Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[tomo pauk]

LOL is that what you gathered after reading this report?!?

Excerpts from the aforementioned comparative tests:

"The F4U-1 and F6F-3 were found to be much more maneuverable than the FW-190. No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F-3...."

"It was found that the FW-190 requires a much greater turning radius in which to loop than either the F4U-1 or F6F-3, and tends to stall sharply when trying to follow the F4U-1 or F6F in a loop..."

"The general opinion of the pilots who made the comparative tests is that the FW-190 is an extremely simple airplane to fly and is designed for pilot convenience, but is not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat..."

"All the plots agreed that the F4U-1 and F6F-3 would be preferred in actual combat operations..."

"Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and F6F-3 to be far superior to the FW-190. Both the F6F and F4U could follow the FW-190A in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW-190 could not follow either of the two airplanes..."

I've already stated that F6F was found to be more maneuverable than Fw 190, so the quoted remarks are moot points. With regard to the pilots opinons - US pilots were praising their aircraft, just like most of the other pilots were praising their A/C when given a choice.
You seem to overlook that Fw 190 out-climbed and out-accelerated F6F.

Speed comparisons (MPH):

Height (Feet)/ FW-190A4/ F6F-3
200/ 334/ 334
5,000/ 357/ 351
10,000/ 357/ 348
15,000? 386/ 369
20,000/ 401/ 381
25,000/ 410/ 391

Diving (never exceed) restrictions:
FW-190A/4: 466 MPH below 10,000 feet ("according to captured document and posted on indicator" - quote from report)
F6F-3: 477 MPH (according to wartime Pilot's Handbook)

As you can plainly see there isn't a huge difference in top speed between the two airplanes until around 15,000 feet. But even at these higher altitudes the difference is negligible IMHO and would not change the outcome of a dogfight, except maybe when the FW-190A pilot had enough and wanted to retreat home after being badly beaten, with his bullet-ridden tail between his legs.....

20 mph worth of difference is quite a bit. Nobody wanted a slower aircraft. BTW - before 1944 there was no war emergency setting for the F6F, speed on military power was about 320 mph at 5000 ft and 340+- mph at 10000 ft. Thus in 1943 Fw 190 was faster at all altitudes, and climbed better. By late 1943, Fw 190A-5 was doing 360 mph at 5000 ft and 375 mph at 10000 ft - much faster than F6F with war emergency power.

If I remember correctly, it was more than new tactics that helped to defeat the "dreaded" Japanese Zero. The A6M was indeed a great turning aircraft, but only up to around 200MPH, after that the controls became exceedingly heavy and it's turning radius went south mighty quick. A dogfight above those speeds was suicide for a Zero, and when the Japanese pilot broke hard into a dive to escape this situation he would be quickly caught and shot down by the Hellcat pilot.

Tactics, teamwork, radars, ability to take hits, numerical advantage - all was there in the Allied hands many months before Hellcat was in service. Combined with huge numbers of land- and ship-based AAA, Japanese air services were on the ropes by ealry 1943.

 

[DarrenW]

Since the poll is about combat between 15,000 and 35,000ft I don't see how anything could touch the Me 262 since if it doesn't want to fight you cant make it. The situation in 1944/45 was that the need to attack the bombers forced combat but in 1 on 1 combat I cant see anything else getting near it.

That's a very good point. I'm sure that's the primary reason why allied pilots waited around German airfields and hit the jets while they landed, when they were most vulnerable.

 

[wuzak]

Speed comparisons (MPH):

Height (Feet)/ FW-190A4/ F6F-3
200/ 334/ 334
5,000/ 357/ 351
10,000/ 357/ 348
15,000/ 386/ 369
20,000/ 401/ 381
25,000/ 410/ 391

Fnatastic.

By mid 1943 the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat had slightly superior performance to an early 1941 Supermarine Spitfire V.

 

[DarrenW]

I've already stated that F6F was found to be more maneuverable than Fw 190, so the quoted remarks are moot points. With regard to the pilots opinons - US pilots were praising their aircraft, just like most of the other pilots were praising their A/C when given a choice.
You seem to overlook that Fw 190 out-climbed and out-accelerated F6F.



20 mph worth of difference is quite a bit. Nobody wanted a slower aircraft. BTW - before 1944 there was no war emergency setting for the F6F, speed on military power was about 320 mph at 5000 ft and 340+- mph at 10000 ft. Thus in 1943 Fw 190 was faster at all altitudes, and climbed better. By late 1943, Fw 190A-5 was doing 360 mph at 5000 ft and 375 mph at 10000 ft - much faster than F6F with war emergency power.



Tactics, teamwork, radars, ability to take hits, numerical advantage - all was there in the Allied hands many months before Hellcat was in service. Combined with huge numbers of land- and ship-based AAA, Japanese air services were on the ropes by ealry 1943.

The reports states "slightly" superior in acceleration ABOVE 160 knots (which is around climbing speed for most aircraft of this era). It wouldn't be a game changer. And while the report did mention the FW 190 climb as superior in some aspects, it also said that at 140 Knots and below 15,000 feet the climbs were about equal.

I knew you would discount the report as soon as it didn't agree with your position but I'm in agreement with you that pilots tend to believe in their own machines over the enemy. But your assertion that the report concluded that the Hellcat couldn't compete with the FW 190 is just patently false.

And I know about War Emergency Power (WEP). This was added in January 1944, which was a mere 4 months from it's introduction into combat. Where did you get those speed figures for the FW 190A-5, they look a little optimistic to me.

 

[DarrenW]

Fnatastic.

By mid 1943 the Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat had slightly superior performance to an early 1941 Supermarine Spitfire V.

LOL are you guys trying to tag team me here?

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the F6F-3 and F6F-5 used just about the same engine. The R-2800-10s in the field (carrier hanger) could be converted to the R-2800-10W version with the addition of a retro-fit kit. Difference in performance between a -3 and -5 Hellcat would be minimal if both are using water injection. Alight difference in cowl and/or prop?
external fittings?

 

[pbehn]

That's a very good point. I'm sure that's the primary reason why allied pilots waited around German airfields and hit the jets while they landed, when they were most vulnerable.

The same would apply today to a squadron of F-22s confronted with 600 P 51s.

 

[swampyankee]

You are absolutely right, but so is all other data, such as various flight tests, combat reports, and pilot reflections.

Speaking of flight tests, were all aircraft from all nations test flown by the same pilots, using the same test instruments that were calibrated to read identical under the same conditions? This is a rhetorical question of course.....

The closest to that sort of test were a series performed between various US aircraft. With these, it would be possible to get equally skilled pilots in aircraft known to be properly maintained and operated properly.

 

[DarrenW]

I would note that the F6F-3 and F6F-5 used just about the same engine. The R-2800-10s in the field (carrier hanger) could be converted to the R-2800-10W version with the addition of a retro-fit kit. Difference in performance between a -3 and -5 Hellcat would be minimal if both are using water injection. Alight difference in cowl and/or prop?
external fittings?

There were many small differences, which when added together equated to improved performance. During several recorded tests that particular model of Hellcat was clocked at more than 400 MPH.....

 

[DarrenW]

Victory totals may be an indication as much of opportunity as it is of an aircraft's fighting qualities.

Opportunities against lesser opponents - aircraft, pilots (less well trained and/or novices) and situation.

Yes I agree, the majority of the enemy that opposed the United States during WWII were lesser opponents.

 

[tomo pauk]

I knew you would discount the report as soon as it didn't agree with your position but I'm in agreement with you that pilots tend to believe in their own machines over the enemy. But your assertion that the report concluded that the Hellcat couldn't compete with the FW-190 is just patently false.

I'm glad that you adhere to your own advice about not making snide remarks. I will bow to the hard figures, however once opinions are stated they usualy require grain of salt.
Yes, my comment that F6F couldn't compete with Fw 190 was wrong.

And I know about War Emergency Power (WEP). This was added in January 1944, which was a mere 4 months from it's introduction into combat. And those figures you quoted look like the worst case scenario for a very battle worn machine. I've seen far better figures for even the lowest MAP settings. Can you tell me which document you derived those figures from? Also, where did you get those speed figures for the FW-190A/5, they look a little optimistic to me. But I suppose there could have been ONE capable of that performance.

F6F making ~330 mph at 5050 ft, 340 mph at 10050 ft, manufacturer's specs: link
310 mph at 5000 ft, 330 mph at 10000 ft: link
320 mph at 5000 ft, 335 mph at 10000 ft: link
All for military power.
Fw 190A-5 with perf figures I've quoted: link
The draggy & overweight A-8 making 360 mph at 5000 ft, 370 mph at 10000 ft: link

All of this before we add Fw 190A-9 or D-9, that were out-performing any F6F.

Lastly, should I bring out the stats I have for tests performed on the F6F-5? I say this because it's performance exceeded the F6F-3 by a noticeable margin. I figure it's only fair as you decided to discuss the FW-190A/5 rather than stick to the A/4 version......

The Fw 190A-5 was contemporary of F6F-3. Same engine and same armament as the A-4, so nothing is lost there, and performance figures are much more widely available.
I have no problems with any set of performance figures you post, they can just add to the discussion.

 

[DarrenW]

I have seen the first F6F-3 document you listed. The speeds listed are only estimates and do not reflect those actually attained. However, I'm in agreement with you that the main asset of the Hellcat series was not outright speed (read all of my posts and this can be confirmed). However it could be a very elusive target in a dogfight, due to it's powerful engine and generously large wing which allowed for abrupt and violent turns to be made. This, coupled with great low speed handling, made the fighter very lethal in close quarter aerial combat. And luckily it was always "fast enough" to allow the pilot to leave the fight, if caught at a disadvantage.

Thanks for the FW-190 links. However you sent me two documents for the A-8 model. It may have been heavier than earlier models but it had the C3 boost system which increased engine power by about 15%. It's definitely more comparable to the later F6F-5 version. And I was able to find a German test report for the FW-190A-5. It's speed is more in line to what I'm use to seeing for this earlier version of the aircraft (se attachment).

I also attached two files for the F6F-5 (one of these includes comparison figures for the F6F-3). In this particular document they list the minor structural differences between the -3 and -5 models as well. You will also see that the reported top speed of the F6F-5 (391 MPH) was on military power and not combat (WEP). This aircraft also suffered from lower than normal neutral blower power so this obviously affected both speed and climb as well.

The comparative trials against the A6M5 is worthy of note. Under WEP, the F6F achieved 409 MPH, which proves that the Hellcat was a true 400 MPH aircraft. I believe that this version could compete with the long nose D-9 on somewhat equal terms, but it would be a tough fight for sure.

And I apologize if you feel I insulted you earlier. I'm very passionate about this subject so I just got carried away a bit......

 

[tomo pauk]

I have seen the first F6F-3 document you listed. The speeds listed are only estimates and do not reflect those actually attained. However, I'm in agreement with you that the main asset of the Hellcat series was not outright speed (read all of my posts and this can be confirmed). However it could be a very elusive target in a dogfight, due to it's powerful engine and generously large wing which allowed for abrupt and violent turns to be made. This, coupled with great low speed handling, made the fighter very lethal in close quarter aerial combat. And luckily it was always "fast enough" to allow the pilot to leave the fight, if caught at a disadvantage.

There is plenty of speed graphs on the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site where F6F can't do 400 mph, tests not estimates, military and WER power. And only one test report where the F6F attained better than 400 mph. Powerful engine was present in most of the mid/late war fighter, it is power vs. weight and power vs. drag what counted. In either of these categories the F6F was perhaps 15th on the list? Both Grumman and Navy were well aware of that, hence the drive for the F7F and F8F, they probably missed the chance to go with F6F-6 instead.

Most British tests of the Hellcat I've seen (like another report you linked) quote a top speed that's around 10-15 MPH less than a large majority of other Hellcat test documents. I can see where some people will think that these figures represented a factory fresh aircraft. It's a fairly well known fact that operational aircraft did not attain factory performance figures (with a loss of as much as 5-10%), due to wear and tear, and that's exactly what these test aircraft were.

Vast majority of US data gives 380-390 mph for the Hellcat. The -5 included.

Thanks for the FW-190 links. However you sent me two documents for the A/8 model. It may have been heavier than earlier models but it had the C3 boost system which increased engine power by about 15%. It's definitely more comparable to the later F6F-5 version. And I was able to find a German test report for the FW-190A/5. It's speed is more in line to what I'm use to seeing for this earlier version of the aircraft (se attachment).

It might be a good idea just to post the links for the docs at William's site, instead of posting the whole docs here.
The 1st link is for the A-5 using over-boost, not the additional C3 injection. Tests for the later can be read at teh Fw 190A-5 part of the Williams' site. The A-5 will do well even with 'normal' emergency power, eg. ~370 mph both at 5000 and 10000 ft (link , link).

I also attached two files for the F6F-5 (one of these includes comparison figures for the F6F-3). In this particular document they list the minor structural differences between the -3 and -5 models as well. You will also see that the reported top speed of the F6F-5 (391 MPH) was on military power and not combat (WEP). This aircraft also suffered from lower than normal neutral blower power so this obviously affected both speed and climb as well.

The comparative trials against the A6m5 is worthy of note. Under WEP, the F6F achieved 409 MPH, which proves that the Hellcat was a true 400 MPH aircraft. I believe that this version could compete with the long nose D-9 on somewhat equal terms, but it would be a tough fight for sure.

And I apologize if you feel I insulted you earlier. I'm very passionate about this subject so I just got carried away a bit......

One time the Hellcat was clocked at 409 MPH, vs. dozen of ither data showing 380 mph or thereabout - so let's draw conclusions.

 

[DarrenW]

I'm not arguing the fact that the F6F wasn't the fastest fighter around. You can see that I never mentioned it in my initial posting:

..........I feel that the F6F's superb low speed handling and maneuverability, immense strength, and excellent gun platform characteristics gave it a nice balance of "weapons" to use in a dogfight that took place at low to medium altitudes.......

It definitely was fast enough to compete wherever it was deployed, and obviously the US Navy felt so as well. There are stories out there that claim there may have been instrumentation errors that gave readings which were lower than actual speeds attained but that's been hammered home countless of other times on this and other forums so much that I don't care to discuss it any further. It doesn't even matter anyway. Remember, the Hellcat was a shipboard aircraft so of course it wouldn't be as fast as it's land based counterparts. It's a no brainer that both it and the F4U-1 would have been faster if it lost all the extra weight and drag associated with the requirement to take off and land on carrier decks.

Besides, this thread is about expressing which aircraft was the best dogfighter. An aircraft doesn't have to be the fastest fighter in the sky to be that. Speeds rarely exceed 300 MPH while twisting and turning. A 20 MPH level speed difference would only come in handy if you had to break off or engage and enemy, it's useless in close in aerial combat. And in case of the Hellcat this speed deficit wouldn't really matter anyway, as it could out-dive the majority of it's opponents.

Which aircraft on list do you feel is the best dogfighter then? I'd like to know the reasons too.

 

[tomo pauk]

I've voted for Spitfire IX/XIV. Rate of climb, speed, turn rate, dive speed, accelration - either best of the lot, or at least equal to the best on specified altitude band. Obviously the Spitfire IX as a chioce before XIV is available.

 

[DarrenW]

The Spitfire would be high on my list as well.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

Hi, first post. At least in this decade.

All things being equal, at 25,000 feet on a clear April day over Boscombe Down with the same pilot at the controls of each plane, I'd put my money on the Sptifire to win more than it loses.

In the real world? 1,100 mile northeast of New Guinea on a mild February morning, what was the best dogfighter? The F6F-3, or Fw-190A5?

Or what's a better dogfighter on a March 1945 afternoon when you coming back from a mission flying cover for Avengers that just struck an island and you're flying back in your fighter with AAA frangments in your belly just aft your engine and you know you're half way back and you'll have to fly CAP until the Avengers are on board because the groups' radar detected incoming enemy aircraft. Rather be in a Hellcat or a Seafire? Would you even be able to be there in a Seafire?

The best dogfighter? Neat question if all fighters did exactly the same job uinder exactly the same circumstances.

What's the best fighter to get the job done that needs to get done?

 

[tomo pauk]

The F6F will not be able to compete in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942 and best part of 1943. Leaves on third of the ww2 for the F6F to prove it's worth, vs. Spitfire being there and proving it's worth in 1939, 1942 as well as 1945. Be is at it is, and not trying to take anything from anone, but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

but the ww2 was being decided above European skies and in Atlantic, not in Pacific.

If only the Japanese had known that.

 

[tomo pauk]

Japanese military-junta-like thinking before 1945 was as far from rational as possible.