- Thread starter
- #61
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
By whose standards? I think having a 1000+ mile range qualifies it as being a rather long range single-seat fighter, don't you?
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
- Thread starter DarrenW
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
By whose standards? I think having a 1000+ mile range qualifies it as being a rather long range single-seat fighter, don't you?
- Thread starter
- #63
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
How much closer were Army fighters based to the action in 1943? And I disagree that one must discount external tanks when considering the effective range of a fighter. They must have been a viable means of extending the radius of an aircraft or they wouldn't have carried them in the first place.
Shortround6
Major General
We are running into the cement wall of "book" ranges
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf
Hellcat can fly 955 miles at 160mph attitude not given but from pilots manual that maybe 1500ft.
Totally useless in Europe unless you goal is to make some German 20mm AA gunners day.
I would note that a Spitfire V can fly about 445miles at 203mph at 2000ft on 70 imp gallons of fuel (allowing 14 gallons for warm up and take off.
Please note from the linked chart that the F6F-3 Clean was rated at a 120 mile combat radius.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf
Hellcat can fly 955 miles at 160mph attitude not given but from pilots manual that maybe 1500ft.
Totally useless in Europe unless you goal is to make some German 20mm AA gunners day.
I would note that a Spitfire V can fly about 445miles at 203mph at 2000ft on 70 imp gallons of fuel (allowing 14 gallons for warm up and take off.
Please note from the linked chart that the F6F-3 Clean was rated at a 120 mile combat radius.
Shortround6
Major General
They certainly help but only to a certain degree. For example adding one 150 gallon tank to an F6F helps an awful lot.
It kicks the range up to 1340 miles but really extends out the combat radius to 335 miles.
however adding a 2nd tank doesn't help the radius as much. Not so much because of the drag but like we have been talking about, the radius depends on getting out. and the getting out fuel is what is inside the plane. And F6F can burn around 4 gallons a minute (or up to nearly 5) in Military power so 20 minutes can be over 80 gallons, you want that 30 or so gallons for when you get back the area of the carrier
Now if you are running out of the combat area you don;t slow down to 160mph right away.
Carrying more than 300 gallons out side can get you in further than you can get out.
P-47 with 305 gallons had a radius of 125 miles, with 370 gallons it went to 225 miles, with 305 inside and 300 outside it went to 425 miles.
However with 370 inside and 300 outside it went to 600 miles.
Now think about 250 inside and 300 gallons outside. If you are bounced and have to drop the tanks how far can you go ?
- Thread starter
- #66
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
The pilot's manual I have gives a different story for max range:
Grumman F6F (3-5) Pilot's Manual
Excerpt:
As you can see the range with 400 gallons of fuel (at an altitude of 25,000ft and flying 283 mph) was 935 statute miles. I'm also pretty certain that most combat missions were flown well above the 1,500ft altitude (a Hellcat pilot once told me that most of his combat flying was between 10,000-20,000 feet). I hope you don't think that the pilots who flew these machines were suicidal?
The link you provided shows a combat radius for the Hellcat with a drop tank at 385 statute miles, and close to 140 statute miles without, just to compare apples to apples. And that is with everything taken into consideration such as take-off, rendezvous, climb to 15,000ft, cruise out at 200 mph, fight for 20 minutes (in and out of WEP) and return with 60 minutes of fuel in the tanks (using US Navy's F-1 formula).
How do you think your Spit would do under similar circumstances?
And to convince you that I'm being totally impartial with my viewpoint (as well as being open to your opinion), I've taken the liberty of changing my vote in this thread from the F6F-3 to the "Jug".....
Last edited:
I don't get the notion that external fuel doesn't matter. During WW2 escort fighters in general would fly out burning the external fuel and also the fuel in tanks which affected maneuverability first, i.e. the fuselage tank on the P-51 or P-40 for example. When they arrived at the mid-way point their external tanks would be close to empty, ideally. So the route back does have to be on internal fuel in most cases but depending on when you expect to face combat* you should be flying back to base with close to full internal fuel. Only missing whatever you burned in combat.
So the metric of "internal fuel only" combat radius seems a bit disingenuous to me.
And yes, you can (and they did) revert back to economical cruising speed as soon as you disengage. Obviously it does depend on the Theater and region but you aren't necessarily going to run into enemy fighters over and over after you leave the target area.
What is the suggestion that the Hellcat would cruise at 1500 feet based on, is that a joke?
I also think the notion that the F6F or F4U would have trouble with Luftwaffe opposition is absurd. FAA used them, I know they didn't see a lot of combat but I know FAA F6F's saw action in Norway and I don't think they suffered.
Corsair compares well on paper to Bf 109 or Fw 190.
P-51 had much better altitude performance than most Fw 190 and many Bf 109 variants too.
There were few Spit VIII available and no other Spit variant was really suitable for escort as far as I know.
S
*which would vary widely by the specific Theater or region but most commonly would be over the target area, i.e. at roughly the mid-point of the trip.
So the metric of "internal fuel only" combat radius seems a bit disingenuous to me.
And yes, you can (and they did) revert back to economical cruising speed as soon as you disengage. Obviously it does depend on the Theater and region but you aren't necessarily going to run into enemy fighters over and over after you leave the target area.
What is the suggestion that the Hellcat would cruise at 1500 feet based on, is that a joke?
I also think the notion that the F6F or F4U would have trouble with Luftwaffe opposition is absurd. FAA used them, I know they didn't see a lot of combat but I know FAA F6F's saw action in Norway and I don't think they suffered.
Corsair compares well on paper to Bf 109 or Fw 190.
P-51 had much better altitude performance than most Fw 190 and many Bf 109 variants too.
There were few Spit VIII available and no other Spit variant was really suitable for escort as far as I know.
S
*which would vary widely by the specific Theater or region but most commonly would be over the target area, i.e. at roughly the mid-point of the trip.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #68
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
That altitude was primarily used during ferry missions and such when there was no possibility of encountering the enemy. As you pointed out, it would be utterly absurd to enter hostile territory at such a dangerous level.
And be advised that there are people here who will always challenge you in regards to the two premier US Navy fighters usefulness in ETO. But thankfully it's always fun to bicker with them concerning the notion from time to time!
I do agree fully with your remarks concerning the Spitfire. Since when was it ever considered useful for long range anything????
- Thread starter
- #69
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
But she sure was pretty!
From the start, it was one of the most successful recon planes of the war.
There was much that could have been done to improve the range of the spitfires internal fuel, but this would have taken it up to being on par with a P-47 and the USA already had P-47s while the UK had Mustangs too.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
The pilot's manual I have gives a different story for max range:
Grumman F6F (3-5) Pilot's Manual
Excerpt:
View attachment 489183
As you can see the range with 400 gallons of fuel (at an altitude of 25,000ft and flying 283 mph) was 935 statute miles. I'm also pretty certain that most combat missions were flown well above the 1,500ft altitude (a Hellcat pilot once told me that most of his combat flying was between 10,000-20,000 feet). I hope you don't think that the pilots who flew these machines were suicidal?
The link you provided shows a combat radius for the Hellcat with a drop tank at 385 statute miles, and close to 140 statute miles without, just to compare apples to apples. And that is with everything taken into consideration such as take-off, rendezvous, climb to 15,000ft, cruise out at 200 mph, fight for 20 minutes (in and out of WEP) and return with 60 minutes of fuel in the tanks (using US Navy's F-1 formula).
How do you think your Spit would do under similar circumstances?
And to convince you that I'm being totally impartial with my viewpoint (as well as being open to your opinion), I've taken the liberty of changing my vote in this thread from the F6F-3 to the "Jug".....
I like the Hellcat a lot, more than the Corsair in fact, but I'd cite the Battle of the Phillippine Sea circa 1944, the Japanese fleet was 275 miles away, at the very limit of the strike range for the USN aircraft, Hellcat included.
Glider
Captain
As a photo Recce aircraft it was probably unmatched. My favourite line shoot was an American Spit PR XI that had to land for fuel on an USAAF airbase
Base Commander - That's a Spit isn't it
Pilot - Yes
BC - Where are your guns
Pilot - Haven't got any
BC - Where is your fighter escort
Pilot - Didn't have any
BC - Where have you been
Pilot - Berlin
Shortround6
Major General
The metric starts with the dropping of the fuel tanks. Say for our F6F you can fit two 150 gallon tanks, the problem is can you get in further than you can get out?
Or lets use the P-47, with 305 internal and 300 external it was rated at 425 miles, The distance it could fly after it dropped tanks, fought for 20 minutes got itself back to 25,000ft and exited the area at 210mph IAS and allowing for 30 minutes after reaching sunny old England to find an airfield to land on. It doesn't matter it you hang a pair of 200 gallon tanks underneath for an an extra 100 gallons. You shouldn't go past that 425mile mark if you expect to get home.
Adding just 65 gallons internal kicked the radius out to 600 miles with the same pair of 150 gal external tanks.
The P-47 could suck down 70-90 gallons in 20 minutes of combat depending on altitude and throttle settings (actually burned less when using water injection) so that Only missing whatever you burned in combat could be substantial.
1940 - long rage recon
1942 - fighter that can be deployed from UK to Gibraltar, then from Gib to Malta via aircraft carriers, included a 170 imp gal drop tank and 29 imp gal rear fuselage tank
1943 - LR fighter modified in the USA
late 1944 - LR fighter modified in the UK (see the doc atached)
This is from September of 1944. Every single bit is that concerns Spitfires is feasible in winter of 1942/43, plus the leading edge tanks (+25 imp gals, as on the Spit VIII), plus the under-seat tanks (used on some recon versions) - much earlier than LR Mustangs. Alas, the things were dictated by doctrine, not by capabilities of aircraft. Picture kindly provided by Glider IIRC:
- Thread starter
- #75
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
LOL you guys crack me up! I knew from the beginning that kind of comment would illicit this amount of quick responses to the contrary. I guess that I'm not the only fanboy on this site!
Just for clarification though, how many Seafires were used operationally by the US Navy again?
Just for clarification though, how many Seafires were used operationally by the US Navy again?
Glider
Captain
You found it before I did. I find the bottom paragraph of interest.
- Thread starter
- #77
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Thing is, your fuel burn rate is always greater during take-off, rendezvous, and climb to mission altitude than what's used once you settle into cruising speed. Fuel use is never a one to one ratio from ingress to egress. I would suspect that the mission is planned so that you'd be ready to drop tanks by the time you enter hostile territory. And of course when descending from altitude gas use goes way down as well....
- Thread starter
- #78
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
- Thread starter
- #79
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
So what you saying is, the Spit would have been the far better choice for long range escort than the Thunderbolt or Lightning but politics mucked things up???
Without a fleet of bombers why would you make an ultra long range fighter in Europe? You may find that someone wants to fight with you for more than 20 mins or not let you cruise home at your most economical setting.I see a lot of modifying going on here....
