Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[VBF-13]

watch the sarcastic name calling, please.

Sorry, Chris. Everybody, really. Short, you too. You caught me napping, big time. And my tongue got stuck in my cheek!

 

[drgondog]

Lets see if I under stand this right.

Or any where else you can find and show HOW a F6F could fly from England and hit (bomb) Factories in Germany and NOT have it be a one way trip?

This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_AppendixB.pdf
Curiously enough - a P-51D had a fuel flow rate that yielded 5.91 miles per gallon at 308mph at 25000 feet clean, 4.9 mpg w 2x110 tanks at 281mph TAS, 5.58 mpg w 2x500# bombs at 307mph and 5.61mpg w 2x250# . It could go deep into Germany and return.

Net - half the fuel consumption with 2x500 pound bombs in P-51D than of Hellcat with just the centerline 150 gallon tank.

I know the 355th FG flew several missions with one 110 gallon fuel tank and one 500# bomb to attack truck depots south of Stendal, nne of Magdeburg ~ 50 miles from Berlin - in spring 1945.

Roughly, the drag of the 1000 pound bomb was less than the 11o gallon tank but 250 more GW. You could figure the gallons per per mile while the P51D was carrying one 110 gal tank and one 1000# would be slightly below 4.91 (@ 307 w/2/110's) but have a slightly greater cruise speed (say 315mph) so it would be close to 4.8 miles per gallon.

Say 20 gallons to take off assemble and climb to 25000 feet. 269-25 = 244 gallons remaining - 92 each in mains, and 60 in fuse tank plus 110 gallons in drop tank.

Fly 400 miles and bomb Brunswick x 4.8 miles per gallon = 84 gallons of external burned down at Brunswick, 25+ remaining plus 244 internal.

Fly (from Table B above link) 125 of the 400 remaining and drop external tank.

Fly 275 miles @2100 rpm, 53gph @309mp@ 5.8 gallons per mile after climbing back to 15000 feet. 275/5.8 = 47 gallons internal to English Coast. = 197 gallons remaining

If you fly a straight mission to Berlin at 15000 feet with no external load and fly CAP for an airborne drop on Berlin with loiter at 15000 feet then return to Steeple Morden..

18 gallons to SE, TO and form up at 15000..

Cruise 600 miles at 303TAS to Berlin at 5.8 miles per gallon = 103 gallons. 269-18-103=128 gallons. Burn 28 gallons goofing off and then return on 100 gallons

Make an emergency landing at Manston

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you.

By the Spring of 1945 the Germans may have been running a little short of airplanes/pilots/fuel leaving the escorts a little less occupied than before?

I know that a lot of "bombing" missions were done by fighters flying in formation and letting go on signal from a lead bombardier, but I didn't think they did much in way of deep penetrations.

Conditions in the Spring of 1945 being a lot different than the summer of 1944 let alone the summer/fall of 1943.

 

[fastmongrel]

no one seems to have mentioned the weather over Europe. Wing icing, winds, rain, snow and fogged in airfields all mean you will burn fuel a lot faster than the book figures.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you, it is also a reason that the "nominal" combat radius figures did NOT include distance covered in climb OR any increase in range due to dropping 20-25,000ft of altitude or several other factors. Sort of extra built in reserves.

These were not single plane missions but formation flights. Planning had to be for the WORST plane in the squadron/group. Dropping 20% of your returning aircraft in the Channel was NOT good planning.

 

[drgondog]

Thank you.

By the Spring of 1945 the Germans may have been running a little short of airplanes/pilots/fuel leaving the escorts a little less occupied than before?

Yeah - and SOP was to have one squadron flying CAP some 5K above the fighter bomber force - these missions were just prior to and after the drop over the Rhine on March 24th. There were a LOT of Allied fighter engaged - to the point of having to worry about mid air collisions from other Allied a/c

I know that a lot of "bombing" missions were done by fighters flying in formation and letting go on signal from a lead bombardier, but I didn't think they did much in way of deep penetrations.

I don't know if any occurred in 8th AF. Most if not all missions were dive bomb or glide bomb...

Conditions in the Spring of 1945 being a lot different than the summer of 1944 let alone the summer/fall of 1943.

amen - not to mention RAF TAC and 9th AF being based on cntinent in France, Belgium and Holland.. making range cals superfluous. F6F would have done just fine in fighter bomber role.

 

[VBF-13]

no one seems to have mentioned the weather over Europe. Wing icing, winds, rain, snow and fogged in airfields all mean you will burn fuel a lot faster than the book figures.

That's a factor, too, yeah. Europe isn't exactly the South Pacific.

I'm starting to see fuel constraints and geography played a big part, here, too, overall. Those evidently explain a lot in terms of why we did this and for that matter didn't do that.

 

[cimmex]

Did the escorting fighters always start from England and return to the start base even late 1944 and 1945 or used the fighters bases in France? At least they could use the bases in France for refueling on the way back to England.
cimmex

 

[drgondog]

One 8th AF FG, 352nd flew from Belgium for several months from December through March - returning to Bodney in early April.

No group in 9th or RAF flew escort for US heavy daylight bombers in late 1944 through end of war.

 

[VBF-13]

[...] France, Belgium and Holland.. making range calls superfluous. F6F would have done just fine in fighter bomber role.

This would be about Fall 1944 on?

 

[Conslaw]

Lets see if I under stand this right.

F6F doesn't have enough fuel carrying a 150 gallon drop tank to accompany the bombers to targets in Germany and return BUT it can carry bombs to targets in Germany and return to England on internal fuel only?

Please look at a map. Look at the documents available at : F6F Performance Trials

Or any where else you can find and show HOW a F6F could fly from England and hit (bomb) Factories in Germany and NOT have it be a one way trip?

This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it.

NO single engine ( or even most twin engine) fighter/s could fly 4-500 miles ONE WAY carrying 2000lbs of bombs and then turn around and fly home at survivable speeds and altitudes.

Even an F7F Tigercat had a "combat" radius of 435 N miles carrying TWO 1000lb bombs AND a 300 gallon belly tank. AND it needs to fly home at 1500 ft (yes fifteen hundred feet) at 170knts. A speed that could be matched by a good Beechcraft Bonanza.

F6F could fly 433 mile Radius with TWO 500lb bombs and a 150 gallon belly tank but it has to cruise at power settings that would give about 232 mph clean at 20,000ft.

If the Luftwaffe can force teh plane to drop either the bombs OR the drop tank before it is empty it is a "mission kill" even if not one bullet hits the F6F.

The P-47N could carry a 2,000 lb. bomb load 400-500 miles. P-47 flew some amazing loads from Ie Shima to Kyushu. SInce the P-47N wasn't available for combat when the war in Europe ended, Your statement is still true for all practical purposes.

 

[Shortround6]

I would also say that since most of the flying was done over open water (the islands could be avoided) the speeds and altitudes could be a bit lower than flying over Europe thus extending range.

Good call though. The P-47N Might have done the job in Europe. Somebody will have to look into the actual flight profiles.

 

[nuuumannn]

The P-47N might have done the job in Europe.

I think this has been mentioned before; it was an impressive performer, but its appearance late in the precedings meant that it was of better use in the PTO, and existing types in the ETO could do the job more than adequately under the circumstances at that time. An argument against the Hellcat raised earleir in the thread.

 

[tomo pauk]

The appearance of the P-47N in the ETO never occurred because the plane was too late to matter there - the 1st P-47Ns were available, in strength, some time in Spring of 1945. During that time the LW ceased to exist as a viable force, and the late P-47Ds have had more than enough range to cover any patch of Germany not yet occupied.
Comparing the P-47N with F6F will quickly show the 'N' as having 3 (three) times greater combat radius, 1000 vs ~330-350 miles. It was also some 70 - 100 mph faster than F6F-5, from 25-30000 ft, even the XF6F-6 was some 50 miles slower at those altitudes.

 

[MikeGazdik]

The appearance of the P-47N in the ETO never occurred

According to, if I recall, Francis Gabreski's autobiography that is somewhat incorrect. P-47N's were first sent to the 56th, but not used on missions and torn back apart and sent off to the Pacific.

 

[drgondog]

According to, if I recall, Francis Gabreski's autobiography that is somewhat incorrect. P-47N's were first sent to the 56th, but not used on missions and torn back apart and sent off to the Pacific.

Gabreski was shot down in a P-47D-23 about 7 months before the first P-47M appearerd at 56th FG (with same engine as P-47N) in Dec 1944. he would have Zero notion when the first P-47N appeared in PTO in February 1945.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Gabreski was shot down in a P-47D-23 about 7 months before the first P-47M appearerd at 56th FG (with same engine as P-47N) in Dec 1944. he would have Zero notion when the first P-47N appeared in PTO in February 1945.

I believe you are correct. However, I believe I am also in that they were first sent to the 56th. Cannot recall where I read that.?????

 

[eagledad]

According to Roger Freeman in Mighty Eighth War Manual, a small batch of P-47N's arrived in the UK in April of 1945, but were never issued to any units.

Eagledad

 

[DarrenW]

Resurrecting this old thread to discuss how much of a performance gain the two naval fighters would have experienced if they too where using 104/150 fuel, like all the other fighters performing combat ops in the ETO by the summer of 1944. I would expect an increase of up to 40 mph at various altitudes, as was experienced with the Thunderbolt (from a military setting of 52" Hg increased to a 65" Hg combat setting and ADI). Climb rates were significantly improved as well.

Seeing that they were all equipped with the same basic R-2800 engine and were of similar size and overall aerodynamic drag, I would expect similar results for the Corsair and Hellcat. The only difference would be that actual engine output would vary with altitude, affecting speed accordingly (unlike the Thunderbolt which had the benefit of turbocharging, keeping sea level horsepower fairly constant as altitude increased).

What do you "experts" here think?

P-47D-22 Airplane.
Speed increase from military power of fifty-two inches Hg. to the test war emergency rating of sixty-five inches without water averaged approximately twenty-five m.p.h. true air speed from sea level to about twenty thousand feet. Over the same altitude range, water injection at sixty-five inches Hg. gave a further speed increase of about ten to fifteen m.p.h., so that the total speed gain from military power to sixty-five inches Hg. with water was about forty m.p.h. A considerable amount of scatter was present in the obtained speed data, possibly due to varying induction losses. Engine temperatures and operating characteristics were normal in level flight runs at sixty-five inches Hg., both with and without water.

Source: 150 Grade Fuel

 

[Shortround6]

Resurrecting this old thread to discuss how much of a performance gain the two naval fighters would have experienced if they too where using 104/150 fuel, like all the other fighters performing combat ops in the ETO by the summer of 1944. I would expect an increase of up to 40 mph at various altitudes, as was experienced with the Thunderbolt (from a military setting of 52" Hg increased to a 65" Hg combat setting and ADI). Climb rates were significantly improved as well.

Seeing that they were all equipped with the same basic R-2800 engine and were of similar size and overall aerodynamic drag, I would expect similar results for the Corsair and Hellcat. The only difference would be that actual engine output would vary with altitude, affecting speed accordingly (unlike the Thunderbolt which had the benefit of turbocharging, keeping sea level horsepower fairly constant as altitude increased).

What do you "experts" here think?

See:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/kd227-level.jpg

Plane using 60in and water injection.

Improved performance would be under 18,500ft even in high gear as the supercharger can't supply any more air above that altitude regardless of the fuel used.