Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

Best Dogfighter Between 15,000 - 35,000 feet......

  • Total voters
    177

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
DarrenW said:
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.
Click to expand...
The same would apply today to a squadron of F-22s confronted with 600 P 51s.
 

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.
 

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.....
 
wuzak said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.


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.


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.
 
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......
 

Attachments

  • fw190a5.pdf
    5.7 MB · Views: 242
  • f6f-5.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 205
  • ptr-1111.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 244
Last edited:

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.


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


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).


One time the Hellcat was clocked at 409 MPH, vs. dozen of ither data showing 380 mph or thereabout - so let's draw conclusions.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Japanese military-junta-like thinking before 1945 was as far from rational as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
946
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
4K
wlewisiii
Menu
Log in
Register