Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Find a picture of an F6F carrying a full bomb load. Take a look at where those bombs are and at how snugly they're fit off the fuselage. That's the reason that aircraft was a bombing-fighting aircraft. By design it was as fit a fighter while carrying its full bomb load. The P47s and other such fighters were handicapped as fighters while carrying their bomb loads. The F6Fs were at the same time precision-bombers and fighters. That's, in a nutshell, the difference they'd have brought.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #223
GregP
Major
Hi VBF,
These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean). All that means is the ones who escort the bombers and engage before Berlin must turn around and fly home, just like the P-38's did. The rest can make the escort with no problem, even with combat on the way home. Guess they never heard of tactics.
I figure about half would engage before Berlin (on purpose) and the rest on the way home (also on purpose). Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could. And that was the entire point of the escort what if.
The banter about it not being possible is claptrap. That's what they told Lindberg, but he came back with fuel to spare when the rest didn't. Changed the whole Pacific war picture. Fly smart. It ain't optimal, but it IS possible. I wouldn't even recommend it but, if you HAD to, you could do it.
These guys can't figure out that a clean F6F, with no drop tanks, can fly from London to Berlin (580 air miles) ... just barely (625 on internal fuel at cruise, rich OR lean, 800 HP ... the SFC for the R-2800 is about 0.62 rich and 0.24 lean). All that means is the ones who escort the bombers and engage before Berlin must turn around and fly home, just like the P-38's did. The rest can make the escort with no problem, even with combat on the way home. Guess they never heard of tactics.
I figure about half would engage before Berlin (on purpose) and the rest on the way home (also on purpose). Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could. And that was the entire point of the escort what if.
The banter about it not being possible is claptrap. That's what they told Lindberg, but he came back with fuel to spare when the rest didn't. Changed the whole Pacific war picture. Fly smart. It ain't optimal, but it IS possible. I wouldn't even recommend it but, if you HAD to, you could do it.
Last edited:
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Yep, for sure much of the difficulties the P-47 and P-38 experienced in the ETO in 1943 were the result of lousy tactics, or more generally that the USAAF as a whole were finding their feet against probably the toughest opposition in the world. But the aircraft too had their faults. I would maintain that from mid 1943 to 1944 neither of them could match the contemporary LW fighters at mid to low levels. I recently read an account from a USAF P-47 pilot who explained his action in bugging out of a low level dogfight over Europe in 1943 by saying that the Thunderbolt without water injection and a paddle prop (I think that was it) was no match for a 109 at low level. I can find the exact quote if anyone is interested.
Thing is of course, the Thunderbolt and Lightning weren't meant to be engaged at low level in 1943, even though the fortunes of war might have dragged them there. My thoughts were that if the USAF wanted a dedicated fighter bomber from mid 1943 to 1944 the Hellcat might have been a good option. I think it would have been more effective against the 109 and 190 at low level, where it's performance deficit in speed was less and its superior turning ability more useful, than either the P-47 or P-38 of that time. Plus it was rugged. Kind of like a very tough Spit V LF with more payload (as I mentioned earlier, the Spit five was still a very useful fighter at this time) On the other hand, the defficencies of the Thunderbolt and Lightning at low level were soon overcome, ant the Typhoon was probably doing the job better than the Hellcat could have anyway, so was that six month window of opportunity for the Hellcat sufficient to make it worthwhile deploying in the ETO? I suspect not.
Yet col 4 says the combat radius is 335nm (385mi) with 1 x 150gal drop tank.
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F6F-3_Hellcat_ACP_-_1_October_1945.pdf
Shortround6
Major General
Why, yes it can, if it flies loooow and slooooow.
Would you care to provide the figures for this.
Reality check. "Not optimal, but if you had to do it, you could"
Lets see, Engage at Magdeburg, drop whatever tanks, 15 gallons down because of warm-up, taxi and take-off before switching to drop tanks. 15 minutes combat (not 20) at 4 gallons a minute. Leaves 175 gallons to get home. F6F gets about 2 N. Miles to the gallon at 270mph (max lean cruise) at 15,000ft or about 402.5 miles. Unfortunatly it is 440 miles from Magdeburg to Harwich (the coast) so this does not look like an option. If we slow down to 248-250mph we can just make Harwich, If we slow down to around 170mph once we can see the Dutch coast and the channel we MIGHT even have enough fuel to find an airfield (ANY airfield) and land.
Was Lindberg being shot at by AA guns? Did Lindberg have to pass by active enemy fighter fields?
Lindberg did a great service to the US but then so did Tony Levier, P-38 pilots were flying their planes wrong for a while too. British were Instructing Spitfire pilots in long range cruise (low rpm and high boost) in August of 1942. flying slow in enemy airspace is a good way to contribute to the the enemy score book.
From the British instructions.
" Don't wait until you see the Hun before you decide to get a move on. It will take a couple of minutes for your Spitfire to respond after you open up, and by that time anything you do will be irrelevant."
But I guess they had NO idea of tactics 2 years after the BoB?
drgondog
Major
The Attrition of Pilots and aircraft that proceed past Brunswick would approach 100% - BUT you could 'do it' until you ran out.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
There is a difference between the R-2800s used in the P-47 and the ones used in the F6F and F4U for these high altitude, high speed cruises high speed and that is the turbo charger.
At 25,000ft the R-2800 in the P-47 can provide 1100hp at 2150rpm and 31in MAP while using 95 gallons an hour. There may or may not be other combinations that do better. The turbo is doing what it does best. recovering energy from the exhaust to power the the first stage of the supercharger system.
The Navy engines will cruise every bit as good as a P-47 down low, their engines are by passing the first stage of the supercharger and powering ONLY the second stage (engine or main blower). but a R-2800-10 is only going to give about 650hp at 25,000ft in "neutral" blower and that is by winding it up to 2550rpm. Engine friction goes up with the square of the speed so this option both doesn't give the needed power and the SPC isn't too good.
Next step is to engage "low" blower (commonly done around 15,500ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1150hp at 25,000ft at 2550rpm and about 35.5in pressure. The higher RPM and higher manifold pressures are indicators of power (gasoline) being used that is NOT going to the propeller.
Next step is using "high" Blower. (commonly done around 22,000ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1080hp at 25,000ft at 2250rpm and about 35.5in pressure. A bit better fuel consumption than low blower? What ever extra power is going into the supercharger is offset by the lower RPM of the engine. But still using more rpm and more manifold pressure than the P-47 for similar power to the propeller.
There are a couple of reasons most of the navy ranges are given for altitudes under 15,000ft. 1. It suited their combat needs. 2. It suited their engines.
Going up or down in power should show a similar relationship.
At 25,000ft the R-2800 in the P-47 can provide 1100hp at 2150rpm and 31in MAP while using 95 gallons an hour. There may or may not be other combinations that do better. The turbo is doing what it does best. recovering energy from the exhaust to power the the first stage of the supercharger system.
The Navy engines will cruise every bit as good as a P-47 down low, their engines are by passing the first stage of the supercharger and powering ONLY the second stage (engine or main blower). but a R-2800-10 is only going to give about 650hp at 25,000ft in "neutral" blower and that is by winding it up to 2550rpm. Engine friction goes up with the square of the speed so this option both doesn't give the needed power and the SPC isn't too good.
Next step is to engage "low" blower (commonly done around 15,500ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1150hp at 25,000ft at 2550rpm and about 35.5in pressure. The higher RPM and higher manifold pressures are indicators of power (gasoline) being used that is NOT going to the propeller.
Next step is using "high" Blower. (commonly done around 22,000ft in cruise mode) This WILL give 1080hp at 25,000ft at 2250rpm and about 35.5in pressure. A bit better fuel consumption than low blower? What ever extra power is going into the supercharger is offset by the lower RPM of the engine. But still using more rpm and more manifold pressure than the P-47 for similar power to the propeller.
There are a couple of reasons most of the navy ranges are given for altitudes under 15,000ft. 1. It suited their combat needs. 2. It suited their engines.
Going up or down in power should show a similar relationship.
drgondog
Major
Note the combat range calculations on page six for 15,000 feet and Comabt load including 150 gallon external tank
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf
The F6F cruise model has Radius = Climb to 15000 + Cruise Out (@170kts 15,000 feet 'Lean') = Cruise back @170kts 1,500 feet "lean'.
The chart has the plot on page 5.
Neither the plot nor the Equation includes Warm Up or Take Off or Rendezvous (20min @50%, 1 @Max, 20 @60%)
The Chart doesn't address 26000-28000 foot fuel consumption at 280kts to reflect ETO requirements.
Perhaps you could comment on the difference Greg?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf
The F6F cruise model has Radius = Climb to 15000 + Cruise Out (@170kts 15,000 feet 'Lean') = Cruise back @170kts 1,500 feet "lean'.
The chart has the plot on page 5.
Neither the plot nor the Equation includes Warm Up or Take Off or Rendezvous (20min @50%, 1 @Max, 20 @60%)
The Chart doesn't address 26000-28000 foot fuel consumption at 280kts to reflect ETO requirements.
Perhaps you could comment on the difference Greg?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I wonder if anyone would have liked to have flown a Hellcat from Capa Sata across Japan to Tokyo (very roughly the same as London to Berlin) and back again at 15,000 ft and 170 knots.
Nope didnt think so. Might as well have lined up the pilots and shot them before take off. At least the planes wouldnt have gone down with them.
Nope didnt think so. Might as well have lined up the pilots and shot them before take off. At least the planes wouldnt have gone down with them.
Ah, the Tiffy. That's in the shoe-size I'm talking about, and it was a good one, agreed.
Shortround6
Major General
The F6F did what it did very well, it was a very good performing CARRIER aircraft that was easy to fly and land on carriers, or about as easy as it gets with planes that big and powerful.
It may not have been the "best" carrier fighter performance wise but when you have to put up CAPs for most hours of daylight ( and some even at night) on every day that has flyable weather for weeks on end AND you are WEEKS away from getting replacement aircraft and pilots a plane that is easy to take-off and land from the carrier deck may take preference over the last few % of performance.
Having 20 fighters to escort the bombers/torpedo planes on a strike several weeks into a voyage may be be better than having 16 slightly high performing planes because you lost 4 more due to operational accidents before the "BIG" strike.
The T-bolt, good as it was at some of the things it did, would have been an absolutely terrible carrier plane even if they did manage to fly them off carriers to a shore base at times.
One plane can rarely, if ever, do it all. Although congressmen (governments) keep buying the salesman's pitch and trying to buy a single aircraft (or common airframe) that is supposed to do it ALL 60-70 years after WW II.
It may not have been the "best" carrier fighter performance wise but when you have to put up CAPs for most hours of daylight ( and some even at night) on every day that has flyable weather for weeks on end AND you are WEEKS away from getting replacement aircraft and pilots a plane that is easy to take-off and land from the carrier deck may take preference over the last few % of performance.
Having 20 fighters to escort the bombers/torpedo planes on a strike several weeks into a voyage may be be better than having 16 slightly high performing planes because you lost 4 more due to operational accidents before the "BIG" strike.
The T-bolt, good as it was at some of the things it did, would have been an absolutely terrible carrier plane even if they did manage to fly them off carriers to a shore base at times.
One plane can rarely, if ever, do it all. Although congressmen (governments) keep buying the salesman's pitch and trying to buy a single aircraft (or common airframe) that is supposed to do it ALL 60-70 years after WW II.
wuzak
Captain
I think the F6F could have proved very useful for escort operations in Europe.
Like Greg, I would take an F6F and bolt on 3 drop tanks. He suggests 3 x 150 USG...I suppose they were the biggest available.
Unlike Greg I wouldn't load up with ammo. I would have no ammo, and would probably dump the guns too.
Then I would bolt a Spitfire F.XIV to the top, like a Mistel combination, and plumb it to the Hellcat's tanks. For takeoff and climb both the Spit and Hellcat would be powered, and both would be using fuel from the Hellcat. Once up to a sufficient altitude the Spitfire would cut its engine and the combination would fly on the Hellcat's motor only.
At some point the Hellcat pilot would wake up the Spitfire pilot. The Spit pilot would then start up and warm up his Griffon, again using fuel from its self propelled flying gas tank! Then he would separate and go to rendezvous with the bombers to be escorted....or, more likely, go do some mischief.
Spitfire IXs and P-47s would be used to protect the combinations until separation. Alternatively they would fly unescorted, betting that the Luftwaffe would be more interested in the big bomber contingent coming up at them.
Out of the box thinking, just as Greg asked!
Göring was a bit down when he saw P-51s over Berlin. How depressed would he be if the RAF somehow managed to get Spitfires there?
Like Greg, I would take an F6F and bolt on 3 drop tanks. He suggests 3 x 150 USG...I suppose they were the biggest available.
Unlike Greg I wouldn't load up with ammo. I would have no ammo, and would probably dump the guns too.
Then I would bolt a Spitfire F.XIV to the top, like a Mistel combination, and plumb it to the Hellcat's tanks. For takeoff and climb both the Spit and Hellcat would be powered, and both would be using fuel from the Hellcat. Once up to a sufficient altitude the Spitfire would cut its engine and the combination would fly on the Hellcat's motor only.
At some point the Hellcat pilot would wake up the Spitfire pilot. The Spit pilot would then start up and warm up his Griffon, again using fuel from its self propelled flying gas tank! Then he would separate and go to rendezvous with the bombers to be escorted....or, more likely, go do some mischief.
Spitfire IXs and P-47s would be used to protect the combinations until separation. Alternatively they would fly unescorted, betting that the Luftwaffe would be more interested in the big bomber contingent coming up at them.
Out of the box thinking, just as Greg asked!
Göring was a bit down when he saw P-51s over Berlin. How depressed would he be if the RAF somehow managed to get Spitfires there?
- Thread starter
- #234
GregP
Major
Checked wityh Hel;lcat pilots at the Planes of Fame and THEY say it could be done, but wasn't the primary mission ... so I suppose it is possible. If YOU don't, that's OK ... I do. Since this a what if, I say let's terminate it with each having his or her own opinion.
600+ miles on internal fuel, including some combat, so if they had to engage before Berlin, they'd have to turn back, and the ones that didn't engage would continue. Go talk to the guys that fly it ...
Good luck Wuzak ...
Outta' here and bye.
600+ miles on internal fuel, including some combat, so if they had to engage before Berlin, they'd have to turn back, and the ones that didn't engage would continue. Go talk to the guys that fly it ...
Good luck Wuzak ...
Outta' here and bye.
wuzak
Captain
I suppose the F6F could have been used to escort bombers in one of the first stages of the relay, if it couldn't do the final leg to target.
drgondog
Major
You always fall back on some nebulous 'Planes of Fame' pilot group - whether its a debate about pilot's combat preferences between P-51D and P-51B - and you reference Bud Mahurin as an expert witness (who never flew either in combat) - or now a Hellcat pilot or pilots regarding a mission profile they never planned or flew.
When you name names they are usually those that are not connected to subject matter expertise for the Question to be answered.
So Who did you ask, and Which ones have subject matter expertise regarding the Questions to be answered relative to factual data?
Good - now you can ask 'them' to point you to sfc data for high altitude/fast cruise fuel consumption?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
It could but why bother. Above 20,000ft it is slower than a P-47, it doesn't climb as well and it is shorter ranged (combat radius) than even the early P-47s IF it tries to act like P-47 and "escort" from 24-28,000ft.
A "use" could have been found for it but since it won't do what the P-47s and P-38s would do, escort wise, it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
A Typhoon could "fly" 1000 miles with a pair of drop tanks but nobody tried using them for long range escorts.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I have often wondered if another big cat would have been of use over Europe as a bomber escort. The Grumman Tigercat one of my favourite didnt quite make it aircraft.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I bet the Tiffy pilot would have spent most of his time nervously staring at the oil pressure warning light.
Shortround6
Major General
See:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_Airplane_Characteristics_Performance.pdf
Combat radius 435 N mileswith 300 gallon drop tank using "standard" Navy conditions which are way different than the USAAF Bomber escort conditions.
Zero wind and everything "perfect" you might be able to fly one from Cambridge to Warsaw and back but that is at 180mph and a rather low altitude
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f7f/F7F-1_Airplane_Characteristics_Performance.pdf
Combat radius 435 N mileswith 300 gallon drop tank using "standard" Navy conditions which are way different than the USAAF Bomber escort conditions.
Zero wind and everything "perfect" you might be able to fly one from Cambridge to Warsaw and back but that is at 180mph and a rather low altitude
Last edited:
