There are numerous Hellcat test documents on the Williams/Stirling website that support the notion of a nominal increase in speed between the two settings at critical altitude. I can post the links if you would like, but I'm confident that you know your way around the site as well as anyone else here.
Hello DarrenW,
I was wondering how long it would take to get this thread to a "Hellcat is Great" discussion.
That is why I asked in the beginning what you were really interested in.
Since you won't post the data, I will post an engine chart from the Hellcat Pilot's Manual for reference.
If you look at the closest engine settings to the "Normal Maximum" for Sakae engines and meet the criteria of Boost Pressure barely above Sea Level ambient and RPM about 250 below maximum, what you get for an equivalent for the Hellcat is "Maximum Cruise" at
34 inches Hg and 2400 RPM.
I am Guessing that this would only be about 1200-1300 HP at best.
Now if you believe that kind of engine setting gives anywhere near representative performance, I can't agree.
But I have been comparing these two machines all along. For the drag calculations I actually used data for the A6M2 that is a bit on the high side from what was discovered during actual flight testing. Same can be said for the A6M5.
As an obvious proponent of the Zero's virtues, what performance figures do you feel are the most credible and representative and why?
Basically you have been selecting what data you like and ignoring the most relevant data that does not agree with the point you are trying to make. The A6M2 gained about 19 MPH from one power setting to the other and you are trying to "reason" that very similar A6M5 should only gain about 5 MPH based on data from.... HELLCAT Engine settings???? Really!?!?
You may believe that I am "an obvious proponent of the Zero's virtues", but that is far from the truth.
It had its virtues but it also had a lot of faults which I have commented about in other threads.
This thread was about the "Aerodynamic Drag Properties", so I believe it makes sense to discuss what an aircraft in good condition could do rather than argue about how poor the condition of the average Japanese aircraft was.
While I agree with some of what you say here, from what I read only a small number of the total aircraft aboard could be kept above deck, as there wasn't nearly enough room top-side for a large portion of aircraft stationed on a typical carrier. When they were not in use, most of the aircraft were secured below deck in the hangar bay, where maintenance would normally be performed. But even so we must also acknowledge that US Naval aircraft were still extensively maintained wherever they may have been kept or stored.
I believe the practice with USN carriers was to store aircraft on the flight deck. British and Japanese carriers tended to store aircraft below in the hangar spaces. On USN carriers, the aircraft get spotted forward when others are landing and then are spotted aft when launching for a strike.
And I'm sure you are well aware that, until the resounding defeat of the IJN at the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Zero was regularly deployed aboard carriers so it too would have been subjected to a similar "harsh carrier deck landing environment". But of the two, which one do you think would hold up best under these adverse conditions? My money is on the Hellcat all the way.
So to sum things up, your theory that the average Hellcat was only about 10 mph faster than the average Zero just doesn't hold water. I guess we will have to continue to agree to disagree on this for the time being….
See note above for aircraft storage.
Regarding Hellcat being only 10 MPH faster than the average A6M5, I never made such a statement.
Heck, I wasn't trying to compare anything with the Hellcat at all. That is a rather boring game and I am tired of it.
The Myrt was difficult but not impossible to intercept and many were shot down by Hellcat pilots during the course of the war. I was only comparing it to the much slower A6M, which by all accounts was far easier to engage and destroy than the C6N. This is very compelling to say the least.
I didn't realize that we were in disagreement here. Besides the reasons you mentioned, there were other factors (such low quality replacement parts) that added to the maintenance dilemma. Aircraft plants often used unskilled labor during manufacturing and cut corners in other areas as well. So yes I agree that, by the middle of 1944, IJN and IJAAF aircraft were in a much worse state of repair than any of their opposition.
Regarding intercepting C6N: One of the things I learned from Flight Simulators is that if someone doesn't want to engage, then you need a fair amount of speed advantage to execute a pursuit..... either that or a lot of time and fuel. Fighters are expected to engage in combat. Folks are not hard to catch when they are trying to bring guns to bear on you. Recon planes have better things to do, like get home and report what they found.
The engines installed in C6N and A6M have radically different reputations for reliability and maintenance issues. The Sakae / Ha-115 was pretty reliable and according to TAIC's evaluation of Oscar 2 was pretty tolerant of being pushed to its limits or even of pilots disregarding those limits for "flash performance".
The Homare / Ha-45 had a tendency for accessory failures and often did not make the power claimed for the engine.
As for what I believe about the A6M series:
I believe that when they are new, they probably were able to achieve the performance levels claimed for them.
I also believe that they tended to degrade fairly quickly in harsh environments because of how fragile their structures were.
Their light weight had a cost in durability. Early in the war, and even on bases that were not cut off from the supply chain, this delicate lady was well cared for and performed well. On bases that were not well supplied or cut off and overrun such as when broken aircraft are left by departing troops, conditions and performance would suffer even when the aircraft was repaired after capture.
- Ivan.