would call 'dive bombing', real divebomber units might call 'glide bombing'. Really steep divebombing by fighters was not unheard of, but required a much higher pull out altitude than a real divebomber, and hence inevitably lower accuracy, though maybe not vastly less. Likewise the more common glide boming at lower angles wasn't as accurate either. But OTOH the fighter bomber was less vulnerable and more flexible, particularly in being able to help defend the carrier. 

F6F's acted as fighter bombers as often as F4U's in side by side carrier ops, and same source NACS, shows that typical loads delivered per sortie for the two were similar, only slightly in the F4U's favor. For many ground targets in 1945, a carrier fighter bomber was suitable enough, but a divebomber was still considered desirable for some target types, and so retained (on CV's; CVL's and CVE's for most of the war only carried carried TBF/M's and fighters).

Joe


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2009)

My typing skills, as well as computer skills are poor so I am not going to copy the text from Tillman's books. JB covered the salient points well. Although I have Tillman's book on the Corsair the actual text covering the dive bombing comparison with SBD's is online. I googled Corsairs dive bombing. The ability of the Corsair to become a fighter after the bombs were dropped no doubt was a big factor. The facts are that the Corsair was used as a high angle divebomber and was effective in WW2 and the Corsair was judged as a better carrier fighter and fighter bomber on May 16, 1944 than the Hellcat by a USN evaluation board. Later it was decided that the number of fighters on board fleet carriers be increased to 73. No doubt part of the decision was because of the kamikaze threat and the other was that the Corsair and Hellcat were quite effective in dual roles. It is interesting to speculate that in 1942, at Coral Sea and Midway, the fleet carriers had only one squadron of VFs(18) and two squadrons of VBs and VSBs(36) plus the squadron of VTs(18) which left them terribly short of VFs for escort and CAP. Yet by 1944, it was found that the VFs in service then could be almost as effective as the VBs in that role and still be effective as fighters. I don't believe the Hellcat could dive bomb at steep angles because it had no dive brakes. However, it did deliver bombs at shallow diving angles. Whether that qualifies as divebombing may be a question of semantics. Interestingly the Corsair was more accurate at very high angle dive bombing than the SBD.


----------



## Magister (Mar 23, 2009)

_Interestingly the Corsair was more accurate at very high angle dive bombing than the SBD._

Do you have a source for that claim? Please see my post above regarding the evaluation of such a claim.

_The facts are that the Corsair was used as a high angle divebomber and was effective in WW2 and the Corsair was judged as a better carrier fighter and fighter bomber on May 16, 1944 than the Hellcat by a USN evaluation board._

And in May of 1946, two years later and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and mountains of actual data, the USN judged that that the Hellcat had a "considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions" and was actually superior in combat. 26% of Hellcats that suffered combat damage were destroyed while 41% of Corsairs met that fate.

*The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same
conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the
F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.*

Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29 of Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII

*Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.*

Page 58 and Table 19:

I for one would have rather gone into combat with a Hellcat as its performance was still superior to its adversaries and it didn't have the glass jaw, Achilles heel or however you would like to characterize the Corsair's far greater vulnerability. 

The Corsair koolaid is powerful stuff. I have no doubt that had the USN's studies established that the Hellcat was 57% more likely to be brought down than the Corsair after suffering battle damage "when flown under the same conditions," that your posts would be peppered with that fact in game, set, match, end of story fashion.


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2009)

Same source as before. Tillman said the SBD was more accurate at 70 degrees whereas the Corsair was more accurate at 85 degrees. The Hellcat was still operational in 1946 and the Navy knew that with jets on the way the prop planes were going to be attack AC. Wonder why the Corsair? There were some Japanese AC at the end where the Corsair's edge in performance was a definite advantage. A good source is "80 knots to Mach 2" by Linnekin to see a comparison of the two's flying qualities. Another source is Williams with an official comparison of the F4U1 and F6F3 versus the FW190. I still wonder how the Corsair dropped almost 3 times the amount of bombs and had a lot fewer losses from ground fire. Oh well, "one can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."


----------



## Magister (Mar 23, 2009)

I deleted my post. This is becoming a dead horse.


----------



## Amsel (Mar 23, 2009)

The Thunderbolt and the Hellcat are just about as equal as you can get for air to air combat. Of course the Jug rules as a fighter bomber and the Hellcat as a Navy fighter. Read an account from a P-47 pilot just today about the Navy and USAAF being cooperative stateside for mock fights when based near each other. The author stated that they were near equal.


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2009)

Agreed and he was beat up pretty bad.


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I agree with everything you said Dave. I do like the 2x 20mm/4 x .50 firepower of some of the F6F-5's but I'm not sure how many saw combat.
> 
> The F6F-5 could probably out-turn the Jug below 20K but turn is highly over rated when outperformed in climb, dive, roll and raw speed.



Agreed, but what is this I hear about the P-47 being a "great climber?" One of my favorite anecdotes about the P-47 comes from Hub Zemeke, after he was congratulated on proving that the P-47 could outdive a 109. He said, "By god, it ought to dive- it certainly won't climb!" (I have seen this quote attributed to Donald J.M. Blakeslee as well.) In fact, the poor climb rate of the P-47 is the one thing I hear about the most, right behind it's incredible ruggedness. The data on wikipedia shows the F6F has a slight _advantage_ in climb rate (3,500ft/s to 3,125), not a disadvantage. 

Sadly, I almost never see roll rate data, anywhere, but the impressive roll rate of the P-47 is well known, so I'll assume it had the advantage there. The P-47 was faster and rolled better, the F6F rolled well (but not as good as the Jug) and turned rather better (wing loading of 37.7lbs/square foot to 58.3). 

These ships seem very similar in performance. It would seem that it comes down to what you consider more important, turn rate or roll rate. I'd say roll rate, personally, but it's worth considering that the F6F was a good roller _and_ had good turn; it's just that the P-47 was an exceptional roller. 

I would love, with all my soul, to find data that gives the rate of roll in degrees/sec for these ships.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 24, 2009)

If you're willing to spend the time, try 

National Archives of Australia

for any plane which was flown by the Royal Australian Air Force. There are a lot of digitised performance files already, and they'll do other ones for a fee. I've seen some roll-rate info in there.


----------



## marshall (Mar 24, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> I would love, with all my soul, to find data that gives the rate of roll in degrees/sec for these ships.




I don't know how accurate this graph is but it's always some info.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 24, 2009)

marshall said:


> I don't know how accurate this graph is but it's always some info.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg



You have filled me with _glee,_ sir. I thank you. 

*mhuxt,* I didn't know about this site before now... I think I'll go look up the Buffalo and see how it rolled.

EDIT: This graph is fascinating- it really shows how the Spitfire dominated low-speed fights, but lost roll performance rapidly as speed increased. The data for the P-40 and the P-51 are interesting too, since they rolled better then most, but only at the higher speeds. Maintaining those velocities would have been easy for the P-51, but not so much for the P-40... I wonder if WWII aircraft performance has a chart for sea level performance as well (though 10,000 feet really isn't that high.)

The roll performance of the clipped-wing Spitfire is slightly frightening, as well.


----------



## Magister (Mar 24, 2009)

I see this too.

Tactical Suitability of the P-47C-1:

(3) Manueverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D-1, P-40F and P-51.

(a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American contemporary fighter types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.

P-47C Tactical Trials


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 25, 2009)

Magister said:


> I see this too.
> 
> Tactical Suitability of the P-47C-1:
> 
> ...



That's odd. That chart shows the P-40 and the P-51 has superior roll at all speeds... at ten thousand feet, at least. Perhaps that test was done at higher altitude; I've heard that the P-40 and it's big wings really started to dominate the thinner the air got.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 25, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> Agreed, but what is this I hear about the P-47 being a "great climber?" One of my favorite anecdotes about the P-47 comes from Hub Zemeke, after he was congratulated on proving that the P-47 could outdive a 109. He said, "By god, it ought to dive- it certainly won't climb!" (I have seen this quote attributed to Donald J.M. Blakeslee as well.) In fact, the poor climb rate of the P-47 is the one thing I hear about the most, right behind it's incredible ruggedness. The data on wikipedia shows the F6F has a slight _advantage_ in climb rate (3,500ft/s to 3,125), not a disadvantage.
> 
> Sadly, I almost never see roll rate data, anywhere, but the impressive roll rate of the P-47 is well known, so I'll assume it had the advantage there. The P-47 was faster and rolled better, the F6F rolled well (but not as good as the Jug) and turned rather better (wing loading of 37.7lbs/square foot to 58.3).
> 
> ...


I've read from many sources that after they introduced the paddle blade propeller, the climb rate became very respectable and the Germans were no longer able to use the climb as an easy out. 

I know that quote was from before the new propeller was introduced.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 25, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> ...I've heard that the P-40 and it's big wings really started to dominate the thinner the air got.


Its wings might have, though I doubt it
its engine certainly didn't


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 25, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Its wings might have, though I doubt it
> its engine certainly didn't


As a fighter, just about everything you read says the Jug was at its best at 30,000 feet.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> As a fighter, just about everything you read says the Jug was at its best at 30,000 feet.


Well then I'm confused
what are we talking about - the Jug or the P-40?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 25, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Well then I'm confused
> what are we talking about - the Jug or the P-40?


No, I'm confused. How did the P-40 make it into this thread?


----------



## billswagger (Mar 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter...............



i'd like to read more about this, do you have the source???

I pulled this off of Wiki

"Despite being the sole remaining P-47 group in the 8th Air Force, the 56th FG remained its(The Air Force) top-scoring group in aerial victories throughout the war."

and....

Warbird Alley: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

this article attributes approximately 7,000 enemy fighter losses, air and ground, to the P-47 in ww2.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 25, 2009)

When it came to air to air fighting at middle and low altitudes, the Hellcat was supreme.

But fighter bomber and high altitude work, the P47 was best.

Pick your mission and then choose which one of these planes is better.


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 25, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I've read from many sources that after they introduced the paddle blade propeller, the climb rate became very respectable and the Germans were no longer able to use the climb as an easy out.
> 
> I know that quote was from before the new propeller was introduced.



Oh. Quite correct on all accounts, there.

I wonder what the climb rate with the new propeller was. Apperently better then the F6F, at any rate.



Clay_Allision said:


> No, I'm confused. How did the P-40 make it into this thread?



I accidentally typed "P-40" instead of "P-47."  

A combination of the long P-40 thread I've been mostly posting in, and the dire consequences of working the third shift.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 26, 2009)

The P-47 is the superior fighter, even at lower altitudes. IMO.
Although it was designed to fly at 30K+, its that altitude that gave it a superior punch at lower altitudes, many times leveling out at speeds well above what the hellcat could dream of. 
I would give the hellcat marks for better turn rate, however, the P-47 would pounce on the enemy so quickly, there was no need to turn fight. 

The P-47 took some time to learn what it was proficient at, and many pilots quickly learned to take advantage of its dive from high above.

It was never known for its climb rate, however upgrades and WEP gave it no trouble hanging with its contemporaries.
Over a long stretch, say 10-15+ minutes of climb, the lack of efficient climb rate was more noticeable. When it had the momentum of a dive behind it, it had no problem getting back up to altitude and beyond. Pilots like "Gabby" could
"...dive from 25K down to 20K....and be able to zoom up to 30K in a matter of seconds, ready to meet 109s."


----------



## marshall (Mar 26, 2009)

billswagger said:


> "...dive from 25K down to 20K....and be able to zoom up to 30K in a matter of seconds, ready to meet 109s."




Could you give the source of this quote?


----------



## Magister (Mar 26, 2009)

Some interesting zoom climb P-47N vs. D test data:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-zoom.pdf


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2009)

billswagger said:


> i'd like to read more about this, do you have the source???
> 
> I pulled this off of Wiki
> 
> ...



Two source for the 9,000+ figure, air plus ground for the Mustang, is Gruenhagen's Mustang and Wagner's Mustang Designer.

From page 133 of Mustang Designer;
In Europe, "The P-51 accounted for 4950 air and 4131 ground in 213,873 sorties for a total loss for all causes in all theatres of 2,520 Mustangs. Thunderbolts flew 423,435 sorties, lost 3,077 for all causes - destroyed 3,082 air and 1,771 ground" - further referenced Evolution of the American Strategic Fighter in Europe "Journal of Strategic Studies, June 1987, p 192 by Stephen Mc Farland.

I believe Wagner should have said combat results for ALL theatres - not just Europe - but I am still researching that issue.

Here is a link to stuff I posted last year as adjunct to my latest book research

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/marshall/SUMMARY_OF_COMBAT_OPERATIONS.pdf

My own research for 8th AF FC 1942-1945 resulted in the following, extracted from USAF 85 for official AWARDS of air scores and 8th AF Victory Credits Board for ground awards plus details on the actual German aircraft claimed/awarded.

P-51 3328 air plus 3212 ground for losses of 326 air and 570 strafing
P-47 1550.5 air plus 739 ground for losses of 214 air and 200 strafing
P-38 278.5 air plus 161.5 ground for losses of 101 air and 109 strafing

The Mustang accounted for 70% of all Claims/awards issued by USAF 85 for 8th AF Fighter Command, 

2308 Fighters (Spit, Jug, Mustang, Lightning) lost in 8th AF to all causes including Mechanical, Fuel, Weather, Accidents. This is my area of focus now - to dive down to the breakout of loss type to fighter type in the Mech, Fuel, Weather, Accident categories.

I am still fine tuning the air scores (by type a/c destroyed) and losses (type of loss by fighter type) but here is a link to my results so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 26, 2009)

billswagger said:


> "Despite being the sole remaining P-47 group in the 8th Air Force, the 56th FG remained its(The Air Force) top-scoring group in aerial victories throughout the war."



true - the 56th FG was top 8th AF air to air scoring group. Notable is that it started in ops on April 8 1943. 

The 354th FG (9th AF Pioneer Mustangs) started ops 8 months later in December 1943 and destroyed 701 air to air (37 more than 56th), the 357th FG which started ops 10 months later in Feb 1944 only destroyed 70 fewer than the 56th ( 595 air to air)...despite the 56th flying 135+ combat missions before the 35th flew its first one!

In terms of most destroyed Air/Ground the 4th was highest (huge majority of Mustang/some Jug scores), then the 56th, then the 355th (huge majority of Mustang scores), then 352nd (dominant Mustang), 357th (all Mustang).

If you insert the 354FG, which got most of it's air scores attached to 8th AF, then they fit after the 355th and above the 352nd.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 26, 2009)

marshall said:


> Could you give the source of this quote?



simMarket: A2A SIMULATIONS - WINGS OF POWER P47 THUNDERBOLT

First paragraph under history. 

I miss quoted a bit..

"This zoom-climb was used to good advantage; it was said that if a P-47 pilot met an enemy Focke-Wulf at 25,000 feet and wanted to out-climb him to 30,000 feet, the P-47 could dive to 20,000, zoom to 30,000, and be waiting for the enemy."




M.http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...e52-taic38.pdf
this is from a post on another thread, which also seems to suggest the superiority of the P-47 Zoom dive/climb capabilities. It also sheds some light on the tactics used in combat against Japanese planes of the pacific.


----------



## Magister (Mar 26, 2009)

OK, its bad enough when people cite to Wikimoron but a website for a flight sim? 

One thing we need to be mindful of here is regurgitating unsubstantiated garbage on websites. With all due respect, that citation for the asserted fact has no value. An assertion is not to be accorded validity just by virtue of its having been reduced to print and broadcast on a website. Moreover, facts are not subject to a vote meaning the more people that parrot an unsubstantiated claim does not cloak it in truth.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 26, 2009)

I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim. 
I've also included that report demonstrating superior zoom stats of the P-47. 
Unless you can cite something to the contrary, it is good enough for me. 
You can't just say, that source is no good, although it is your choice on what to believe.

I do agree that Wiki has some short comings, but its still a pretty accurate source for general discussions. In most cases, i wouldn't use it as a source to quote from, unless I'm in a hurry.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 26, 2009)

I did a book search under Google Book Search and the quote pops up in several sources.
P-47 Thunderbolt Aces of the Ninth ... - Google Book Search


This is another good read of a mock dogfight between a spit IX and a 47C. 
It gives more details on where its disadvantages and advantages were. 
Pgs 184-185
Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering - Google Book Search


----------



## Magister (Mar 27, 2009)

_I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim._

No, that was a lousy source.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 27, 2009)

P-47 Zoom dive - Google Book Search


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 27, 2009)

Magister said:


> _I think it is a great source, considering the validity, detail, depth, realism, and the research done in the making of the flight sim._
> 
> No, that was a lousy source.



The quote was provided under a section titled "History," according to Magister, which meant it was being presented as background historical research, not data on how the P-47 was modeled in some video game. 

As for Wikipedia, it's easy to see at a glance what is well-cited and sourced, and what is insufficiently detailed. Take Wikipedia for what it is- a quick reference for basic information, and a starting point for further research.


----------



## Magister (Mar 28, 2009)

_The quote was provided under a section titled "History," according to Magister, which meant it was being presented as background historical research, not data on how the P-47 was modeled in some video game._

According to me? I did not provide the quote; billswagger did. And again, the source, a flight sim website, is a lousy one.

The "quote" was offered by billswagger as evidence of the zoom climb ability. Forgive me if I discount that source for this evidence.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 28, 2009)

well apples to apples,

i posted a couple more sources that verify the P-47s ability in a zoom climb, which was probably a surprise to most pilots who, like myself, assumed such a heavy bird was incapable of being an adequate climber.
Perhaps the speeds it gained in the dive, combined with the WEP horse power, allowed it to prevail over it contemporaries (mid war, 1943-44). 

The lighter planes couldn't dive as fast, so possibly they couldn't keep up with the bird in any case, zoom dive/climb, included.


----------



## Magister (Mar 28, 2009)

Thed P-47, after receiving the paddle blade and new fuel, was in impressive climber indeed (considering its heavy weight). With the new fuel, she was cleared for 2,600 hp.

The airplane and engine handled well at all altitudes at the higher powers. At 70.0" Hg., water injection, a maximum speed of 444 MPH was obtained at 23,200 feet. *At 65.0" Hg., with water a high speed of 439 MPH at 25,200 feet and a maximum rate of climb of 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet were obtained*.

P 47D Performance Test

Remember, that's 10,000ft and not at SL and that's at 65" and not 70" which the Thunderbolt was actually cleared for with the new fuel.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

i see this 65", and 70"...is that the length of the prop??


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

Inches of mercury, a measurement of manifold pressure. I believe the propeller was about 13 feet in diameter.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 29, 2009)

I put together a couple of charts showing the performance of the F6F-5, P-47D-25, and F4U-1D. Data is from Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand". This does not necessarily correspond with my data base that also uses flight test data, but it does represent a single reputable source. As can be seen, the P-47 has the advantage over the F6F in airspeed from SL up with increasing advantage as altitude increases. Also, the P-47 has the advantage in climb, from barely better at sea level but increasing greatly as altitude increases. Throw in a better roll rate (per Dean) and better dive, and it is apparent that the P-47 has considerable advantages over the F6F-5. Note also, that the F4U has the advantage over the P-47 up to about 20k ft and then the P-47 is superior.


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

Interesting chart that you prepared.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2009)

Yes, that is interesting.

I wonder what the P47N data would look like.


----------



## HoHun (Mar 29, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>I put together a couple of charts showing the performance of the F6F-5, P-47D-25, and F4U-1D. 

Good stuff, thanks! 

Two tips for using Excel for graphing performance charts:

- If you use the X/Y diagram style, it can be a bit easier to portray the graphs since you don't need one speed data point per altitude for each of the aircraft, and you are not forced to use fixed altitude steps (like every 5000 ft or so).

- With X/Y diagrams, it's also possible to swap the axes so that the vertical axis indicates altitude, as it is traditionally done with aircraft performance diagrams. This requires editing of the individual data sources though, and I couldn't to get the "wizard" to do it in one convenient step for an entire data range.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## billswagger (Mar 29, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Yes, that is interesting.
> 
> I wonder what the P47N data would look like.



IMO, the P-47N is a bit over rated. Certainly it was a better climber, but the D still maintained a better roll rate. 
N saw more action in the pacific, right?? I know it was up for consideration for catching V-1s, but the P-47D was already capable of doing it, and there were already other allied aircraft in the air even better suited for the job.


----------



## Magister (Mar 29, 2009)

_N saw more action in the pacific, right??_

No.

I have never read anything indicating that the "N" was considered for ETO. There did not appear to be a need in the ETO for a plane with 2,300+ mile range. Do you mean the "M"? I do not believe the "M" was developed as a countermeasure against the German rockets. It was a very fast ship though.

I have heard of stories of M's tweaked in the field that could approach 500 mph in straight level flight.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 29, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Yes, that is interesting.
> 
> I wonder what the P47N data would look like.



I added the P-47M and F4U-4 just for fun. The P-47N is similar to the M in airspeed but roughly about 300 ft/min less in climb.

The P-47M and F4U-4 are very similar in performance up to about 25k, where the P-47 begins to enter its design flight area.



HoHun said:


> Two tips for using Excel for graphing performance charts:
> 
> - If you use the X/Y diagram style, it can be a bit easier to portray the graphs since you don't need one speed data point per altitude for each of the aircraft, and you are not forced to use fixed altitude steps (like every 5000 ft or so).
> 
> - With X/Y diagrams, it's also possible to swap the axes so that the vertical axis indicates altitude, as it is traditionally done with aircraft performance diagrams. This requires editing of the individual data sources though, and I couldn't to get the "wizard" to do it in one convenient step for an entire data range.


 Thanks for the comment. I have been trying to flip those axis for a while. Excel won't let me copy a column and paste to a row so everything has to be manually transferred. I don't seem to have a X/Y diagram.


----------



## billswagger (Mar 30, 2009)

Those are great graphs.
Just a suggestion for the Airspeed vs Altitude, you may want to start the Airspeed axis at 200 or 250, if it will let you, because most of the data is bunched together and difficult to read. If you add more planes then it might be necessary. 

It would great if there was the info on IAS vs Roll Rate
That would be a great graph to also see. There was one posted on a thread but i'm not sure of the methods or even how accurate it is.


----------



## HoHun (Mar 30, 2009)

Hi Davparlr,

>Thanks for the comment. I have been trying to flip those axis for a while. Excel won't let me copy a column and paste to a row so everything has to be manually transferred. I don't seem to have a X/Y diagram.

Hm, I'm only familiar with the German edition of Excel, so it's probably my fault for not providing the correct English name. Literal translation of the German menu entry would be "Point (X, Y)", but I could also imagine that it might be found under a name like "scatter graph" or something. Maybe you can go by the icons: The small preview for this type shows randomly distributed little markers, in one thumbnail without connections, in another thumbnail interconnected in no orderly fashion with straight lines, and there's a third thumbnail with "smoothed" connections.

Name and icon might be a bit misleading, I'm afraid. The example in the thumbnail looks much more random than our well-organized performance charts 

I know what you mean with regard to flipping the axes, I gave up on that with the default diagram type too! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Timppa (Mar 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I have been trying to flip those axis for a while. Excel won't let me copy a column and paste to a row so everything has to be manually transferred. I don't seem to have a X/Y diagram.



I assume you have the altitudes at the leftmost column and speeds of different planes in adjacent columns.

Select the whole area, select Scatter Chart (I prefer "scatter with straight lines"). This gives you the most formatting options.

Now the horizontal axis is the altitude and vertical axis is the speed. To switch, Click the chart with the right mouse button-->Select Data--->Click Series1---Edit-->Choose X values (speed) with your mouse by choosing the appropriate area. Choose Y values (altitude) likewise. Same with other Series (planes). This may look complicated but can be done pretty quick.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm still working this, but until then, you guys will have to lie on your side and look at the chart!


----------



## renrich (Apr 1, 2009)

My source gives the climb rate of the P47N at combat power as worse than the early P47s which was not good and at military power was barely over 1700 FPM up to 20000 feet.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 1, 2009)

renrich said:


> My source gives the climb rate of the P47N at combat power as worse than the early P47s which was not good and at military power was barely over 1700 FPM up to 20000 feet.



I imagine that the lower climb rate was due to a thicker wing and the weight of the fuel.


----------



## Magister (Apr 1, 2009)

That "Military Climb" is at 53"Hg. Not 72"Hg (WEP) which is the P-47N's maximum power and the power level from which we judge an aircraft's maximum capabilities. What is the "D" model's "Military Power" climb figures?


----------



## Magister (Apr 1, 2009)

* 2. The rate of climb at 56.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, was 2330 ft/min. at 12,000 ft. and at 52.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, 2030 ft/min. at 12,000 ft.*

This is for the late "D" model with paddle blade and the new fuel at 12,000ft. One can imagine what that figure would be at 20,000ft.

P 47D Performance Test


----------



## Magister (Apr 2, 2009)

Interesting read. Note the "XP."

Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation

The XP-47N took to the air for the first time on July 22, 1944. Test comparisons were made with a P-47D-30-RE throughout the early portion of the evaluation period. Much to everyone’s surprise, the XP-47N, with its greater wingspan and higher weight actually proved to have better roll performance than the D model. At 250 mph TAS, the N attained a maximum roll rate just over 100 degrees/second. The P-47D-30-RE could manage but 85 degrees/second at the same speed. At higher speeds, the N widened the gap further. In mock combat with a P-47D-25-RE, the new fighter proved to be notably superior in every category of performance. In short, the XP-47 waxed the venerable D model regardless of who was piloting the older fighter. The new wing was part of this newfound dogfighting ability, however, the more powerful C series engine played a role too. The additional horsepower allowed the N to retain its energy better than the older Thunderbolt. Perhaps the greatest performance increase was in maximum speed. Though not as fast as the stunning P-47M, the heavier N was fully 40 mph faster than the P-47D-25-RE and could generate speeds 30 mph greater than its principal rival, the Mustang. Scorching along at 467 mph @ 32,000 ft., the N could not be caught by any fighter in regular service with any air force on earth with the single exception of its M model sibling. This combination of wing and engine had pushed the N model up to the top rank of the superlative prop driven fighters then in existence.

The testing program included determining the maximum range of the fighter. This was done with various combinations of fuel loads and external drop tanks. Ultimately, a test flight was made from Farmingdale to Eglin Field in Florida. The XP-47N took off with two 315 gallon drop tanks hanging from the under-wing hardpoints. Usable fuel in these tanks totaled 600 gallons. Added to the internal fuel load, the N eased off the runway with 1,170 gallons of fuel (usable). At a gross weight of 20,166 lbs., the Thunderbolt headed south in company with a P-47D chase plane. Arriving off the coast, east of Elgin in 3 hours, 44 minutes, the external tanks were dropped. Another P-47D, already waiting at Elgin, took on the N in a mock dogfight that lasted for twenty minutes. The throttle was advanced to military power for 15 minutes of this time, with an additional five minutes in the War Emergency Power (WEP) detent. After these fun and games were concluded the N was turned around and flown back towards Farmingdale. Heavy weather over Long Island caused the plane to divert to Woodbine, New Jersey. Having flown 1,980 miles, total fuel usage was measured at 1,057.5 gallons. There was still more than 112 gallons of usable fuel remaining in the main fuselage tank, enough for another 330 miles @ 1,700 rpm in auto-lean. The XP-47N was now the king of long-range single engine fighters (the all time leader of long range escorts was the P-38L-1-LO, which could claim a combat radius of nearly 1,500 miles under ideal conditions).

Sources:

Dean, Francis, “America’s Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of WWII.”
Bodie, Warren M., “Republic’s P-47 Thunderbolt: Seversky to Victory.”
Bodie, Warren M., “The Lockheed P-38 Lightning.”
Boyne, Walter, “Clash of Wings: WWII in the Air.”
Ferguson Pascalis, “Protect and Avenge: The 49th Fighter Group in WWII.”
Freeman, Roger, “Thunderbolt, A History of the Republic P-47.”
Freeman, Roger, “The Mighty Eighth.”
Hammel, Eric, “Air War Europa.”
Johnson, Robert, “Thunderbolt!”
Scutts, Jerry, “P-47 Thunderbolt Aces of the 8th Air Force.”


----------



## billswagger (Apr 2, 2009)

i read somewhere that the P-47N and D initially lead to greater innovations in jet aircraft designs recognizing that at higher speeds a superior roll rate might be preferred over a tighter turn radius do to the fact that there are physical limitations exerted on the pilot at such higher turn speeds.


----------



## billswagger (Apr 2, 2009)

btw...when did the N actually get into combat or participate in the war effort.?? '45??

I read a blurp on the J model which outclassed both N and M in climbing performance but building the N and M around the D and C airframes was done to save time. 


taken from....XP-47J | Gallery





XP-47J

The light-weight P-47J had the R-2800-57 "C" engine which had a maximum horsepower rating of 2,800. It utilized a cooling fan aft of 4-blade propeller to cool the engine. Its speed exceeded 500 miles per hour but it was not put into production.


----------



## renrich (Apr 2, 2009)

The P47N weighed with full load around a ton and a half more than early P47s. The early models climbed at military power at around 2400-2500 FPM at low altitudes. Rates dropped off to around 1800 FPM at 25000 feet. The later P47Ds did better especially with the paddle blade props.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 2, 2009)

billswagger said:


> btw...when did the N actually get into combat or participate in the war effort.?? '45??
> 
> *Yes it did - PTO - was last ace in day*
> 
> ...



Wasn't needed and P-80 had better performance


----------



## billswagger (Apr 2, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Wasn't needed and P-80 had better performance



P-80...the jet???? That never saw combat in ww2, did it?? I know it flew but i think it was still being developed, for the most part, before the war ended. 

The P-47J was more of a demonstration of technology, with a bigger engine and lighter airframe. I don't think the P-80 was part of their consideration to save time. They wanted to take advantage of the added horse power but to mass produce the J would've taken more time not only to build the new plane, but teeth out any problems that come with testing a new airframe. It really wasn't needed, with some of the other fast planes in the allied inventory. So they just stuck with what had already worked for airframes. 

i think Republic wanted people to know they could still make legendary airplanes, if needed.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 2, 2009)

billswagger said:


> P-80...the jet???? That never saw combat in ww2, did it?? I know it flew but i think it was still being developed, for the most part, before the war ended.
> 
> *Yes and no. It was deployed to Europe for operational testing in Dec 1944 - several months before the P-47N entered combat. The first crash of the p-80 occurred in England that same month, IIRC due to a faulty exhaust system*
> 
> i think Republic wanted people to know they could still make legendary airplanes, if needed.



The P-80 was fully operational in the US before the war ended. Had the US wished to suffer losses due to teething problems I suppose the P-80 could have been in combat ops before VE Day - but why bother?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> My source gives the climb rate of the P47N at combat power as worse than the early P47s which was not good and at military power was barely over 1700 FPM up to 20000 feet.



You kind of have to watch the weights. The chart for the M is flown at a weight of 14700 lbs and the N is 16700 lbs, 2000 lbs more but the N has a basic weigh of only 500 lbs more than the M. It doesn't show the weight on the charts for the earlier P-47 so comparisons are difficult. I suspect that it is a significant difference in test weight even though the basic weight of the N is only 800 lbs more than the D-25.

Other test and company predictions show the N as capable of 3600-3750 ft per min in WEP at a lessor weight, around 14k lbs. Dean shows about 2600 at 16k lbs.


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2009)

Dav, I am pretty sure we are preaching from the same hymnal, Dean. He states that at full load the N was toting about 3000 pounds more than earlier models which made it a slow climber. Of course it was designed as a long range escort fighter so presumerably a lot of that extra weight of fuel would be gone by the time it got into a fight. As you know and have stated, the tricky thing about performance data which we see online or in print is that we often see Vmax, max rate of climb, max range and max combat load quoted as if they all happen at the same time and at the same altitude. Taint true. Those max performance figures usually only happen at the airplane's best altitude, combat power(which can't be sustained for long) and at lighter weights. Of course, I am not telling you anything new. One thing I learned while rereading Dean about the P47 answered a question I have had for a while about why the Corsair did not utilise the paddle blade prop to increase it's rate of climb, like the later Jugs did. That higher activity prop on the P47 caused some lateral stability problems which the Corsair definitely did not need, especially during a wave off. I suspect that is why Vought stayed with the toothpick blades.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> Dav, I am pretty sure we are preaching from the same hymnal, Dean.


Dean is a great book. I wish we had such a book on the British and German and others. It would make it much easier to compare.



> He states that at full load the N was toting about 3000 pounds more than earlier models which made it a slow climber. Of course it was designed as a long range escort fighter so presumerably a lot of that extra weight of fuel would be gone by the time it got into a fight.



Yes, I have always wanted to standardize some kind of weight comparison, but available data often prohibits it, allowing only analysis, which HoHun seems to be good at.




> As you know and have stated, the tricky thing about performance data which we see online or in print is that we often see Vmax, max rate of climb, max range and max combat load quoted as if they all happen at the same time and at the same altitude. Taint true. Those max performance figures usually only happen at the airplane's best altitude, combat power(which can't be sustained for long) and at lighter weights.



All True.



> One thing I learned while rereading Dean about the P47 answered a question I have had for a while about why the Corsair did not utilise the paddle blade prop to increase it's rate of climb, like the later Jugs did. That higher activity prop on the P47 caused some lateral stability problems which the Corsair definitely did not need, especially during a wave off. I suspect that is why Vought stayed with the toothpick blades.



Interesting. I hadn't read that.


----------



## davebender (Apr 3, 2009)

> Had the US wished to suffer losses due to teething problems


After the P-38 and B-29 experience I don't think anyone in the U.S. Army Air Corps will recommend this solution.


----------



## Magister (Apr 3, 2009)

Renrich, I did not know about the paddle prop instability issues with the corsair. I was wondering why the higher thrust prop wasn't employed for the Corsair. 

I believe that some of those impressive F4U-1 performance tests on the Spitfire Performance site were with the paddle prop. A non-production experimental prop in any event.


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2009)

Page 302 and 303 in Dean describes some of the issues which were at least partially remedied by the dorsal fin on the P47M. These issues were most revelant at low speeds. I do believe I also read that some of those same issues cropped up with the F2G with the bubble canopy and they also occurred in the early P51Ds with the bubble but were rectified with the dorsal fin. I believe the F4U1 tests referred to were using a prop which was slightly different in diameter but still not the paddle blade but the F4U1 might have been a "cleaned up" version. I saw that test on Mike Williams site and the performance numbers were startling. It would be really fun if a Dean book existed for all British, German and Japanese fighters. Then I could be even more confused than I already am.


----------



## Magister (Apr 3, 2009)

_"Page 302 and 303 in Dean describes some of the issues which were at least partially remedied by the dorsal fin on the P47M."_

Didn't the retrofitting of the dorsal fin predate the introduction of the paddle blade? My understanding was that the dorsal fin was installed as a result of instability caused by the loss of keel surface on the bubble canopy variants and that it was that modification that brought about the small dorsal fin.

I have never read anything that even hinted that the paddle blade had a role in the use of the dorsal fin.

I need to get a hold of a copy of that book. It has some great information.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 3, 2009)

Hi Clay,

>The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft

Here some graphs comparing the F6F-5, F4U-1 and the P-47D. 

(The P-47D is a "quick" analysis based on the assumption that the engine really produces constant power from sea level to critical altitude, which according to its rating it did, but in practice not quite.)

Clmax for the P-47D is assumed as 1.2, which appears a realistic value in the absene of actual measured data.

Weight, power and top speed data is from the F4U-4 comparison report. It has been suggested that the P-47D in question is a razorback with "small" fuel tank if I remember correctly, so it's a relatively fast and light representative of the P-47D.

I'd take the P-47.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Apr 3, 2009)

Fitting of the paddle blade props(Curtis 836 design in place of the 714) began in December, 1943, one squadron at a time. I believe this predated the bubble cockpit P47. The Dean book is highly recommended if you like airplanes. As I have mentioned before, and this has nothing to do with the Hellcat, my uncle who was an IP on P47s said they were regularly waxed by F4Us in mock dogfights.


----------



## Magister (Apr 3, 2009)

Don't think those charts are correct.


----------



## renrich (Apr 4, 2009)

I believe those charts are self generated. I wonder how they can be accurate.


----------



## mikamee14 (Apr 6, 2009)

P-47 bar none


----------



## JoeB (Apr 6, 2009)

Magister said:


> Don't think those charts are correct.


Don't know, but don't see a reason to take them as firm facts. They look nice though.

Joe


----------



## davparlr (Apr 7, 2009)

Magister said:


> Don't think those charts are correct.



Some random checks with my data base, based on mostly flight test data, shows the charts to not be very far off, although there was some optimism on climb for the P-47 but all are probably in the margin of error. I dont have data on turn rate, but the trend shown does not look unreasonable.


----------



## Magister (Apr 7, 2009)

_optimism on climb for the P-47_

Optimism? At over 3,500fpm, (the way it looks to me) it looks optimistic indeed.


----------



## Demetrious (Apr 7, 2009)

Magister said:


> _optimism on climb for the P-47_
> 
> Optimism? At over 3,500fpm, (the way it looks to me) it looks optimistic indeed.



I must agree, gentlemen. The late-war Spitfire IX, one of the best climbers of the war bar none, only managed 4,500 fpm. 3,500 fpm for an aircraft that drew cries of "where's the other engine!?" when it was first introduced seems a bit excessive. 

That said, an "average" climb rate was all the P-47 needed, with it's excellent performance in most other areas. As long as climb performance was not cripplingly poor, it could prevent better-climbing 109's from dominating the P-47 in the vertical.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 7, 2009)

Magister said:


> _optimism on climb for the P-47_
> 
> Optimism? At over 3,500fpm, (the way it looks to me) it looks optimistic indeed.



AF test run Oct 6, 1944, show SL rate of climb as 3180 ft/min. Max climb on another test, 44-1 fuel, shows 3260 ft/min at 10k ft.


----------



## Demetrious (Apr 7, 2009)

davparlr said:


> AF test run Oct 6, 1944, show SL rate of climb as 3180 ft/min. Max climb on another test, 44-1 fuel, shows 3260 ft/min at 10k ft.



Indeed. Perhaps I spoke too soon:

P-47-D test at ww2aircraftperformance.net:



> C. Climbs
> 
> 1. The service ceiling for 2700 RPM was 38,000 feet. The maximum rate of climb for 2700 RPM, 65.0" Hg., water injection was 3260 ft/min. at 10,000 feet. Without water at 65.0" Hg. the maximum rate of climb was 420 ft/min. less.
> 
> 2. The rate of climb at 56.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, was 2330 ft/min. at 12,000 ft. and at 52.0" Hg., 2700 RPM, 2030 ft/min. at 12,000 ft.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 30, 2014)

MikeGazdik said:


> Talk about a slug fest though, two brutes, heavy weights, with tremendous firepower and the ability to take a pounding.


I agree


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 30, 2014)

I think I would choose the Hellcat. The F6F-5N (Night Fighter Version) had 2x20mm cannons and 4x.50 caliber machine guns


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Mar 30, 2014)

I would take the Hellcat for a dogfight for a Zero or any other Jap plane. I also think the Hellcat would be able to shoot down a FW190 or the BF109 easy. The Hellcat could take on _several Zeros at one time, and could survive and shoot down the Japs. If a P-47 tried to get in a dogfight with 3 Zeros, it would be toast._

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## eWildcat (Mar 31, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> The Hellcat could take on _several Zeros at one time, and could survive and shoot down the Japs._


_

Most Japanese fighters displayed a highter turn rate than the Hellcat, and many of them had a better (some even much better) climb rate. Not even talking about the obvious fact that no pilot can see in all directions at once like a jedi, which means even with a pretty good plane a pilot trying to dogfight three enemy pilots by himself really starts to sound like a death wish at work.
So a Hellcat flown by John Wayne may have been able to do what you describe. But a reasonably-well trained pilot would rather use speed, energy and teamwork to achieve victory, even in a supposedly super awesome Hellcat._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 31, 2014)

On the F2G they also had a rather novel approach to trim.

The rudder was split. Most was attached to the rudder pedals, but a small rudder surface near the bottom of the rudder area was attached to the throttle. The total rudder area was about the same, but something like 20 - 25% of it was attached to the throttle to add right rudder when the throttle was opened. I asked about that at the old Doug Champlin Fighter Museum in Arizona and again when Bob Odegaard visited the Planes of Fame.

He confirmed the small rudder surface was activated by the throttle position to compensate for the extra torque of the large engine.

In the pic below, you can see the auxiliary rudder at the bottom of the conventional rudder, just above the fuselage skin. Note it is deflected right on climbout.

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


----------



## eWildcat (Apr 1, 2014)

Sounds clever.

Did he tell you if it was efficient ?


----------



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

eWildcat said:


> Most Japanese fighters displayed a highter turn rate than the Hellcat, and many of them had a better (some even much better) climb rate. Not even talking about the obvious fact that no pilot can see in all directions at once like a jedi, which means even with a pretty good plane a pilot trying to dogfight three enemy pilots by himself really starts to sound like a death wish at work.
> So a Hellcat flown by John Wayne may have been able to do what you describe. But a reasonably-well trained pilot would rather use speed, energy and teamwork to achieve victory, even in a supposedly super awesome Hellcat.


You make a good point, I was simply stating it might be able to. There is no way to see if it can or not, as world war 2 ended 69 years ago


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 1, 2014)

USS Enterprise,
Tactics are tactics and in fighter aviation they just get continously refined. If a guy in a Hellcat (faster aircraft) takes on two Zero's (better turning and higher angle climb) and stays in the fight he will lose 9 times out of 10. Team work increases lethality exponentially. Imagine a big guy fighting two smaller guys. Unless he has a huge advantage or the two smaller guys tube their teamwork, they will win the vast majority of the time. 
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



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

BiffF15 said:


> USS Enterprise,
> Tactics are tactics and in fighter aviation they just get continously refined. If a guy in a Hellcat (faster aircraft) takes on two Zero's (better turning and higher angle climb) and stays in the fight he will lose 9 times out of 10. Team work increases lethality exponentially. Imagine a big guy fighting two smaller guys. Unless he has a huge advantage or the two smaller guys tube their teamwork, they will win the vast majority of the time.
> Cheers,
> Biff



You make a good point. I am just saying a Hellcat _might_ be able to, but might not


----------



## GregP (Apr 1, 2014)

Actually, he said it seemed to work fine and helped manage the torque. I assumed that meant the rudder pressures would have been fairly high without the trim surface, but did not pursue the subject past his comments. 

If I get a chance to speak with some of the more well-known pilots, I might ask a question or two, but do not press them for attention. Generally they aren't there to talk with ME.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

Back to the original topic, I say head on, P-47. P-47 had more firepower, and both had similar armor. Of course, in a dogfight, Hellcat, because the P-47 was not exactly the best turner. If the pilot for the P-47 knew what his plane could, or more importantly, couldn't do, he wouldn't even get in a dogfight.


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

drgondog said:


> The Mustang killed nearly as many in the air as the P-47 and P-38 combined, nearly as many as the F6F in the air but far more on the ground.
> 
> Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter, and arguably against a much more dangerous opponent than the F6F



You make a good point. I've (and probalay you too) have heard this a million times: 'The reason the Hellcat had so many kills was because it was put in target rich enviroments with poorly trained pilots.' Which is completely true. Still, the Hellcat was a great plane and would (Warning: Following statement may cause some arguing) be a match for the Mustang if it was faster and more maneuverable. 

The Mustang was a great aircraft and, given the choice between the Mustang and P-47, I would take the Mustang. 

Also, I am not even sure, does anybody know the numbers of ground kills for the Hellcat?


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> Back to the original topic, I say head on, P-47. P-47 had more firepower, and both had similar armor. Of course, in a dogfight, Hellcat, because the P-47 was not exactly the best turner. If the pilot for the P-47 knew what his plane could, or more importantly, couldn't do, he wouldn't even get in a dogfight.


Oh yeah?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2014)

> I've (and probalay you too) have heard this a million times: 'The reason the Hellcat had so many kills was because it was put in target rich enviroments with poorly trained pilots.'



We might want to add another important factors - most of the Hellcat's victims were lacking performance to compete, or ruggedness to withstand it's fire. In many cases (Marianas turkey shoot, for example), it was both of those factors in same time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 3, 2014)

When did the cannon equipped F4U's appear?


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Oh yeah?



Um...yes I think that is true

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> We might want to add another important factors - most of the Hellcat's victims were lacking performance to compete, or ruggedness to withstand it's fire. In many cases (Marianas turkey shoot, for example), it was both of those factors in same time.



Pretty much what I said, and some of the kills were kamikazies

Hellcat was still a great plane, and if they were put in against Pearl Harbor and Midway skill level pilots, instead of the F4F Wildcat, they probalay would fare the same, maybe less kills and more shot down, but not by much. 

Nevertheless you make a good point


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> When did the cannon equipped F4U's appear?



I don't think until Korea. Not sure but pretty sure not in WW2


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> Still, the Hellcat was a great plane and would (Warning: Following statement may cause some arguing) be a match for the Mustang if it was faster and more maneuverable.



A statement that while true, doesn't actually prove much because to it follow to a totally illogical conclusion a P-30






* would be a match for the Mustang if it was faster and more maneuverable.*

The P-30 and Hellcat were NOT faster or more maneuverable and saying that one plane would be better than another *IF* it was improved by XXX amount proves nothing. 

The Hellcat performed a sterling service in it's time but it could not be easily modified to keep up with increasing demands. The XF6-6 with the same engine as a F4U-4 seems to have been somewhat slower.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> I don't think until Korea. Not sure but pretty sure not in WW2



If you don't know anything about a topic, maybe you should refrain from comment. Hint: Look up the F4U-1C.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:


> I don't think until Korea. Not sure but pretty sure not in WW2



the first of 200 cannon equipped F4U-1Cs started production in July of 1944. 

Not sure when production F4U-4B Cs show up but they were on order by the end of 1944.


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2014)

Hi CV-6,

How can you say that? In a one-on-one, you are, almost by definition, in a dogfight. There is almost no other one-on-one fight possible except maybe a boom-and-zoom. And if THAT is one-on-one, it isn't too hard to keep track of the boom guy. In any one-on-one I'd take the Hellcat any day of the week.

At high altitudes, it would switch to the P-47.

Biff, please explain something. It may be different today but, in WWII, the wingman stayed with his leader. So in a 2-on-1 one, the advantage would not be anywhere near as pronounced as if the two split up and attacked separately against the one. What do you say? I think there would be no great advantage to the two guys if they stayed welded in combat formation since two planes are not as maneuverable as one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## USS Enterprise CV-6 (Apr 3, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi CV-6,
> 
> How can you say that? In a one-on-one, you are, almost by definition, in a dogfight. There is almost no other one-on-one fight possible except maybe a boom-and-zoom. And if THAT is one-on-one, it isn't too hard to keep track of the boom guy. In any one-on-one I'd take the Hellcat any day of the week.
> 
> ...



But a head on attack isn't a dogfight, is it? And BTW you are the first person to do CV-6 THANK YOU


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2014)

Well CV-6, a head-on attack isn't a dogfight and usually may not result in a kill either. Perhaps there may be some first-pass victories, true, particularly if one didn't see the other ... but I thought it was to be a one-on-one FIGHT, not an ambush.

If they aren't first-pass victories, there is nothing left but a dogfight. If one or the other runs, it isn't exactly a fight. One MIGHT run if he was low on fuel, wounded, or otherwise mechanically or physically handicapped, but that isn't exactly the scenario I envisioned to start with.

I figured a one-on-one fight was two working aircraft flown by competent pilots meeting at the same altitude with fuel and ammunition to use. In other words, equal starting positions and have at it.

Other scenarios are meant to favor one or the other from the outset.


----------



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

GregP said:


> Well CV-6, a head-on attack isn't a dogfight and usually may not result in a kill either. Perhaps there may be some first-pass victories, true, particularly if one didn't see the other ... but I thought it was to be a one-on-one FIGHT, not an ambush.
> 
> If they aren't first-pass victories, there is nothing left but a dogfight. If one or the other runs, it isn't exactly a fight. One MIGHT run if he was low on fuel, wounded, or otherwise mechanically or physically handicapped, but that isn't exactly the scenario I envisioned to start with.
> 
> ...



Good point. At high alltitudes, P-47, mid to low alltitudes, F6F. Both were very tough and had very good firepower.


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2014)

We agree there. Cheers.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 5, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi CV-6,
> 
> How can you say that? In a one-on-one, you are, almost by definition, in a dogfight. There is almost no other one-on-one fight possible except maybe a boom-and-zoom. And if THAT is one-on-one, it isn't too hard to keep track of the boom guy. In any one-on-one I'd take the Hellcat any day of the week.
> 
> ...



GregP,
From what I have read, watched, etc. I would say you are on the right track. What I mean by that is during the early part of the war, "Allied" forces tended to use the either welded wingman formation (1 flight lead and 2 wingman) or a 2 ship that was pretty strictly defined by their position (flight lead equals shooter), (wingman equals check six guy / lead sponge / if I run out of ammo it's your turn). Hard to maneuver, hard to defend the wingmen, but totally supporting the flight lead in his quest for kills. It is my understanding that the Germans introduced the 2 4 ships (rotta and schwarm sp?) with the idea of mutual support. Or, one flight or flight member can or will maneuver to support, defend or attack to protect the flight. They also had the benefit of being at war for several years before "we" got into it. This basically means enough distance between the lead and his wingman that they can maneuver without fear of collision, and the wingman has a long enough leash that he can maneuver to stay in position (able to support the flight lead should his weapons fail or he become defensive), and or shoot should the opportunity arise. The Allied fighters eventually adopted that mentality and it still exists today to varying degrees. Another example of it is the Thach Weave (rudimentary by todays standards but "mutual support" it is).

To more specifically answer the question of 2 on 1 it would depend on the time frame of the war, and the skill levels of the pilots. Early on, the advantage would not be as pronounced as later in the war. Early on the wingman was stuck in a welded formation, flying fairly close to his leader. Later the formation was more fluid (longer leash for the wingy), and therefor more maneuverable. Later in the war if it was a flight lead and a young guy, results would probably be similar to two experienced guys early in the war (training improves the breed). Turn the tables and make it two experienced guys later in the war and the odds would go up significantly (in my opinion from what I have read and seen during my time in fighters).

I've enjoyed watching this conversation from afar for the most part. It is, as has been stated previously, what I would call a "it depends" situation. I could probably come up with several scenarios in which one fighter would do better than the other (same goes for the Spit versus X in the other thread). How far away from their launch base are they going to fight, does the weather force the fight to be high or low, is one guy fighting over his own country, is one aircraft war weary and the other fairly new, etc. I really believe that it will eventually boil down to the guy that wins will be better at using his weapon than the other guy. These planes are all fairly close. Yes, some are faster, climb better, turn better, have more guns / cannons, longer range, better vis, etc. If I were flying the Thunderbolt I would push for a high altitude fight and maneuver to get on my adversaries tail quickly. If it looked like I might be losing the offensive / going defensive then I would leave the fight, climb to altitude again, and use the zoom and boom. If I were flying the Hellcat, then I would push for a lower altitude turning fight which played to the strengths of my ride. It is my opine that a guy could win in either, he would just have to fight smart (use his strengths against his enemies weakness and not let that same thing happen to him). If maneuvering was the end all be all then the IJN and Mitsu would not have been looking to create an A7M type of aircraft.

Just my dos pennies...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2014)

Thanks for the informative post, Biff. 

It's always nice to hear from a guy who has been in the seat doing it.

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


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 16, 2019)

I'll prefer the P-47 for its speed and rate of climb.

The F6F-3 and -5 utilize a two-stage three-speed supercharger. For each stage of the supercharger there is a critical altitude, above which the supercharger cannot compress air enough to maintain the maximum allowable boost (manifold pressure), and below which the throttle must be partially closed in order to prevent engine knocking (the condition where the fuel-air mixture detonates instead of burning normally). Both conditions significantly reduce the power of the engine, therefore the F6Fs perform best at the three critical altitudes of the supercharger. Engine power is the highest at the lowest supercharger critical altitude, because a supercharger speed setting with a higher rpm takes more power from the engine.

All variants of the P-47 have a turbocharger with wastegate. Below the critical altitude, the wastegate (controlled by the pilot on all variants except the N-25, which has an automatic one) vents exhaust upstream of the turbocharger, also preventing engine knocking. The P-47, if not considering intake ram effect, has constant power up to its critical altitude.

The three critical altitudes of the F6F-5 are 2500ft, 18600ft and 23800ft in level flight, this is slightly higher than that in steady climb or static because of intake ram effect. It reaches 321mph, 370mph and 376mph at altitude, respectively. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/72731-level.jpg

The P-47D, razorback, 56" boost, 2700rpm reaches 333mph at sea level and gets progressively faster as altitude increases.
P-47 Performance Tests (see MEMORANDUM REPORT ON P-47D-10 Airplane, AAF No. 43-75035)

The three critical altitudes of the F6F-5 are 1200ft, 15400ft and 20400ft in steady climb. The rate of climb at altitude is 2910ft/min, 2510ft/min and 2180ft/min respectively.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/72731-climb.jpg

The P-47D, razorback, 56" boost (about 2200-2300hp, varies), if having a Hamilton Standard propeller, stays above 3000ft/min until 12000ft, dropping off to about 2700ft/min at 15400ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_43-75035_Eng-47-1714-A.pdf (page 5)

With the comparison above, the P-47D outclimbs and outruns the F6F-5 at all altitudes. Notice that this is a 56" boost P-47, which is far worse than a 70"boost P-47D near the end of the war. A P-47D with 70" boost, 2700rpm and improved water injection significantly outruns and outclimbs the P-47D with 56" boost, especially at lower altitudes.

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


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 16, 2019)

Magister said:


> _Interestingly the Corsair was more accurate at very high angle dive bombing than the SBD._
> 
> Do you have a source for that claim? Please see my post above regarding the evaluation of such a claim.
> 
> ...




There are plenty of performance charts on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, and an F4U-1 in 1944 easily outruns and outclimbs the F6F-5 at all altitudes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 16, 2019)

Demetrious said:


> Agreed, but what is this I hear about the P-47 being a "great climber?" One of my favorite anecdotes about the P-47 comes from Hub Zemeke, after he was congratulated on proving that the P-47 could outdive a 109. He said, "By god, it ought to dive- it certainly won't climb!" (I have seen this quote attributed to Donald J.M. Blakeslee as well.) In fact, the poor climb rate of the P-47 is the one thing I hear about the most, right behind it's incredible ruggedness. The data on wikipedia shows the F6F has a slight _advantage_ in climb rate (3,500ft/s to 3,125), not a disadvantage.
> 
> Sadly, I almost never see roll rate data, anywhere, but the impressive roll rate of the P-47 is well known, so I'll assume it had the advantage there. The P-47 was faster and rolled better, the F6F rolled well (but not as good as the Jug) and turned rather better (wing loading of 37.7lbs/square foot to 58.3).
> 
> ...



Climb rate. Wikipedia claimed a climb rate without giving an altitude, making the data useless. A report (which you can see in one of my posts on page 10 of this thread) shows the F6F-5 does not reach such a climb rate at any altitude.

Roll rate. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090943.pdf page 45. The P-47 out-rolls the F6F at all indicated airspeeds.


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 16, 2019)

Clay_Allison said:


> As a fighter, just about everything you read says the Jug was at its best at 30,000 feet.


NO. As the war progresses, the P-47 engine could accept higher and higher manifold pressure, by the end of the war it could accept 70 inHg, and the speed was maximized at 23200ft and climb rate was maximized at 10000ft. P 47D Performance Test Using 44-1 Fuel


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F-3 and -5 utilize a two-stage three-speed supercharger


technically the F6F (and the F4U) used a single speed engine supercharger and a two speed with neutral auxiliary supercharger, some may consider that as three speeds.

At low altitudes the auxiliary supercharger was in neutral (no power going to it) and all boost was supplied by the engine supercharger. When the engine supercharger started to run out of "puff" (technical term  the aux supercharger was clutched at low gear and when that combination ran out of "puff" the aux supercharger was shifted to high gear. 

In all cases the engine supercharger ran at the same speed. 

the result was as you describe.

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


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 17, 2019)

Apples to oranges. The P-47Ds reach 70"Hg boost giving it speeds at higher
altitudes that the F6F could not hope to reach. The F6F was designed to come
off the deck of a constantly moving vessel, which it did in spades at a time it
was needed most. 
It would be interesting to hear what the USN VF-9 pilots aboard the USS Essex 
would say if they had received P-47Cs on 16 January 1943 instead of F6F-3s...?


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 17, 2019)

CORSNING said:


> Apples to oranges. The P-47Ds reach 70"Hg boost giving it speeds at higher
> altitudes that the F6F could not hope to reach. The F6F was designed to come
> off the deck of a constantly moving vessel, which it did in spades at a time it
> was needed most.
> ...



The maximum allowable boost doesn't affect performance above critical altitude. A 70" boost P-47 means the P-47's engine can run at 70" boost, but doesn't mean that it always runs at 70". It allows a significant increase in power if the turbocharger can give 70" boost into the engine at that altitude. In level flight at maximum speed, the turbocharger maintains 56" boost up to 31000ft, and in optimal climb, the turbocharger maintains 56" boost only up to 25000ft. Therefore above 31000ft, the 70" P-47 performs exactly the same as a 56" P-47. 70" boost improves performance at low altitude drastically. With 56" boost, as I have demonstrated, the P-47D outruns and outclimbs the F6F-5 at all altitudes, provided that the P-47D has the Hamilton Standard propeller.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 18, 2019)

My point was the P-47 could not operate as well off a carrier
and that is what the USN needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 22, 2019)

Different tools for different jobs. The Hellcat didn't have the speed, rate of climb or high altitude performance to do long range bomber escort and take on the BFs and FWs at 30,000 ft over Europe. And the '47 couldn't land on a carrier. Both excelled where they were used-but were hardly comparable or interchangeable.

How did the range compare between the two?


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 23, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Different tools for different jobs. The Hellcat didn't have the speed, rate of climb or high altitude performance to do long range bomber escort and take on the BFs and FWs at 30,000 ft over Europe. And the '47 couldn't land on a carrier. Both excelled where they were used-but were hardly comparable or interchangeable.
> 
> How did the range compare between the two?



Several reports on wwiiaircraftperformance.org didn't agree with each other, but F6F mostly had a range around 1200mi, some above and some below by as much as 200mi, all in clean condition with droptanks. P-47D with droptanks has a combat radius of 600mi and the P-47M which couldn't carry droptanks had a combat radius of 400mi consistently on that website. Nobody offered P-47 range or F6F combat radius so oof


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 24, 2019)

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-5N_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_July_1944.pdf

Keep in mind that the figures on these graphs and charts are for an F6F-5N.
This model had the extra weight and drag of the radar dome on its right
wing. Also notice the maximum power used on this report was 2,135 hp.
from S.L. to 12,400 ft. The R-2800-10W was capable of 2,250/S.L @ 58"
2,135 hp./12,400 ft. @ 60" Hg and 1,975 hp./16,900 ft. @ 60" Hg boost.


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

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


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Aug 26, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> Several reports on wwiiaircraftperformance.org didn't agree with each other, but F6F mostly had a range around 1200mi, some above and some below by as much as 200mi, all in clean condition with droptanks. P-47D with droptanks has a combat radius of 600mi and the P-47M which couldn't carry droptanks had a combat radius of 400mi consistently on that website. Nobody offered P-47 range or F6F combat radius so oof



To me it's really impressive that they were able to get that kind of range out of the Hellcat! Lot of fuel weight to haul off the deck of a carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Aug 27, 2019)

Clay_Allison said:


> The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.
> 
> No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.
> 
> ...



The F6F is not overshadowed by the F4U, if not the opposite. The F6F is remembered as the plane that defeated the Zero (the P-38 as well), and the F4U is remembered as a fighter-bomber if known at all.


----------



## glennasher (Aug 27, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F is not overshadowed by the F4U, if not the opposite. The F6F is remembered as the plane that defeated the Zero (the P-38 as well), and the F4U is remembered as a fighter-bomber if known at all.




Really? The F4U has a cult following like you wouldn't believe, and folks barely remember the F-6F. Did anyone make a show about a squadron flying the F6F on broadcast TV? Did the Navy/Marine Corp keep the F6-F after the war? No? Go to a big airshow, how many Hellcats do you see flying in comparison to Corsairs?
I don't have anything against the Hellcat, but in popular lore, and apparently in the mind of the Navy, the Corsair survived, the Hellcat did not, at least in US hands.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 27, 2019)

One thing that would be interesting in this comparison of the F6f and Thunderbolt is a comparison of how they were to fly.
From what I have read the Hellcat had quite a good reputation for being stable and easy to fly and though ive never read any specific complaints from pilots about the p47s handling I don't know if it was similar in this regard.
Its worth noting that they had similar wieghts, engine, and if the p47 is the razor back version even look similar to a degree.


----------



## glennasher (Aug 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> One thing that would be interesting in this comparison of the F6f and Thunderbolt is a comparison of how they were to fly.
> From what I have read the Hellcat had quite a good reputation for being stable and easy to fly and though ive never read any specific complaints from pilots about the p47s handling I don't know if it was similar in this regard.
> Its worth noting that they had similar wieghts, engine, and if the p47 is the razor back version even look similar to a degree.




I know the owner of "Big Ass Bird" a P-47D-25, who always said that the Jug flew like a Cadlillac compared to his Mustang, and he liked it a lot better. He also said it was a LOT faster, but I don't know if that was because they took it pretty easy with the Mustang, and the Jug had the turbocharger, or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Aug 28, 2019)

glennasher said:


> I know the owner of "Big Ass Bird" a P-47D-25, who always said that the Jug flew like a Cadlillac compared to his Mustang, and he liked it a lot better. He also said it was a LOT faster, but I don't know if that was because they took it pretty easy with the Mustang, and the Jug had the turbocharger, or not.


That's an interesting take. I would love to hear more about his thoughts between the two.


----------



## glennasher (Aug 28, 2019)

soulezoo said:


> That's an interesting take. I would love to hear more about his thoughts between the two.




Sadly, I've lost track of him, he's probably passed away by now. He owned several warbirds at the time, some of them were "under construction", but he had the P-47, the P-51D, an F4U, a Trojan, and an F-86. naval variant, stuck on a pole outside his hangar. I heard him speak a few times, though, and he favored the Jug over the others by a wide margin.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 2, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> Several reports on wwiiaircraftperformance.org didn't agree with each other, but F6F mostly had a range around 1200mi, some above and some below by as much as 200mi, all in clean condition with droptanks. P-47D with droptanks has a combat radius of 600mi and the P-47M which couldn't carry droptanks had a combat radius of 400mi consistently on that website. Nobody offered P-47 range or F6F combat radius so oof



Cheers,
The P-47M carried a centreline drop tank as-is (= 400 mile radius), and IIRC it was retrofitted with wing drop tanks once in UK.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Nov 24, 2019)

I'm a '47 fan, and really somewhat ambivalent about the F6F. But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war. And the time to get long-range capability (wet wings and FINALLY sorting out big drop tanks) was unacceptably long-those needs were identified in '42 at least-and not rectified until '45 (and after VE day IIRC). In many ways it was a better fighter even than the '51B+ (faster, great roll rate, outstanding dive, ruggedness, firepower). Had it been available with long-range capability the '51 would have been far less critical.

The F6F couldn't fight high-performance German fighters at high altitude. But-it didn't have to-and that's not what it was built for. When you can bring the airfield to the enemy, range is a lot less of an issue, and it was more than good enough to take on Japanese aircraft at moderate altitudes. And most importantly it could fly off a carrier...

THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> ...
> But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war
> ...
> THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.



Requirement, that materialized in the P-47B and later, didn't include long range escort job.


----------



## MIflyer (Nov 25, 2019)

Interestingly enough, the F6F did a P-47 style job in the invasion of southern France, Operation Dragoon. There were two escort carriers equipped with F6F's and they ranged through the area, attacking ground targets the same way P-47's did over Normandy. The article is attached.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 26, 2019)

glennasher said:


> Really? The F4U has a cult following like you wouldn't believe, and folks barely remember the F-6F. Did anyone make a show about a squadron flying the F6F on broadcast TV? Did the Navy/Marine Corp keep the F6-F after the war? No? Go to a big airshow, how many Hellcats do you see flying in comparison to Corsairs?
> I don't have anything against the Hellcat, but in popular lore, and apparently in the mind of the Navy, the Corsair survived, the Hellcat did not, at least in US hands.


In The Flying Leathernecks, John Wayne's squadron starts flying Hellcats (standing in for Wildcats) and transitions to Corsairs during the ending Act of the Movie. Still a good movie for its aerial scenes.


----------



## GregP (Nov 30, 2019)

I think the P-51 having more ground kills was very much a case of a LOT more opportunity. There are a LOT of airfields around Europe compared with the ones lying around in the Pacific Ocean. Since the Pacific is mostly water, the opportunity for ground kills, say, on the way home from a mission, was slight to nonexistent. That being said, had the two planes been reversed in use, I'm sure the F6F in Europe would have had a lot of ground kills, but maybe fewer at high altitude since it wasn't a high-altitude fighter.

I am not much for "which one is better" arguments, normally, but I think the F6F was to the US Navy what the P-51 was to the USAAC / USAAF, a top pick that proved it's worth many times over. The P-47 was very probably our best very-high altitude fighter, but the P-51 wasn't too far off, even there. No WAY the F6F was going to compete at 35,000 feet but, at 10,000 feet, I'd pick the Hellcat for dogfighting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 13, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> I'm a '47 fan, and really somewhat ambivalent about the F6F. But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war. And the time to get long-range capability (wet wings and FINALLY sorting out big drop tanks) was unacceptably long-those needs were identified in '42 at least-and not rectified until '45 (and after VE day IIRC). In many ways it was a better fighter even than the '51B+ (faster, great roll rate, outstanding dive, ruggedness, firepower). Had it been available with long-range capability the '51 would have been far less critical.
> 
> The F6F couldn't fight high-performance German fighters at high altitude. But-it didn't have to-and that's not what it was built for. When you can bring the airfield to the enemy, range is a lot less of an issue, and it was more than good enough to take on Japanese aircraft at moderate altitudes. And most importantly it could fly off a carrier...
> 
> THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.



The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.

P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 13, 2019)

The F6F was designed to be easy to fly, and pilots have said that it practically landed itself. Inexperienced pilots flying off carrier decks needed an airplane like that, and not the Corsair.

The F6F used round head rivets rather than flush riveting; that was cheaper, stronger, and easier/faster to build. That produced more drag, but not enough to matter when fighting the Japanese. 

Grumman said that the USN gave them a F4U and told them that the USN only wanted one fighter type, and to get the Hellcat performance up to that of the F4U. Grumman's tests showed that the F4U was faster down low because it did not have the provisions to prevent icing that they considered to be essential. Their high altitude tests showed that most of the speed advantage of the F4U at altitude was due to airspeed indicator error!

By the way, the F4U had some odd structural features for an airplane in its performance class. Part of the outer wings were covered with fabric and the ailerons were made out of wood.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 13, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The F6F was designed to be easy to fly, and pilots have said that it practically landed itself. Inexperienced pilots flying off carrier decks needed an airplane like that, and not the Corsair.
> 
> The F6F used round head rivets rather than flush riveting; that was cheaper, stronger, and easier/faster to build. That produced more drag, but not enough to matter when fighting the Japanese.
> 
> ...



Because they used the same engine, if one is faster at a certain altitude, then it is faster at all altitudes. Testings done by NACA also used true airspeeds instead of what is read from the airspeed indicator (they either corrected that value for instrumentation error and converted it to true airspeed or measured it from the ground, either way it is +-2mph accurate). Those can be found on wwiiaircraftperformance.org. They invariably show the F6F slower and slower-climbing at all altitudes. The F6F's only advantage over the F4U is the superior low-speed handling, which is significant enough to let it into the Navy. If I am given the option I'll fly the F6F. However, it is indisputable that the F4U's performance is superior at all altitudes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 13, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy *would've* rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing.



Not true - the F6F was well on its way by June 1941(contract signed), the XF6F-1 flew in June 1942, the first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942. The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight a on 24 June 1942. The Navy was intent on purchasing both aircraft, just research when contracts were signed and the quantity of aircraft purchased. Not denying the Corsair had the performance edge, the carrier landing issues with the Corsair seemed to have no effect on the F6Fs that were on order and being built during the same time period. Don't forget foreign sales of the F6F as well.

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


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2019)

"It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. ". If that is true, why was there a USMC carrier qualified Corsair group prior to the Brits getting their first Corsairs?

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2019)

syscom3 said:


> "It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. ". If that is true, why was there a USMC carrier qualified Corsair group prior to the Brits getting their first Corsairs?


never let truth get in the way of a good story----journalism 101

Most British F4U pilots qualified in the US, in Rhode Island I believe. Doesn't mean that all of the instructors were american though

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 13, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.
> 
> P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.


As much as I am a p47 fan I think it must be kept in mind that the p47 and the F6f were designed with different goals in mind. If what you mean by better performance is speed then yes the p47 has a decided advantage. If the performance is performing landings carrier or otherwise with lowest posible incident rate( and I can't think of anything more important to me if I'm landing on a carrier the 1st time) then the F6f has better performance.
They were designed to fill different bills and there flight caracteristics reflect that.

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


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Dec 14, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.
> 
> P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.



Regarding the '47-we've said basically the same thing-it was a superior fighter to the P-51 in a number of areas. But, sadly, it lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy throughout most of the war, and especially when it was desperately needed. A long range '47 by summer of '43 would have been a great escort fighter to have available. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be, the Jugs turned back, leaving the bombers undefended (at least until October when a few '38s became available-with new pilots, inexperienced commanders, etc). By mid-late '44 when it finally got big drop tanks (correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get 165 gallon Lockheed tanks?) the '51 was available in large numbers and filling that role. Why did it take 2 years to get what the '38 had in early '42? Much of the war it was nearly as neutered as the Spitfire was with limited range and somewhat irrelevant. At least the '47 finally did rectify that problem, even though very late.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 14, 2019)

IdahoRenegade said:


> Regarding the '47-we've said basically the same thing-it was a superior fighter to the P-51 in a number of areas. But, sadly, it lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy throughout most of the war, and especially when it was desperately needed. A long range '47 by summer of '43 would have been a great escort fighter to have available. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be, the Jugs turned back, leaving the bombers undefended (at least until October when a few '38s became available-with new pilots, inexperienced commanders, etc). By mid-late '44 when it finally got big drop tanks (correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get 165 gallon Lockheed tanks?) the '51 was available in large numbers and filling that role. Why did it take 2 years to get what the '38 had in early '42? Much of the war it was nearly as neutered as the Spitfire was with limited range and somewhat irrelevant. At least the '47 finally did rectify that problem, even though very late.


That's still a lot faster than it took for Hurricanes and Spitfires to get drop tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so.



Not true x2.



> If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing.



Your opinion.



> By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high.



Not true.



> Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so).





AlfaKiloSierra said:


> ...
> If I am given the option I'll fly the F6F.
> ...



Per British wartime data, ultimate G load for P-47 was 12G, same as P-51. The garbage aircraft that you would fly was rated at 13.5 G.


----------



## Dawncaster (Dec 14, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Grumman's tests showed that the F4U was faster down low because it did not have the provisions to prevent icing that they considered to be essential. Their high altitude tests showed that most of the speed advantage of the F4U at altitude was due to airspeed indicator error!



Corky Meyer's that article was his - Grumman Test Pilot's opinion. That's not what Grumman's test 'showed'. When compared under equivalent conditions, F4U was faster than F6F in USN and TAIC comparision reports with corrected speed.

Corky Meyer described the characteristic that normally exist as if they were something special. But 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, and etc. Even if they are flying at the same speed, the indicated air speed will be different. After correction for standard atmosphere, different IAS reading was meanless. As he wrote at the end of the article, he seems to have a little baised. He claims that both fighters '*SHOULD*' have the same performance because they have the same engine, propeller, wing span, and gross weight. But In fact, the early F4U-1 had lighter gross weight, lower drag, shorter wing span, different propeller blades and different altitude performances. Contrary to his claim, F4U-1 BuNo 17781 was just raised cabin type F4U-1, not F4U-1D. 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 as F4U - Especially If the F6F was less loaded and it's weight was light as F4U-1's gross weight. 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 similar load condition(ex. overload fighter), So F6F was generally slower than F4U in practical condition. even F6F-5 was slower than F4U-1D in comparison flight in all tested altitudes with corrected speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Dec 15, 2019)

GregP said:


> I think the P-51 having more ground kills was very much a case of a LOT more opportunity. There are a LOT of airfields around Europe compared with the ones lying around in the Pacific Ocean. Since the Pacific is mostly water, the opportunity for ground kills, say, on the way home from a mission, was slight to nonexistent. That being said, had the two planes been reversed in use, I'm sure the F6F in Europe would have had a lot of ground kills, but maybe fewer at high altitude since it wasn't a high-altitude fighter.
> 
> I am not much for "which one is better" arguments, normally, but I think the F6F was to the US Navy what the P-51 was to the USAAC / USAAF, a top pick that proved it's worth many times over. The P-47 was very probably our best very-high altitude fighter, but the P-51 wasn't too far off, even there. No WAY the F6F was going to compete at 35,000 feet but, at 10,000 feet, I'd pick the Hellcat for dogfighting.


Ground kills by the 8th AF are the most overrated stat of WWII. 2/3 of them occurred in the final 6 weeks of the war when the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist. Destroying aircraft that would never fly again was a waste of resources, in particular young pilots lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Joe Broady (Dec 15, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Grumman said that the USN gave them a F4U and told them that the USN only wanted one fighter type, and to get the Hellcat performance up to that of the F4U. Grumman's tests showed that the F4U was faster down low because it did not have the provisions to prevent icing that they considered to be essential. Their high altitude tests showed that most of the speed advantage of the F4U at altitude was due to airspeed indicator error!



Let's see how long time Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer tells the story. I have trimmed the quotes here and there to tighten the focus.

"In the desperate climate of World War II, the Navy decided that the easiest, quickest and least costly way to tweak the utmost performance out of its fighter planes would be to let rival manufacturers test the latest versions of each other's products. So it was in the summer of 1943 when the Navy delivered into Grumman hands the newest Corsair (F4U-1D Buno 17781)...

"Grumman's specific orders from the Navy were to improve the Hellcat's speed by 20 knots and put better ailerons on it so that it would compare favorably to the incomparable Corsair...

"We were also pleased to learn that we had not been singled out for the harassment of our sterling product when we heard that Chance Vought, our friendly competitor from the other side of the Long Island Sound, was also sent an F6F-3 Hellcat and ordered to improve Corsair visibility, cockpit internal layout, stall characteristics, and also redesign the landing gear oleos...

"In my first flight I discovered that the Corsair did indeed indicate 20 knots faster and did have really smooth and powerful ailerons compared to our Hellcat...

"To simplify the evaluation and data reduction, we decided to test fly the Hellcat and the Corsair in close formation. Performance could then be compared directly at the critical altitudes of the main stage, high and low blower altitudes of the engine's superchargers, and from cruise to high speed level flight with water injection in actual comparison instead of complex calculation...

"Except for the Corsair having a 15 knot actual speed advantage over the Hellcat in the main sea-level supercharger stage, both fighters had almost exactly the same speed both low and high blower from 5000 feet altitude up to service ceiling! ...

"The reason the Corsair was faster in the main stage blower was that its engine was provided with ram air coming in directly from the forward facing wing duct into the carburetor, whereas the Hellcat had the carburetor air coming in from the accessory compartment of the fuselage just behind the engine, with no ram air effect... Our engineering department defended their position because taking the warmer air for the main stage blower would prevent inadvertent carbureter icing engine failures.

"After noting the 20 knots indicated airspeed difference that had caused all the 'lower performance' ruckus for our Hellcat, we eagerly decided to change the airspeed system so that it would read even with the Corsair when they were in formation... We liked our simple and less complicated airspeed system, with the static and dynamic orifices on the same boom, but we decided to go whole hog and put the static orifice on the fuselage like the Corsair to tailor the system to read 20 knots higher."

But they made a mistake by using only one orifice. Pax River discovered a side slip in landing configuration could drop the indicated airspeed to zero! As the senior engineering test pilot, Meyer took the blame for missing that. Grumman's solution was a dual orifice system like the Corsair. "That was the last we heard of the Hellcat's performance gap with the Corsair."

He admits Grumman could not match the "delightful low forces and high rolling performance the Corsair had so ably demonstrated." Their engineers tried everything, even copies of the Corsair ailerons, but the Hellcat still couldn't match the Corsair roll. The problem was the higher lateral stability inherent in its wing design. And a new wing was out of the question at the height of the war. Later, when spring tabs were introduced in the -5 Hellcat and retrofitted to the -3, they made up much of the deficit.

Back to the airspeed, I view the Meyer account with some skepticism. Wasn't the Navy aware that you can't compare speeds without correcting for position error? (In those days I think it was often called "installation error.") On the other hand, the airspeed correction tables in the Hellcat pilot handbook are consistent with his story of Grumman's airspeed tweak. At all speeds the -3 indicates lower than CAS, and the -5 higher than CAS. At an efficient cruise speed of 140 knots, the -3 indicates 13 knots lower than CAS and the -5 indicates 7 knots higher. At 200 knots (as high as the table goes) the numbers are 14 and 17, respectively.

References:

Corwin Meyer and Steve Ginter, "Grumman F6F Hellcat," 2012.

"Pilots Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions for Navy Models F6F-3, F6F-3N, F6F-5, F5F-5N Airplanes" (year not shown)

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


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 16, 2019)

If you say the P-47 after September 1944 was not faster at all altitudes, at what altitude can the F6F outrun the P-47?
Second, how do you actually reach 13.5G in an F6F?
Third, show me all your sources. All the factual claims I made are true and verifiable on wwiiaircraftperformance.org which contains a good amount of speed vs altitude graphs. I refered to them before I commented.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 16, 2019)

Sounds like a good site. Everyone here should check it out

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

(figured this is a reply to my post)



AlfaKiloSierra said:


> If you say the P-47 after September 1944 was not faster at all altitudes, at what altitude can the F6F outrun the P-47?


???
Who said the F6F can outrun the P-47?



> Second, how do you actually reach 13.5G in an F6F?



No, not me, this is what pilots do (or do not)?
At any rate - if you have problems with ww2 historical data, take it with the people that wrote it.



> Third, show me all your sources. All the factual claims I made are true and verifiable on wwiiaircraftperformance.org which contains a good amount of speed vs altitude graphs. I refered to them before I commented.



I've never heard of that site, nor about the people that run it. I'm just pulling the numbers from my pocket, FTW.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 16, 2019)

Joe Broady said:


> Let's see how long time Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer tells the story. I have trimmed the quotes here and there to tighten the focus.
> 
> "In the desperate climate of World War II, the Navy decided that the easiest, quickest and least costly way to tweak the utmost performance out of its fighter planes would be to let rival manufacturers test the latest versions of each other's products. So it was in the summer of 1943 when the Navy delivered into Grumman hands the newest Corsair (F4U-1D Buno 17781)...
> 
> ...



There is a discrepancy with the reports available on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, I don't know what happened there. Both the USAAF and NACA performed testings and charted their high speeds in terms of True Airspeed instead of Indicated Airspeed/Calibrated Airspeed, which means it is more reliable, but I don't know how much instrumentation error can result from positioning of the pitot-static assembly. I think this account is surely interesting.


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> (figured this is a reply to my post)
> 
> 
> ???
> ...


The value of 13.5G is completely meaningless, the F6F's top speed in indicated airspeed is not sufficient to generate a turn that reaches 13.5G. No P-47 was recorded breaking up in flight, neither was any F6F, as no pilot is willing or able to pull more than 9G. In the P-47 it is impossible to exceed 9G without diving. In the F6F, which has a lower stall speed, doing so may be possible but without the use of a G-suit, the pilots cannot fly properly. wwwaircraftperformance.org is run by whoever it is run by, but since all the data I pull from it are from primary sources (written by the RAF, the USAAF or the NACA), it is 100% reliable. Plus I only use the hard data, as in their speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graphs. What numbers you pulled from your pocket cannot be verified anywhere other than other forums and secondary sources. Now, as to who said the F6F can outrun the P-47, I said the P-47 can outrun the F6F at all altitudes after September 1944, and you replied not true. That person is you.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The value of 13.5G is completely meaningless, the F6F's top speed in indicated airspeed is not sufficient to generate a turn that reaches 13.5G. No P-47 was recorded breaking up in flight, neither was any F6F, as no pilot is willing or able to pull more than 9G. In the P-47 it is impossible to exceed 9G without diving. In the F6F, which has a lower stall speed, doing so may be possible but without the use of a G-suit, the pilots cannot fly properly.



Again - if you have problems with historical data, take it to the people who wrote the stuff.
High G loadings were far easier to attain when flying fast, than when flying slow.



> wwwaircraftperformance.org is run by whoever it is run by, but since all the data I pull from it are from primary sources (written by the RAF, the USAAF or the NACA), it is 100% reliable. Plus I only use the hard data, as in their speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graphs. What numbers you pulled from your pocket cannot be verified anywhere other than other forums and secondary sources.



That was my attempt at a tongue-in-cheek joke.



> Now, as to who said the F6F can outrun the P-47, I said the P-47 can outrun the F6F at all altitudes after September 1944, and you replied not true. That person is you.



Let's take a look:



AlfaKiloSierra said:


> P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Again - if you have problems with historical data, take it to the people who wrote the stuff.
> High G loadings were far easier to attain when flying fast, than when flying slow.
> 
> 
> ...


Take it to who wrote the stuff. Now, who wrote it? You still haven't told me yet. Then, if you don't believe my claim the P-47 was faster than P-51 at most altitudes, go look at the speed vs altitude graph of the P-47 and of the P-51. The P-51 outruns the P-47 around its first speed supercharger critical altitude, nowhere else.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> Take it to who wrote the stuff. Now, who wrote it? You still haven't told me yet.



I've had a word with my neighbour, he has a time machine, and is well connected with those funky British boffins of the 1940s. They just write down anything I need to prove my point.



> Then, if you don't believe my claim the P-47 was faster than P-51 at most altitudes, go look at the speed vs altitude graph of the P-47 and of the P-51. The P-51 outruns the P-47 around its first speed supercharger critical altitude, nowhere else.



A-ha, now the P-51D is suddenly faster than P-47D at one altitude band, despite claiming otherwise in post #212.


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 16, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I've had a word with my neighbour, he has a time machine, and is well connected with those funky British boffins of the 1940s. They just write down anything I need to prove my point.
> 
> 
> 
> A-ha, now the P-51D is suddenly faster than P-47D at one altitude band, despite claiming otherwise in post #212.


I said most, didn't say all. And you know that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> I said most, didn't say all. And you know that.



Yes, you did. I apologize.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The value of 13.5G is completely meaningless, the F6F's top speed in indicated airspeed is not sufficient to generate a turn that reaches 13.5G. No P-47 was recorded breaking up in flight, neither was any F6F, as no pilot is willing or able to pull more than 9G. In the P-47 it is impossible to exceed 9G without diving. In the F6F, which has a lower stall speed, doing so may be possible but without the use of a G-suit, the pilots cannot fly properly. wwwaircraftperformance.org is run by whoever it is run by, but since all the data I pull from it are from primary sources (written by the RAF, the USAAF or the NACA), it is 100% reliable. Plus I only use the hard data, as in their speed vs altitude and climb vs altitude graphs. What numbers you pulled from your pocket cannot be verified anywhere other than other forums and secondary sources. Now, as to who said the F6F can outrun the P-47, I said the P-47 can outrun the F6F at all altitudes after September 1944, and you replied not true. That person is you.



AlfaKiloSierra,

Welcome to the site!

Also be advised a pilot can pull more than 9 G’s as I averaged at least one per year for the entire time I flew the Eagle. Ive seen guys pull in excess of 10, and have flown jets that had more than 11 put on them. That really ticks the crew chiefs as the engines get pulled so they can x-ray the motor mounts amongst other checks.

The air show performers pull more than that in some of their planes, and that is without a G suit. I spoke with Sean Tucker after he got a ride in an F-18 (7.3 G jet). He was amazed at the difference between sustained G and instantaneous (not sustained).

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 16, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Sounds like a good site. Everyone here should check it out


Is that in the internet?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The value of 13.5G is completely meaningless, .


 It is not meaningless. Biff has answered in terms of the pilot AND the air frame. If a structure whatever it is has a maximum of 6G and you turn at 6G then you probably damage it. If you repeatedly fly to 5G you probably also damage it. The limit is based on yield strengths, if you go over the yield stress you permanently deform the structure, but also if you repeatedly apply high loads you can damage it, with the materials used in aircraft even low loads repeatedly applied and removed can cause failure. The UK V bombers had their service lives drastically reduced simply by having to fly at low altitude instead of the high altitude they were designed for, no violent turning at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 16, 2019)

Yes, the F4U took the air intake at the wing root where it could get to the engine very easily.






Now, look at what Grumman did with the F8F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 16, 2019)

Hello Gentlemen. AlfaKiloSierra is new to the site so everyone should probably not use ‘tongue in cheek’ responses since he doesn’t realize if you are teasing or not. Those of us that have been here a while know many of the respected sites we use to prove or disprove a point but he may not realize this. I just hate to see a possible new member leave the site if we are too rough on him at the beginning. All of us were new here at one time. I can’t tell you how much I thought I knew that was plain wrong and how much I have learned from so many on this site.

Respectfully submitted,
Pinsog

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The value of 13.5G is completely meaningless



The 13.5G figure represents the ultimate load for the airframe, and indicates the strength of the airframe.

The design load was, probably, 9G, with a factor of safety of 1.5.

Doubtful the F6F could ever get to 9G in normal manoeuvring. I'm sure the extra strength was designed in to cope with carrier landings.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2019)

Wuzak is correct, most American fighter aircraft were designed for an 8 G service load and 12 gs ultimate for that 1.5 safety factor. 
The F6F was designed for a bit more, a few other planes were designed for a bit less or, as operational weights increased, saw their safety factor shrink. 

When comparing certain aircraft be sure you are comparing like to like, If the P-47s are using 150 octane fuel are the P-51s using 150 octane fuel?


----------



## Dawncaster (Dec 16, 2019)

I looked at the load factors of the mentioned models - Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and Corsair.

Well, 12~13.5G ultimate load factors were for design weight.

P-51's 12G ultimate load factor was 8.0(limit load factor) * 1.5(3 seconds safety factor) for 8,000 lbs.

So, actual limit load factor for military condition was much lower.






If full internal load condition, P-51D's limit load factor is only 6.3G(8000 / 10135 * 8.0) and ultimate load factor is 9.45G(6.3 * 1.5)

without 85 gal - empty fuselage tank, limit loaf factor is 6.7G and ultimate load factor is 10.1G for 9625 lbs.

Only P-51H's new airframe had 7.33G limit load factor and 11G Ultimate Load factor for 9,450 lbs.

Other cases were similar, but limit load factors for navy models were based on reference weight in pilot's handbook.

According to AN 01-85FB-1 Pilot's Handbook for F6Fs, Late Hellcat showed 7.0G limit load factor and 10.5G ultimate load factor for 12,000 lbs with strengthened airframe.

So late F6F-5 with 12,740 lbs full internal load condition, limit load factor was 6.6G (12000 / 12740 * 7.0) and 9.9G (6.6 * 1.5) ultimate factor. (2 x cannons + 4 x .50 cal version with pylons)











If early Hellcat with 12,405 lbs, limit load factor is 6.8G and 10.2G ultimate. (6 x .50 cal version without pylons)

Corsair? they had 7.5G limit load factor and 11.25G ultimate load factor for 12,000 lbs.

In this case, F4U-1's the gross weight with full internal load except auxiliary wing tanks for early types, is nearly equal to 12000 lbs, so 7.5/11.25G can be applied as is. (ex. 12,028 lbs for full internal loaded F4U-1D without pylons)





for F4U-4, 7.25G (12000 / 12405 * 7.5) limit load factor and 10.9G (7.25 * 1.5) ultimate load factor for 12,405 lbs full internal load. (without pylons)





and AU-1 had 6.7G (12000 / 13343 * 7.5) limit load factor and 10.1G (6.7 * 1.5) ultimate load factor for 13343 lbs full internal load. (with pylons and rocket racks)





According to AN-01-45HB-1 Pilot's Handbook for F4U-4s, Corsair seems to be able to easily maneuver beyond the limits.

It's not surprising given the boost taps in the elevator and ailerons and great controllability of the Corsair.

....

Isn't there a lack of one model? right.

It's P-47 Thunderbolt.

Unlike the other models mentioned, I failed to find similar data for the P-47, even SAC didn't included it.

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


----------



## AlfaKiloSierra (Dec 17, 2019)

Dawncaster said:


> Isn't there a lack of one model? right.
> 
> It's P-47 Thunderbolt.
> 
> Unlike the other models mentioned, I failed to find similar data for the P-47, even SAC didn't included it.


The P-47 had a substantially higher stall speed, and its top speed in IAS at sea level is three times the stall speed, which means it can pull 9G at sea level without stalling. If you bring it higher, the top speed in IAS drops even though that in TAS increases, and pulling more than 9G becomes more unlikely. The P-47 can certainly pull 9G while diving, but other than that, I don't see any way a P-47 will ever pull more than 9G not to mention 12G or more, as any attempt of doing so would result in accelerated stall.

Edit: The top speed may be less than 360mph depending on model, and stall speed is around 120 mph, the 361mph speed belonging to the P-47N. Therefore P-47D's before September 1944 cannot reach such a speed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2019)

Dawncaster said:


> ...
> Isn't there a lack of one model? right.
> 
> It's P-47 Thunderbolt.
> ...



I'm unaware of the SAC doc for the P-47D.
FWIW, the 8.0 G limit is stated for the P47N @13823 lbs here, pg.3.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2019)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> The P-47 had a substantially higher stall speed, and its top speed in IAS at sea level is three times the stall speed, which means it can pull 9G at sea level without stalling.


 Is that how it works? I thought stalling at maximum power on and minimum IAS were completely different properties only loosely related to each other.


----------



## grampi (Dec 18, 2019)

davebender said:


> The P-47 did not have tremendous firepower either. By 1943 most fighter aircraft had firepower superior to the 8 x .50cal MGs carried by the P-47.


Bigger caliber doesn't always mean superior. Most German planes were equipped with cannons, but that didn't mean they had superior firepower. The firing rate of their cannons was so slow it made it difficult for pilots to get hits on their opponents. The firing rate of the 50 cals was much higher, and they had enough punch most of the time to take out the German fighters with just a short burst...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 18, 2019)

grampi said:


> The firing rate of their cannons was so slow it made it difficult for pilots to get hits on their opponents. The firing rate of the 50 cals was much higher, and they had enough punch most of the time to take out the German fighters with just a short burst...


Mg 151 20mm had about the same rate of fire as an M2 .50 Cal


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 18, 2019)

grampi said:


> Most German planes were equipped with cannons, but that didn't mean they had superior firepower.


I would say that they almost certainly did. By just about any metric you choose to calculate it


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I would say that they almost certainly did. By just about any metric you choose to calculate it




The fw 190 did, mostly, the wing mounted MG/FFMs are a little iffy. If they are present it is no contest, if they are replaced by MG 151/20s it is definitely no contest , if they are absent with no replacement the FW 190s firepower superiority is subject to question. 

The Bf 109 did not unless it had underwing guns.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 18, 2019)

I believe the "superior firepower" claim should include, or at least consider, the total lofted weight of each installation. The M2 ranks fairly well for velocity and rate of fire, but falls short when actual destructive effect on target and installation weight are factored in. Even compared against other heavy machine guns, it is not outstanding. 
But this has been discussed and debated ad nauseam, and I assume it will continue

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Bf 109 did not unless it had underwing guns.


What about a MK 108 in the centre position? off topic, I know, sorry. 
According to the authors of the link below, it had 10 times the destructive affect of a .50 cal, at about twice the weight
h ttp://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2019)

The MK 108 was certainly destructive when it hit, the problem was hitting. 

Think of an MG/FFM taken to extremes, very very destructive shell, but lousy velocity. It is not so much the trajectory but the time of flight. With a MK 108 gun you have to aim about 2 plane lengths (fighter planes) ahead of where you have to aim with a MG/FFM at 300 meters, and about 3 plane lengths (88ft?) ahead of where the MG 131 bullets will hit so they aren't much help in telling you where to shoot. A 300mph plane will move 215ft in the time it takes the MG 131 bullets to reach it at 300 meters, this assumes a high defection shot and not a stern chase. 

The .50 had a high initial velocity and lost velocity slowly making it one of the easier guns to hit with. The 109 also had about 65 rounds of 30mm ammo and the gun fired at around 600rpm/10rps. You don't have much firing time. The MK 108 shells started out about 58% slower than the .50 cal bullets and at sea level lost about 15% of their velocity at 300 meters. The MK 108 loast 26% of it's velocity in the first 300 meters. Things get worse at long range but the majority of German pilots have very little business firing at an Allied fighter at over 300 meters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Dec 18, 2019)

50’s, especially 8 of them, were more than enough to destroy a tiny little Me109 or even a tougher FW190. If I were attacking B17’s, B24’s, B29’s, B25’s and B26’s then I would want cannon. But you simply don’t need 4 20mm cannon to shoot down an Me109 or even an Fw190. Good luck hitting a hard maneuvering single engine fighter with a 30mm cannon with a bowling ball trajectory. 

How many rounds per gun did a 109 carry per 20mm? How many rounds per gun did a 190 carry per gun? If the 20mm have the same rate of fire as a 50 and only half the ammo per gun then your going to run out of ammo quicker. If every bullet you shot hit the target then the 20mm wins hands down, but it doesn’t work that way. You miss far more than you hit. Your chasing a 109 or your chasing a P51, you shoot a 3 second burst and both planes go down if your on target whether you have 6 or 8 50’s or 4 20mm. Most people are not going to shoot a half second burst and hit a hard turning fighter. How many 3 second bursts does each fighter have? If your shooting at B17, B24, B25, B26 or B29 then you need cannon, as many as you can carry.

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


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 18, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Is that in the internet?


Internet???


----------



## ThomasP (Dec 19, 2019)

Hey pinsog,

In the Air Ministry late-1930s pre-war wargames and exercises that I mentioned in a couple other posts where the comparison of various aircraft armament was being discussed, the Air Ministry figured 100 rounds of .303 cal per gun (8x Browning), 100 rounds of .50 cal/.5" (4x Browning or Vickers), 30 rounds of 20mm (presumably 2x HS404) per successful attack by the engaging fighter aircraft. A successful attack was defined as damage to the target aircraft sufficient to remove it from play (ie enough damage to neutralize or destroy the target). These numbers were considered an average for planning purposes and were arrived at via a combination of studies involving aircraft structures being shot up, in air shooting at various types of targets (via camera in air exercises, or live vs towed targets), and probability theory.

The rules for the air exercises were complicated and involved umpires both during and after the exercises, where the umpires would analyze the data and make rulings as to the validity of claims and such.

The table game rules were stylized for what I would call a grand tactical effect, ie there was no 1v1 combat maneuver simulated, only placement and allocation of groups of aircraft against other groups aircraft, with some form of number generation to predict the number and effect of engagements.

Although the post-war report did not go into detail as to how these pre-war estimates compared to war-time numbers, it did say that they were "surprisingly indicative of reality, particularly as to the effects of the German heavy cannon armament used against our heavy bombers". (The preceding quote is the best I can give from memory at the moment since I still have not been able to recover the data from my previous computer's hard drive.)


A point that I found very interesting was that, as of 1938, although the exercises and table games both indicated that most of the attacking bombers would get through the defenses to the target and drop their bombs, both methods indicated the loss rate was unsustainable. This was due to a relatively small number of bombers lost during the run in to target (no radar at the time and a low probability of intercept by fighters or shootdown by AAA) but a large number lost (primarily to fighters) while leaving the target area.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> Yes, the F4U took the air intake at the wing root where it could get to the engine very easily.
> View attachment 564197
> 
> 
> ...


Keep in mind the Bearcat had a single stage engine, and didn't need the intercooler plumbing and ducting. Great plane IMO, what the Thunderbolt should have been.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Hello Gentlemen. AlfaKiloSierra is new to the site so everyone should probably not use ‘tongue in cheek’ responses since he doesn’t realize if you are teasing or not. Those of us that have been here a while know many of the respected sites we use to prove or disprove a point but he may not realize this. I just hate to see a possible new member leave the site if we are too rough on him at the beginning. All of us were new here at one time. I can’t tell you how much I thought I knew that was plain wrong and how much I have learned from so many on this site.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> Pinsog


Fubar started it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Great plane IMO, what the Thunderbolt should have been




P-47 could have been what the F8F was if we rev up the good old time machine and deliver the R-2800 "C" engine to the Republic design team in 1940, and build the factory to make the R-2800 "C" (it used a few techniques that did not exist in 1940) AND if we deliver large quantities of 115/145 fuel to run the R-2800C engine on instead of the 100/100 the 1940 R-2800 was designed to run on.
Time machine is going to need an overhaul after all those runs.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2019)

So there weren't any single stage R-2800s available in 1941/42? Mainly what the Thunderbolt needed was to weigh 10000# like the Bearcat instead of 13500#.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 19, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> So there weren't any single stage R-2800s available in 1941/42? Mainly what the Thunderbolt needed was to weigh 10000# like the Bearcat instead of 13500#.


Okay, let's put a single stage R-2800 into a P-43 in 1940 and rip out the turbo. That should give us a low level hotrod to defeat the enemy everywhere, although maybe only the Russians would take it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Okay, let's put a single stage R-2800 into a P-43 in 1940 and rip out the turbo. That should give us a low level hotrod to defeat the enemy everywhere, although maybe only the Russians would take it.



Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 19, 2019)

Air Enthusiast 2002-05​

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2019)

Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.



The much improved R-2800 C series was also a reason. It turned 2800 rpm vs. 2700 for the B series and 2600 for the A series, the S/C was certaily improved vs. the predecessors, impeller was of bigger diameter (11.5 vs. 11 in). All of these add up to improve the altitude power.
The C series 1-stagers were supposed to make 1700 HP at 16000 ft, vs. the B series 1650 HP at 13500 ft - all at military power.


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 19, 2019)

Here is the beginning of the T-28, before the T-28A came out, the XSN2J. Had an R-1820.
By the way, the T-28 was built with universal head rivets, not flush rivets.

Someone was using a friend of mine's building to rebuild a T-28 and I remarked that I was surprised that no one had ever used one as a basis for an unlimited racer. He then pointed out that it did not use flush rivets.

And as for the R-2800 in a P-51, a letter to Air and Space magazine in the early 1990's said that the USAF was P.Oed at paying RR a $1500 licensing fee for new Merlins and he was directed to undertake a project to see if they could rebuild Mustangs with the R-2800. Sounds like the dumbest idea I ever heard, which makes it very believable based on my 25 years as an engineer in the USAF.

Did I say dumbest idea? Okay, 2nd dumbest; the Space Shuttle holds the No 1 position.


----------



## pinsog (Dec 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> P-47 could have been what the F8F was if we rev up the good old time machine and deliver the R-2800 "C" engine to the Republic design team in 1940, and build the factory to make the R-2800 "C" (it used a few techniques that did not exist in 1940) AND if we deliver large quantities of 115/145 fuel to run the R-2800C engine on instead of the 100/100 the 1940 R-2800 was designed to run on.
> Time machine is going to need an overhaul after all those runs.


Your time machine would have to have a Merlin engine and 20mm cannon or it would be useless


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 19, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Probably - the CoG is messed up due to now much heavier nose and no turbo behing the pilot.
> OTOH - design the P-51 around the 1-stage R-2800 from the get go...


Maybe even the P-53/60?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Maybe even the P-53/60?



XP-53 indeed.
The P-60 was too late, better have the Curtiss make P-47s in quantity instead, and per contract they had and managed to botch up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Actually all Bearcats had single stage engines and had combat ceilings (Navy minimum 500fpm climb) of 35000' and service ceilings over 40000'. Excellent high altitude performance. Resulted from weighing 10000# instead of 13500#.



as noted there was a considerable difference between the 1941-42 R-2800 single stage engines (B-26 bomber and Lockheed Ventura) and the engine*s *used in the Bearcat. 
The -5 engine used in the early B-26s had 1850hp for take-off and 1850hp Military power at a whopping nosebleed altitude of 2700ft. yes 2700ft not a typo, in low gear and 1500hp at 14,000ft in high gear. This was the R-2800 A series engine. The B-series single stage two speed engine (the P-47 used a single speed single stage supercharger in combination with the turbo). most two speed B engines were rated at 1600hp at 13,500ft in high gear and that 2000hp for take could be held to 1500ft, yep again, 1500ft. 

In addition to the weight "cut" (in part because the F8F-1 carried 1/2 the guns with less ammo per gun and a bit over 1/2 the fuel) 

The Bearcat used 3 different engines

the R-2800-22 with 2100hp for take-off, 2100hp at 1000ft and 1600hp at 16,000ft. (XF8F-1)
the R-2800-34 with 2100hp for take-off, 2100hp at 3000ft and 1700hp at 16,000ft. (F8F-1, and a few prototypes)
the R-2800-32 with 2250-2300hp for take-off, and 1600hp at *22,000ft*. (F8F-2). Please note the -32 engine used a variable speed drive and not a two speed drive in addition to other improvements. Also note that the "C" series engines offered better cooling and needed either 10% less airflow through the cowl and engine baffles for the same power or could make more power and still hold temperature in chick using the same airflow as the B series. This mean slower drag at the same power outputs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 19, 2019)

syscom3 said:


> P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).
> 
> P47 for fighter bomber role.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Correct on their two different roles, each in their correct Theater of Ops. The F6F night fighter performed brilliantly where larger NFs failed; where speed and maneuverability were paramount. Another difference is that the P-47 flew from the time America entered the war until its conclusion. The F6F benefitted from earlier fighter designs. A misnomer is that the evaluation of a capture Zero helped to perfect its design, which ignores the fact that the actual plans predates the evaluation of the repaired capture Zero. There was no long drawn out learning curve for the F6F.
I would like to know more about the Fleet Air Arm's use (in detail) of the Hellcat in the ETO; kill ratio to their losses, etc.. From What I read, the Hellcat was far superior to the (Sea) Hurricane.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 19, 2019)

dragonandhistail said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> This is a tough call as both were war winning aircraft! The P-47 does not get it due for its early escort work in Europe as it is a fact that most of the skilled German pilots were killed by P-47s(and P-38s) before the Mustang came on the scene as the lead escort and air superiority aircraft. The P-51s faced a less well trained German pilot many of which were easy kills. The Jug was the ultimate fighter bomber and could take hits that a Mustang would have crumbled under. If the P-47 M and N had been introduced in Europe in the same quantity as the Mustang the results would have been the same. As for the F6F it won the war in the Pacific after the line was held by the F4F and P40. It was the top scorer period and that speaks for itself. Comparing the P-47 and F6F is like comparing two different types of Apples. Both were sturdy, powerful, well armed, and could climb and dive very well. Both represented what was best in US WW2 aviation design. The P-47 was better at high altitude and the F6F at lower. I have to give the edge to the P-47 simply because it was an excellent fighter like the Hellcat but had the edge as a multirole fighter bomber. Neither of these aircraft get their true due as the P-51 and Corsair were sexier and were later developments. The P-47 and F6F won the war and set the stage for the others to be successful. The
> P-47N was the ultimate US Fighter of WW2 if both air superiority and ground attack roles are considered.


Resp:
And . . . many P-51 pilots had lots of hours in a P-47 before switching over!


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> XP-53 indeed.
> The P-60 was too late, better have the Curtiss make P-47s in quantity instead, and per contract they had and managed to botch up.



The first XP-53 was not completed, being used as a static test frame.

The second XP-53 was completed as the XP-60. It first flew in September 1941. Only 4 months after the XP-47B.

Does that count as "too late"?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 20, 2019)

drgondog said:


> I would not only agree, but add that an 'army' version would not require folding wings or arframe structure/weight to mount arresting gear. The F6F-5 'Army should be nearly 6% lighter with attendent boost in climb and acceleration and range.
> 
> The 9th AF could have easily substituted the F6F-5 for P-47D with zero loss in mission flexibilty...


Resp:
While the P-47 was easy to land, it required plenty of runway to get airborne. I wonder how much runway a fully loaded F6F-5 would need to get airborne? I've read that an Allison engine P-51A required less runway (an important aspect as allied ground forces cleared makeshift runways in the Burma jungle) than the replacement P-47s. I suspect the F6F-5 would have been a better fit in Burma for the Chindits, as they built makeshift runways.
But how would the F6F faired against the ME 109/FW 190? The P-47 was one tough fighter that could take a lot of punishment and keep flying.


----------



## Barrett (Dec 21, 2019)

Bill's figures speak for themselves--thanks, BTW.

I've seen self-styled Experts who insist that either the 38 or 47 destroyed more yadda-yadda. Here's the world-wide box score, compiled from Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic self-published volumes.

US SERVICE ONLY
P-51 etc 5,940
F6F 5,188+ 
P-38 3,785
P-47 3,624
P-40 2,256
F4U 2,140
F4F/FM 1,514

Nothing else over 300.

BTW: I've waged a broad-front campaign for years to get the FM-2 the recognition it deserves. "The Wilder Wildcat" had by far-far & away the highest kill-loss ratio: over 30-1. That's undoubtedly the worldwide piston record and probably stood until the F-15!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 21, 2019)

Barrett said:


> Bill's figures speak for themselves--thanks, BTW.
> 
> I've seen self-styled Experts who insist that either the 38 or 47 destroyed more yadda-yadda. Here's the world-wide box score, compiled from Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic self-published volumes.
> 
> ...


Considering that only half the P-40's were operated by the USAAF, does that take the P-40 into 3rd place?


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Considering that only half the P-40's were operated by the USAAF, does that take the P-40 into 3rd place?


That's something that never occurred to me before but the total victories by P40s of all allied nations has to be astronomical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's something that never occurred to me before but the total victories by P40s of all allied nations has to be astronomical.



Not if the other nations were claiming in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 22, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Not if the other nations were claiming in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.


The British Commonwealth took 25% of production, and their victories will take you past the 3000 mark.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The British Commonwealth took 25% of production, and their victories will take you past the 3000 mark.


Add in the Russians and you've got to be in the mid 3000s if not close to 4000. Add in everyone else that used p40s and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you might be well over 4000. Would be interesting to know the total of p40 victories for the war.
........I think I just thought of a new research project.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Add in the Russians and you've got to be in the mid 3000s if not close to 4000. Add in everyone else that used p40s and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think you might be well over 4000. Would be interesting to know the total of p40 victories for the war.
> ........I think I just thought of a new research project.



The Commonwealth and the Soviets is just about it; who is everybody else? No one seems to know how many victories the Soviets claimed with the P-40, but it was not the American built aircraft that they raved most about, that was the P-39; and no one seems to know how many victories they claimed with the Kobra either.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The Commonwealth and the Soviets is just about it; whose everybody else? No one seems to know how many victories the Soviets claimed with the P-40, but it was not the American built aircraft that they raved most about, that was the P-39; and no one seems to know how many victories they claimed with the Kobra either.


I was watching 'The Unknown War' narrated by Burt Lancaster the other night. Apparently, the Russians destroyed 77,000 Luftwaffe planes. So if each Russian fighter destroyed 1 Luftwaffe aircraft that must add another 2400 victories to the P-40 tally, probably putting the P-40 to the number 1 best American WW2 fighter. Of course the Hurricanes we supplied would have scored another 3000 victories helping it to beat the Spitfire to the top scoring British fighter in WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I was watching 'The Unknown War' narrated by Burt Lancaster the other night. Apparently, the Russians destroyed 77,000 Luftwaffe planes. So if each Russian fighter destroyed 1 Luftwaffe aircraft that must add another 2400 victories to the P-40 tally, probably putting the P-40 to the number 1 best American WW2 fighter. Of course the Hurricanes we supplied would have scored another 3000 victories helping it to beat the Spitfire to the top scoring British fighter in WW2.



Surely you are not serious with this post?


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Surely you are not serious with this post?


Ok cut the number down by 50...... no make it 70% for overclaiming and the p40 is still one of the top if not the top scorring US fighter of the war.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The Commonwealth and the Soviets is just about it; who is everybody else? No one seems to know how many victories the Soviets claimed with the P-40, but it was not the American built aircraft that they raved most about, that was the P-39; and no one seems to know how many victories they claimed with the Kobra either.


Brazil, China, Indonesia, 
Malaysia just off the top of my head but there were quite a few more. Admittedly these nations didn't nun up huge numbers in the p40 or anything else for that matter but they got a few here and there. Add those onto what the US, Commonwealth, and Russians got and I don't see how you can come in under 4000 and close to 5000 doesn't seem to much of a stretch either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Surely you are not serious with this post?


Definitely not. Ho, ho, ho.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Brazil, China, Indonesia,
> Malaysia just off the top of my head but there were quite a few more. Admittedly these nations didn't nun up huge numbers in the p40 or anything else for that matter but they got a few here and there. Add those onto what the US, Commonwealth, and Russians got and I don't see how you can come in under 4000 and close to 5000 doesn't seem to much of a stretch either.


My guess would be about 3500 to 4000 as per the Lightning and Thunderbolt.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My guess would be about 3500 to 4000 as per the Lightning and Thunderbolt.


My best back of the napkin counculation/ guess would be around 4000 but certainly could be a bit lower or higher.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 23, 2019)

How many did the P-39 have in Russian service?


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 23, 2019)

4924 sent...Airacobras in the Soviet Union


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> 4924 sent...Airacobras in the Soviet Union


I phrased my question poorly, I meant how many victories did Soviet aviators have in the P-39?  Thanks for your quick response.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 23, 2019)

With the Germans assessing captured P-47s and the Japanese assessing captured Hellcats, I wonder if they ever compared notes.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 23, 2019)

What the Japanese thought of the Hellcat...

"[Advantages]
a. Sturdy Grumman structure.
b. Easy to maneuver.
c. Speed and activation are excellent.
d. Equipped with very heavy armament.
e. Bullet-proof facilities are sturdy.

[Disadvantages] 
a. Not the fastest U.S. fighter.
b. Not necessarily so agile as Zero fighter.


[Hints for air-combat]
As Hellcat is agile and equipped with the powerful engine, combat at altitude 18,000 to 21,000feet is risky.
Therefore, it is also a sort of tactics for you to bring the opponent into the low altitude combat.
When attacked, wrap against the enemy and attack from its front making use of your firearms as much as possible.
Showing your tail is risky. Also, as Hellcat pilots think their teamwork tactics as an insurance, once the team is broken into 1 v 1 fight, it is unexpectedly easy for you to fight but you must study how to break the formation first."

Captured F6F

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> My best back of the napkin counculation/ guess would be around 4000 but certainly could be a bit lower or higher.



Let's see USAAF victories 2256 + vague number of RAF/ CW victories + unknown number of Soviet victories = ????


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 24, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Let's see USAAF victories 2256 + vague number of RAF/ CW victories + unknown number of Soviet victories = ????


RAF and Commonwealth is about 810. Soviet victories unknown but IIRC, Hurricane victories totalled about 500, the P-40 was better, so we should be able to bung on at least 1300 to the USAAF totals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> RAF and Commonwealth is about 810. Soviet victories unknown but IIRC, Hurricane victories totalled about 500, the P-40 was better, so we should be able to bung on at least 1300 to the USAAF totals.


It really does sound like about 3500 would be an " at least" number. Perhaps my statement earlier that it might be as high as the upper 4000s was a bit optimistic but the lower 4000s doesn't seem at all out of the question.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It really does sound like about 3500 would be an " at least" number. Perhaps my statement earlier that it might be as high as the upper 4000s was a bit optimistic but the lower 4000s doesn't seem at all out of the question.


Yep, the Russians were still using them in 1944 as escort fighters on the Karelian front and scoring victories. So definitely an underrated fighter.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Yep, the Russians were still using them in 1944 as escort fighters on the Karelian front and scoring victories. So definitely an underrated fighter.


I once read a kida vuage quote by a Russian commander of some rank I can't recall at the moment that P40s were used " right through the liberation of Bavaria"
Also, something of which many are not aware is that there were 3 RAAF units( the 450th being the one that comes to mind at the moment) that were flying kityhawks in front line service out of the northern tip of Italy right up until VE day.
So contairy to what we read/ hear about the p40 all over the net and in many books they were used in front line service in Europe and right up until the end.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I once read a kida vuage quote by a Russian commander of some rank I can't recall at the moment that P40s were used " right through the liberation of Bavaria"
> Also, something of which many are not aware is that there were 3 RAAF units( the 450th being the one that comes to mind at the moment) that were flying kityhawks in front line service out of the northern tip of Italy right up until VE day.
> So contairy to what we read/ hear about the p40 all over the net and in many books they were used in front line service in Europe and right up until the end.


And still scoring victories in the Pacific.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2019)

Ki 27s scored a few victories in the spring of 1945 (very few), doesn't mean anybody (their pilots included) thought they were a first line aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Ki 27s scored a few victories in the spring of 1945 (very few), doesn't mean anybody (their pilots included) thought they were a first line aircraft.


Don't think we were asserting the p40 was a top of the line aircraft in 1945 as it didn't get the continued development other types like the Bf109 got. The p51 was better overall and the USAAF wisely choose to go with that. The p40 more or less got locked in time after F/L series.
But all the more notable that it was still in front line service in several theaters and still doing pretty well in its limited numbers even late in the war. Imho.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## strider190 (Dec 26, 2019)

Clay_Allison said:


> The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.
> 
> No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.
> 
> ...



Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 26, 2019)

I 


strider190 said:


> Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .


By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 27, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I
> 
> By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.


U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 27, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.


Quite likely, there aren't many piloting jobs out there where you have to take off from a pitching, rolling runway returning by means of a controlled crash. It's just that us Brits perfected the controlled crash on the Seafire before you guys did with Corsair. With these two fighters you couldn't see the carrier deck before you landed.


----------



## IdahoRenegade (Dec 28, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Definitely not. *Ho, ho, ho*.



do you have a machine gun?


----------



## Dawncaster (Dec 28, 2019)

strider190 said:


> Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .









Agree. As certified in the comparison of 1944, dash one 'D' type Corsairs had good carrier capabilities. It was even comparable to Hellcats.



Kevin J said:


> I
> 
> By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.














As noted in many references, the proficiency of Corsair pilots were not so high for average as Hellcats. by the time, late 1944 ~ early 1945, the carrier squadrons for the F4U type began to be organized, pilots from seaplanes, big boats, torpedo bombers and dive bombers were more involved than Hellcat squadrons. During 1944, the Navy used only a small number of Corsairs on aircraft carriers, and Marines used land based ground attackers mostly. However, the Hellcat squadrons were superior in terms of average pilot skill, organization and understanding of fleet operations due to their far superior experiences with the fast carrier task force.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (Dec 31, 2019)

*F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt*

F6F = MacIntosh

P-47 = Red Delicious

*Question:* Which one do you like?
*Answer:* I like apples!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## windswords (Dec 31, 2019)

Sweb said:


> The Cat is cited as being the highest scoring plane in the war. That's an easy boast considering most of its adversaries were new inexperienced pilots woefully untrained to take on the sheer weight of numbers the Navy threw at them. So, I don't take the Cat's kill ratio into consideration when contrasting types.



The same could be said for the P-51 after March 1944, or certainly by June 1944. By then the Luftwaffe was thoroughly compromised and was not the force it once was. The best Thunderbolt aces (who were still leading scorers after the war ended) like Johnson and Gabby were rotated home (Gabby would have been if he had not flown that last mission!) or like Zemke were assigned elsewhere.

Even so there were still a significant number of experienced enemy pilots, at least in the beginning when these 2 planes came on-board, just not for long. Despite those meaningful (IMO) caveats you still have to admire what both the F6F and P-51 did, you just have to put them into their proper context.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2020)

AlfaKiloSierra said:


> With the comparison above, the P-47D outclimbs and outruns the F6F-5 at all altitudes. Notice that this is a 56" boost P-47, which is far worse than a 70"boost P-47D near the end of the war. A P-47D with 70" boost, 2700rpm and improved water injection significantly outruns and outclimbs the P-47D with 56" boost, especially at lower altitudes.



From what I've gathered through official test reports and anecdotal evidence, with similar horsepower ratings and configuration (with wing pylons or without) there wasn't a whole lot of difference in speed between the two types at moderate altitudes. And you have to remember that 56" of boost is while using water injection. You must compare it to an F6F-5 that is using water injection as well or it's not a fair comparison (the added boost can have a noticeable affect on both top speed and climb rate).

One more inconsistency with your comparison is that the F6F-5 is configured with wing pylons/rocket launchers while the P-47D in question is in a "clean" condition. By the spring of 1944 it was common practice to operate the P-47D with wing pylons. This would obviously reduce the maximum speed of the aircraft in your example (I've read that the P-47D would have a loss of at least 15 mph with these rather large pylons installed). According to NAVAER documents the dual pylon and rocket launcher combo on the F6F-5 reduced attainable speeds anywhere between 11-16 mph, depending on altitude.

Here are graphs that specify the maximum speed and climb of a typical P-47D with wing pylons installed. The line to the far left in each graph is the performance of the aircraft without water injection (52" Hg). There's a definite performance drop. In fact, the F6F-5 from your example out climbs the P-47D up to 20K feet and speeds are much closer at low altitude:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg

Using these same graphs compare the performance of the P-47D with 56" boost (second line from the left on the graphs) to an F6F-5 in "combat" power (water injection). Both of these airplanes utilize wing pylons, with the Hellcat having an additional six wing-mounted rocket launchers (this was a very common service configuration for the F6F-5). Once again the Hellcat out-climbs the Thunderbolt up to medium altitudes and has similar speeds up to 10,000 ft. Even with the P-47D at 64" Hg (no water injection/150 octane fuel) the Hellcat will out-climb it low down but does begin to lag in speed somewhat. To remain competitive at this point the F6F-5 would have required similar water jet modifications that were applied to the P-47D (or the higher octane fuel) in order to achieve similar boost pressures. Be aware that figures for the F6F-5 are in knots so they must be converted to mph:

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

One other thing to consider is that if the Hellcat were tasked to regularly operate in European skies it would have most assuredly been supplied 150 octane fuel. The resultant increase in allowable boost would have further improved speed and climb of the Hellcat below 18,000 feet (it's normal critical altitude while at war emergency MP). However in the Pacific theater 130 octane fuel was deemed sufficient for the job at hand because Japanese aircraft performance wasn't on par with their European counterparts. The use of this higher octane fuel w/water injection by the Hellcat would have allowed for a more honest comparison between the maximum attainable performance of these two airplanes.

It's difficult to directly compare the value of these two airplanes. The Hellcat was a carrier-based airplane that would have had a difficult task escorting Flying Fortresses at 25,000 ft, while the Thunderbolt could never operate effectively as a carrier fighter. Outside of roll performance the Hellcat was far more maneuverable at medium altitudes, but that all changes as the airplanes climb to higher altitude. Only then can a Thunderbolt use it's superior performance against the Hellcat and prevail in a dogfight. Two very different missions for two very different aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 18, 2020)

Navalwarrior said:


> I wonder how much runway a fully loaded F6F-5 would need to get airborne?



According to _America's Hundred-Thousand_ (Dean), in an OVERLOAD condition (12,483 lbs) and with zero wind the take-off distance was 780 ft but I've seen it as low as 650 ft in NAVAER documents so I think his figure is conservative. 

Under the same set of circumstances the P-47D-25 in a COMBAT condition (14,411 lbs) has a take-off run of 2540 ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 18, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> One other thing to consider is that if the F6F were tasked to regularly operate in European skies it would have most assuredly been supplied 150 octane fuel. The resultant increase in allowable boost would have further improved the lower altitude speed and climb of the Hellcat. However in the Pacific theater 130 octane fuel was deemed sufficient for the job at hand because Japanese aircraft performance wasn't on par with their European counterparts. The use of this higher octane fuel would have allowed for a more honest comparison between the maximum attainable performance of these two airplanes at moderate altitudes.




The difference is not as much as you might think. Air cooled engines don't get quite the same benefit as liquid cooled engines. SO compare the P-47 and the F6F using 100/130 with water injection, P-47 was allowed 64in of boost with 100/130 and water injection, the 100/150 fuel was cleared for 70in with water injection in the summer of 1944. The use of large amounts of water injection only proceeded the use of 100/150 fuel by a matter of weeks. The Initial use of water injection at lower flow rates was much earlier.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The difference is not as much as you might think. Air cooled engines don't get quite the same benefit as liquid cooled engines. SO compare the P-47 and the F6F using 100/130 with water injection, P-47 was allowed 64in of boost with 100/130 and water injection, the 100/150 fuel was cleared for 70in with water injection in the summer of 1944. The use of large amounts of water injection only proceeded the use of 100/150 fuel by a matter of weeks. The Initial use of water injection at lower flow rates was much earlier.



Ok , let's stay with 100/130 fuel then and run the R-2800-10W at even higher water flow rates, just like with the P-47. In order to be fair the F6F should get modified water jets too:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-2535hp.jpg 

The US Navy was actually experimenting with different water jets on F6F-3s for an entire year starting in February 1944 and ran tests up to 64" Hg, in order to find out the maximum practical power for the Hellcat while using WEP. Critical altitude decreased somewhat as expected but overall performance improved dramatically at moderate altitudes:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42633-b.pdf 

I'm fairly positive that these mods in their final stage would have eventually ended up on production Hellcats and as kits, if they had been pressed into environments where they were outclassed by enemy aircraft. This never occurred in the Pacific where they primarily operated but if it did the F6F most likely would have been cleared for up to at least 64" Hg in WEP to improve it's performance. The engine could certainly handle it for short periods of time.


----------

