Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

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


Greg, the RAF was escorting LOTS of daylight missions with Spitfires. Escort missions generally fell in two types: Ramrods, which were daylight bombing missions with distinct targets and a reasonably strong bomber force, and Circuses, which were generally pinprick raids with LOTS of fighters (20-30 squadrons at some points) and not many bombers, typically less than 20 light/medium bombers. By the end of 1942, the RAF had performed better than 400 Circus/Ramrod missions.

I dont think aircraft numbers were the RAF's problem, more the losses it was sustaining (it was getting spanked at a loss rate of about 2.5-3 to 1) and pilot training.

Still, by June 1942 Fighter Command had 50 squadrons of Spitfires - all Mk V or Mk IV bar one squadron with Mk IIs - seven squadrons of P-51s, four of Typhoons and two Whirlwind squadrons. There were also seven Tomahawk/Kittyhawk squadrons and 11 Hurricane squadrons (two converting to Typhoons), although neither really did much cross-Channel stuff apart from some bombing.

It had another 22 Hurricane squadrons in the MTO and CBI theatres, seven Spitfire squadrons overseas (four in Malta) and another 5 or six miscellaneous squadrons (including one Galdiator squadron still on strenght... )

The RAF's problem was the Spitfire simply didn't have the necessary range, while the P-51 and Typhoon didn't have the necessary altitude performance (or reliability in the Tiffie's case). A Spitfire Mk V with a 30 gal slipper tank had a combat radius of about 200-220 miles, more realistically about 175-200 miles, given the higher cruise power settings used over France (fear of getting jumped by 190s). With a 45 gal slipper tank, radius was still no better than 250 miles.

That's enough to get you into central France and the low Countries, but not much more. The RAF decided that night bombing was a much more sensible option for them, and so concentrated on that.

All this is getting well off topic though.

I wonder would of happened if the RAF had got scads of Corsairs while the USN waited to get the thing deck certified? The Marine corps started flying them off land bases in February or March 1943. The FAA got their first examples in June 1943.

Suppose the USN and FAA examples went to the RAF instead?
 
I'm thinking that IF the Spitfire needed the range for the war to not be lost, some fuselage and possibly wing tanks could have been added. I know they escorted some short-range missions, but it is possible the only reason why the fuel capacity was NOT increased substantially was because other options were available, namely the P-51. If it had not been there, something would have taken the P-51's place in US production.

The Hellcat would not have been a bad choice, but also maybe not have been optimal.

The thing is political decisions are not always predictable, so we don't know what might have been if the P-51 didn't make the show ... it DID. The range figures from Grumman show clearly it could have done the job, and that is all I'm saying ... and am getting people arguing that the BOOK on the F6F Hellcat that the Navy used to plan missions is somehow wrong and it couldn't have done it.

I say bunk. It COULD have, and without difficulty .. unless the book really IS wrong and they didn't really fly all those WWII missions without knowing the real range performance of the aircraft they employed. And the probability of that is? In reality, Grumman and the US Navy are right and the Hellcat DID have the capability to perform escort missons in Europe. It just wasn't called upon for that task.
 

NAVAIR 1519A (rev 9/44): http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf 1,170 statute miles w/1 x 1,000 lb bomb and 150 gal external tank - combat radius = 310 NM, 357 miles: w/ 2x 100 gal external tanks + 11.75 in rocket = 1,270 st miules; combat radius = 365 NM, 420 miles
 
I seriously doubt the Hellcat would have been configured with either bombs or rockets for an escort mission, and the range with 1 drop tank is almost sufficient without the bombs or rockets. Add another drop tank and it is MUCH more than sucfficient.

For me the link doesn't work ... but a 1,170 mile range and 357 miles radius seems absurdly conservative. Land bases don't sail away from you at 35 knots into the distance and make you find them, they are usually right where you left them. You should not need more than about a 150 mile reserve ... I'd figure 45 - 60 minutes, and I'd use 150-gallon drop tanks since they were sort of standard. The Hellcat our museum used to have had the 150-gal variety. My range figures are from the Grumman manual ... using 150-gal drop tanks ... but if you're looking for a way to nix the mission, the 100-gallon tanks might do it. Soultion? Don't use 100-gallon tanks and NO escort had rockets or bombs fitted, it's not realistic ... you're escorting, not doing a ground attack. Even if you figure max continuous cruise (I didn't in the posts above), with three 150-gal drop tanks, you can expect a 1,450 - 1,500 mile range with 20 minutes combat thrown in plus a 60 minute reserve. If they were forced to drop tanks too early, they might have to turn back and get into that reserve, but it is certainly a possible mission. Hey, we pulled off the Yamamoto interception at the maximum possible range for the P-38 in the Pacific. Why not one with a MUCH better chance of success in the ETO?

An escort was a clean aircraft with full ammunition and whatever external fuel tanks were required ... and damned well better top up the oil tank.

The negativity is amazing ... no G3 would approach the mission from how it can't be done or he wouldn't retain the job long. The task is to DO it, not how NOT to do it ... give me a "can do" G3 please.

Come up with a configuration that would work and you succeed. I did. Three 150-gal tanks with full ammo and that's all. It'll work and could be flown easily. Get a manual, some European charts, an E-6B, and plan the flight. I did and it works. You can do the same for a P-47 and a P-38, but that isn't the "what if." Yes, I know it never happened in the ETO.

I'm not seeing much in the way of aeronautical flight planning here. You pilots out there, plan it and chime in here ... or not. Figure startup and taxi, takeoff, 20 minutes joinup, and economy cruise to and from the target (faster than the B-17's anyway) with 20 minutes combat. Typical mission for WWII. Full internal fuel (250 US gal) plus three external 150 US gal drop tanks and full ammunition (2,400 rounds).

It ain't rocket science and it ain't all that difficult with the manual in hand. When I fly (Cessna), I usually get there within ±2 gallons of planned fuel ... using the book from Cessna and I make my checkpoint ±30 seconds as a rule. Grumman's manuals were as good or better. The only variables are wind and the amount of combat you fly but, with 3 external tanks, it simply isn't an issue if you use the book, even if combat is doubled ... and there are no reports I have ever seen of 40 minutes of combat. The ammo would run out and you would both disengage if able. If not, the mission is terminated by death, forced landing, or nylon letdown.

I like George C. Scott's line from the movie Patton, "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be too bothered about then Hellcats range in any case, because for the previously mentioned reasons I don't think it could have done as good a job as an escort fighter against the 109G-6 or 190 A-5 in mid 1943 (when it became available) than could the P 47 and P 38 of that time - and they were struggling. If it was going to be used I think it should have been doing much the same job as the Typhoon - fighter-bomber. It was a lot slower than the Tiffie- a serious drawback - but more reliable, and I think a better low level fighter than the pre paddle-pop prop/water injection thunderbolt or the pre boosted control Lightning. But come those developments it would have lost any advantage it had there too.
Post D-day there were still plenty of Spit Vs optimised for low level performance and doing useful work. Maybe the Hellcat could have fit in there.
 
Last edited:

Greg, as a pilot you should be more aware of the operational aspects of flight planning than you display in your childish comments to Shortround...

If you invest the time to read some ETO 8th AF Operational Squadron Histories you will find many recounts in which flights had to return early from a target escort because they engaged before consuming drop tank fuel. And these explanations are coming from Mustang pilots that a.) Started with more internal fuel, b.) consumed less fuel at military power, and c.) consumed less fuel per mile than any version of any R-2800 powered airplane - specifically far less than the P-47/F6F and F4U.

But rather than think it out and look at a typical mission profile for deep target escort. you throw "After looking at it, I say the Hellcat COULD have been used as an escort without much trouble. I think you're just stirring the pot ..." at Shortround when he clearly is patiently trying to explain the obvious - and HISTORICALLY CORRECT 'Problem to be Solved.
 
Last edited:

Calm down! I'm not disagreeing here, just adding some documentary material which included different weapons loads: I don't have access to the Grumman info quoted. I presume the ranges are conservative because a 1,000 lb bomb added some drag, as did the (presume) "Tiny Tim" - I'm assuming this was mounted on the hard point under the fuselage, which meant the 150 gal tank couldn't be used. It can also be assumed that a clean Hellcat, without external ordnance and with drop tanks was capable of easily reaching the ranges quoted by GregP:




CobberKane says the P-47 was "struggling" against the Fw 190 and Bf 109 but that was only in the first six months or so, while 8th Fighter Command was insisting on using the wrong tactics - for some reason they were sending the P-47s in at over 30,000 feet on non-productive sweeps and poorly planned and executed escort missions, which allowed the German fighters to pick and choose when and where to attack the USAAF bombers.- ditto the p-38s, which were also struggling with mechanical difficulties brought about through the cold and wet conditions experienced at high altitudes over Europe. Once Doolittle took over and changed tactics to force the Luftwaffe fighters into combat that was when conditions started going rapidly downhill for the Luftwaffe - by then the P-51 had arrived and the P-47s P-38s started being transferred to the 9th AF and used as fighter-bombers.
 

The problem is NOT flying a Hellcat to Berlin and back in undefended airspace at a speed an altitude f your own choosing. It is flying a Hellcat somewhere into Germany, Dumping all that marvelous extra fuel, engaging enemy fighters and getting back to base WHILE flying at speeds and altitudes that allow you respond QUICKLY to enemy attacks.

I have absolutely NO DOUBT the Grumman range figures are correct. They are also useless for the mission required. You keep talking about using drop tanks to get home, WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Once you engage you have internal fuel only, it does NOT matter how much fuel was in the tanks you dropped.

I have looked at NAVAER 1335A (Standard Aircraft Flight Characteristics for the F6F-5 Hellcat) that gives a combat radius of 340 Nautical miles with a 150 gallon drop tank. Perhaps you should look at it again.

Condition's include.

1. Warm up, 20 min at 50% normal rated RPM. Take-off 1 minute. //maybe you can cut the warm-up to save a bit of fuel.

2. Rendezvous, 20 minutes at sea level at 60% N.S.P. auto lean. //This could probably be cut short as take-offs from fields are probably closer spaced than carrier take-offs.

3. Climb to 15,000ft at 60% N.S.P. auto lean. //Here is the first big hitch. USAAF figured for 25,000ft. A P-47 at 12,500lbs takes 30 gallons to climb from 15,000ft to 25,000ft using a ferry power setting. Granted the plane is moving forward at the time and is operating of drop tanks.

4. Cruise out. At 15,000ft Vel. for max range auto lean. // Now max range is 180 knots at 15,000 ft which is useless for escorting bombers. It is way too low and too slow to allow quick response, Bomber escorts cruised faster to allow for less acceleration time and quicker response. Hellcat is going to take a hit on the range for this one even if fuel is coming from the drop tank ( may be second tank?)

5. Combat. 20 minutes at 15,000ft. 10 minutes at combat rating and 10 minutes at Military power and descend. // OK, a bit different than the USAAF standard. but not bad.

6. Cruise back, 1,500 ft at 170knts. // Well, if you think that cruising back over Germany and France at the speed and altitude of a fast Cessna on a sight seeing trip is perfectly safe, go for it.

7. Reserve. 60 minutes at speed for max range. // perhaps this can be cut a bit. You are not looking for a carrier in between rain squalls.

The big hang up is the speed and altitude used to egress the combat area. The USAAF figures are THEIR yardstick, actual speeds and altitudes would depend a bit on each operation but fuel burn at 25,000ft and 210mph IAS is going to be a lot higher per hour hour than 170kts just off the deck.

"Patton, "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

Sending you pilots out on one way missions is NOT making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.
 

Unless you are a Group CO of a Hellcat org in ETO
 
Jabberwocky said:
I wonder would of happened if the RAF had got scads of Corsairs while the USN waited to get the thing deck certified? The Marine corps started flying them off land bases in February or March 1943. The FAA got their first examples in June 1943.
Click to expand...
Just one observation on that, Jabber. I believe the Hellcats within their depth or reach could have done whatever the Corsairs could have done for us in the ETO. The Corsairs' carrier-issues hit a brick wall when we came out with the Hellcats. Had we not come out with the Hellcats I believe the Corsairs would have been on those carriers in 1943. The need to carrier-fit the Corsairs was gone by the time we came out with the Hellcats. Thus, take one or the other, really. Either could have done the same thing for us, I'm saying.
 
I don't know what the F6F would have added to the capability that was already there. It has already been pointed out that the P-47 had 50 gallons of more internal fuel than the F6F. Also, the contemporary P-47s were faster at SL than the F6F with basically the same engine and is therefore cleaner so there is no reason that the F6F could out perform the P-47 in range, if drop tanks were available. The performance of the P-47 at bomber altitudes, above 15k, was much better in speed, up to 40 mph, and similar in climb. The high altitude performance of the P-47 gave it a significant advantage over the contemporary German defensive fighters something the F6F and F4U did not have until much later. I just don't see the what the F6F could do better as an escort. The F4U-1 did have more internal fuel than the P-47 and could have performed the long range escort, however, with the concern of the poorly protected wing tanks.
 
Well,

I am fully aware that many missions turned back when they had to drop tanks early and, I believe I even mentioned sending a flight of shorter range fighters in front to take on the first wave. I wasn't upset or excited when I wrote it and there is nothing whatsoever childish about asking someone to come up with a way to use an asset in an unfamiliar way. It happened all the time in the air, on the ground, and in the ocean.

I suppose I have my answer. If I had to use Hellcat assets for escort I couldn't use some people in here as the mission planners ... thinking outside the box is apparently something just not done. It was an unlikely situation to happen anyway and didn't in real life. We'll have to disagree here since I can see the flight planning would work if pressed into service, even though there are scenarios where the escort would have to turn back ... just as they did using other aircraft in the war, and even in the face of a comparative flight report stating the authors would choose the F4U and F6F over the Fw 190 in combat.

Enough. Cheers, and continue or not.
 
drgondog said:
You don't have to be confused - you are right. I was referencing America's One Hundred Thousand line up extracted from the Fighter Conference - which ignored the Fighter Conference results on page 319 of the XF8F-1 because it was not yet deployed?
Click to expand...
No problem. I was just copying the book. I should have omitted the reference to the F8F since it was a non player and more of a contemporary to the P-51H, which most of the naval air aficionados tend to ignore and always compare the F8F and F4U-4/5 to the previous generation P-51D.
 

Thinking outside the box does not change the fuel consumption figures.
Thinking outside the box requires real solutions, not wishful thinking or ignoring facts.

Could the F6F have done useful work in Europe, YES.
Could it have done anything that the P-47, P-38 and P-51 could not do? NO.
Could it have been used as a long range escort in 1943/early 44. NO.

If you have a crap load of F6Fs and can fly even more relays than the the P-47s and P-38s did in 1943/early 44 and if you could use some of your fighters to fly escort for some of your other fighters so they don't have to drop their tanks until later maybe you can get further in. And maybe if you have some fighter groups escort the low on fuel fighters back across western Germany, France and low countys you may get more of your pilots back but that is a lot of extra fighters to use. it is a lot of extra fuel, it is a lot of rendezvous to go wrong.

And flying at 1500ft at 170kts past AA positions isn't thinking outside the box but in may very well but the pilots in boxes.
 
Since you feel that way, why did you choose to participate in a thread about Corsairs and Hellcats in Europe? Why not just abstain?

Just because the Navy cruised home at 1,500 feet over open ocean doesn't mean it would happen that on an escort mission! Can't you wrap your head around that? A different mission ... makbe say it slowly. It seems you are confusing replacement of existing resources (not something I suggested) with a "what if" where you had Hellcats available and needed to use them for some reason in Europe, in lieu of P-51's somewhat later in the thread.

This is funny. When I try to stick with what happened in the real war, I see tons of "what ifs" that go for pages. When I try a "what if," I get "didn't happen that way in the real war and couldn't ... here's why." That's the whole reason for a "what if," investigate something that didn't happen but might have. Glad you didn't ever get put in the position of having to scramble for a response to something unexpected in war.

I suppose the Japanese didn't fly a large displacement radial fighter on some long missions maybe except for the Kawanishi N1K-J (range 1,066 miles internal, 1,488 miles with drop tank) and Nakajima Ki-84 (range 1,339 miles) to name but two that flew some long missions. Good thing they didn't know they couldn't go that far.

The Hellcat could have been made to work if it had proved necessary, with some caveats. When we fly our Corsair or a Bearcat or a Hellcat, the fuel burn is very predictable, but not in 1944? Ah well, time to sign out of this thread and go do a flight plan. Mine have been working fine since 1982 but, I guess I'd have just run out of fuel in 1944, huh? Right ...
 

The F4U-1 and 1A had 361 gal of internal fuel which was more than the pre-June 1944 P-47D by 56 gallons but less than the P-47D-25 and subsequent versions. I suppose the -1A could go to Brunswick, Kassel and maybe Augsburg but still won't make Berlin, Leipzig, Schweinfurt or Munich..
 

Darn it - you ARE being sarcastic.. Ok.
 

A....Dif...fer....ent.......mis.....sion...

Slow enough???

The bomber escort mission in Europe was different than the missions the Navy flew or planned or put out mission radius's for, Yeah, I think I got that. Doesn't mean the Navy or Grumman's figures are wrong, just that some people try to misapply them.



Un....der.......what........con.....di.....tions........???

Slow enough for you?

A range estimate for P-47 that included 10 minutes allowance at normal power for warm up, taxi, take off and landing. Allowance for climb to 10,000ft with an on course climb and allows 10% of range for other factors comes out at 835 miles flying at 10,000ft at the most economical cruising speed with 305 gallons of fuel.
Yet the P-47 with 305 gallons internal fuel ONLY, was rated at a 125 mile combat radius by USAAF planners. These are guideline combat radius and might be stretched a bit on certain missions.

Yet the Hellcat with less fuel and more drag will fly further???


GregP said:
The Hellcat could have been made to work if it had proved necessary, with some caveats.
Click to expand...

What caveats?

Anti-gravity paint?

Special "GO JUICE"?

Tail winds both ways?



And that has what to do with what we are talking about??
The fuel burns are in the charts and manuals. Just use the correct speed and altitudes for the mission that needs to be flown. Use the fuel burn number for 200mph at 1500-8,000ft at 20-25,000ft and 310mph and tell me how you make out on your next flight.
British learned the hard way in 1941/42 that puttering around over Europe at best economical speed even in a Spitfire was a good way to get dead.
 
I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out how to take a fighter with 8 - 9 hours of fuel and get from London to Berlin and back in a hypothetical "what if" situation. Never said it was ever going to be the best approach, but a challenge isn't apparently what you're up for, so sit back and relax. It didn't happen, and you aren't the operations officers who have to make it happen ...

Suppose we use these same Hellcats and Corsairs that just can't be made to work in Europe in the Pacific theater? Think they might work there? At least it isn't a "what if," so we have some actual data to support the possibility. On the other hand ... I can read a history book and see how they did. Two of the most successful in the PTO just couldn't make it in the ETO. Go figure. I'd never have suspected it.
 
GregP said:
I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out how to take a fighter with 8 - 9 hours of fuel and get from London to Berlin and back in a hypothetical "what if" situation..
Click to expand...

I guess I am overwhelmed that people who claim to be knowledgeable in aviation can't figure out that to take a fighter with 2-3 hours of internal fuel (or 1.5 hours after combat allowance and reserve allowance ) and get from Berlin back to London in a hypothetical "what if" situation AFTER dropping the external fuel tanks can't be done.

If it could you wouldn't need Hellcats. Spitfires could do the job. A Spitfire MK V could (just possibly) fly at 225mph at 10,000ft using 29 IMP gallons an hour. Slap a 90 gallon IMP tank underneath. Allow 26 Imp gallons for take-off and climb and even rounding up to 30 IMP gallons an hour you get an endurance of 5 hours and a "range" of 1125 miles. OK maybe not London to Berlin and back but Chelmsford to Berlin and back. All the British had to do was think outside the box

No Mustangs needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
665
Canaus
C
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
S
Corsair
Replies
1
Views
807
tomo pauk
The data behind the bombing war in Europe
Replies
3
Views
1K
GregP
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register