Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[Shortround6]

The Navy was always interested in liquid cooled engines/aircraft. Even if only to see if they were being left behind by sticking to the air cooled engines.
If the performance gap had opened up to a really large amount they would have gone for the Liquid cooled engine.

However to make such a change requires that the liquid cooled engine aircraft show enough of a performance difference that it is not just the "flavor of the month" but that whatever new aircraft the navy has in development cannot match or at least come close.

The most extensive trials during WW II with the Mustang were in Sept-Nov of 1944, at which point the Navy had the F8F in the works (F.F.21 August 1944 ) , the F4U-4 (FF Sept 1944) The F4U-5 (Mock up inspected Feb 1945) and was working on the R-4360 version,F2G-1, the F6F-5 (F.F. April 1944) and the F7F (F.F Nov 1943)

It is not really a matter of converting existing P-51s. Navy P-51s would have to be built as such, perhaps on a dedicated production line, in order to get anti corrosion treatments/coatings into all the needed spaces that may not be accessible (or poorly accessible ) in a completed aircraft. plus using whatever accessories the navy deemed suitable for the marine environment.

This would delay the deployment of true navy P-51s as opposed to using a few carriers as short term fighter bases to escort the B-29s as an emergency solution.

 

[DarrenW]

Range, climb, speed, altitude.

These are a few things a naval P-51 would have over a Hellcat.

A navalized P-51 would incur weight and drag penalties that would reduce overall performance to some degree. Deck space on a flat top is also limited and a folding laminar flow wing would obviously lose some of it's stellar low drag properties, further reducing performance (probably even more so than with contemporary airfoils). I assume it would still have a performance edge over the F6F, but it's hard to tell just how much. But even with the required modifications it still lacked the low-speed flight characteristics to make it a viable carrier fighter so this in itself would make it less effective than a Hellcat for the task at hand.

 

[wuzak]

The P-51 had plenty of performance margin over the F6F that it would still be superior.

Low speed handling may have been a problem.

 

[R Leonard]

Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.

 

[GrauGeist]

The carriers would need to be modified as well in order to store the "prestone" that the liquid cooled engines required.

This may not seem like a big deal, but carriers, like most warships, have every square inch dedicated to a function and making room for x-amount of glychol storage would require some rework.

 

[Navalwarrior]

The carriers would need to be modified as well in order to store the "prestone" that the liquid cooled engines required.

This may not seem like a big deal, but carriers, like most warships, have every square inch dedicated to a function and making room for x-amount of glychol storage would require some rework.

Resp:
Agreed. Space is always a factor. How did the FAA handle glychol for Seafire/Sea Hurricane?

 

[DarrenW]

The P-51 had plenty of performance margin over the F6F that it would still be superior.

Low speed handling may have been a problem.

The US Navy investigated the possibility of operating P-51s from carriers and for several reasons found the idea lacking merit. Apparently any possible performance gains were overshadowed by the design attributes of the F6F, which made it superior to the P-51 in this capacity.

 

[Shortround6]

The glycol argument is a bit over blown. Stick a few 55 gallon drums in the paint locker.
Glycol was NOT a consumable, like oil. No engine was rated at lbs per hp hour of coolant.
Granted there was leakage but not to the tune of 12-24 gallons per flight like the lubricating oil. Nobody stuck bigger header tanks on a liquid cooled fighter (or bomber) for ferrying purposes.

and once again, check the timing. The Navy would be comparing (in late 1944) the P-51D against the XF6F-6 and F4U-4 with the P & W R-2800-18 engine. Same engine as the P-47M but with two stage supercharger instead of turbo. Xf6F-6 did 417mph at 20,000ft, Mustang is still better but the margin is reduced.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Sounds like, despite all its performance advantages, the Mustang's low speed handling characteristics would have made it an "Ensign eater" getting aboard the boat. Like the Gutless and the Vigilante. If I was the skipper, I'd take an Ace Maker over an Ensign Eater on my ship any day.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GrauGeist]

I may have mentioned it in an above post, but the one glaring drawback to the Mustang on approach, was it's null response once it reached the 85 mph approach threshold. Add to that, a wave-off and you had a recipe for disaster.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Sounds like, despite all its performance advantages, the Mustang's low speed handling characteristics would have made it an "Ensign eater" getting aboard the boat. Like the Gutless and the Vigilante. If I was the skipper, I'd take an Ace Maker over an Ensign Eater on my ship any day.
Cheers,
Wes

Resp:
Cannot afford to lose pilots or planes unnecessary, especially during a major conflict.

 

[NevadaK]

These epic posts are always the best reads. Having just read it from start to finish, here are my thoughts (which aren't worth a hill of beans):

1. The F6F and F4U would have had little useable value for bomber escort as they lacked the qualities most needed to be successful in that application: performance at altitude and speed to engage. I know there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about range, how to calculate it, and whether the Hellcat and Corsair had sufficient range for escort operations, but this overlooks the defining characteristics of escort combat in the ETO. In addition to having sufficient range, the P-47 and P-51 (in particular) were able to operate at an altitude that allowed them to locate LW aircraft attempting to engage the bomber stream and then the speed at those altitudes to obtain the initiative and engage the opposing fighters at a distance from the bomber stream. As fine an aircraft as the Hellcat and Corsair are they do not possess these qualities and would have struggled to be effective in this application.

2. It seems logical to me that the Hellcat would have been used principally as carrier based fighter where it is outstanding but limiting to its role in the ETO. If it were adapted for a more land based mission I think ultimately it would have occupied a similar niche to the P-40 as a multirole FB in less contested airspace like the MTO where the combat envelope was at lower altitudes and the Hellcat would have advantages against likely opposition aircraft.

3. It seems logical to me as well that the Corsair would find a role similar to that in the PTO in close air support and tactical combat air cover. In this role I think it would be outstanding and possibly superior to any other allied aircraft in that role. One can wonder how the evolution of CAS in the ETO/MTO would have evolved had the Corsair been in theater beginning in early 1944.

A couple speculations:

4. Had the Hellcat and Corsair found major use in the MTO/ETO its not hard to imagine that an evolutionary path similar to other ETO fighter aircraft would have been taken:

1. The development of a lightened version of each aircraft stripped of excess weight associated with shipboard operations,
2. The development of an improved visibility version of each aircraft with cut-down fuselage and bubble canopies.
3. The development of a high performance version with uprated engines and improved propellors and cleaned up skin.
4. The development of a new wing and further lightened airframe.

In Grumman's case, I think we have an idea where this would head with the F8F Bearcat.
In Vought's case my guess is this would look like a cross between the F4U5 and the F2G

Those are my thoughts. Worthy or not. FWIW, I think both aircraft are fantastic and while I don't think either was suited for the ETO in an escort fighter role each would have found meaningful use in an appropriate role in the theater had they been needed there.

On the other hand, I wonder how late model Corsairs would have faired against Lovochkin LA-5/7's or Yak - 3/9's? But, that's a question for another thread...

 

[DarrenW]

These epic posts are always the best reads. Having just read it from start to finish, here are my thoughts (which aren't worth a hill of beans):

1. The F6F and F4U would have had little useable value for bomber escort as they lacked the qualities most needed to be successful in that application: performance at altitude and speed to engage. I know there has been a lot of discussion in this thread about range, how to calculate it, and whether the Hellcat and Corsair had sufficient range for escort operations, but this overlooks the defining characteristics of escort combat in the ETO. In addition to having sufficient range, the P-47 and P-51 (in particular) were able to operate at an altitude that allowed them to locate LW aircraft attempting to engage the bomber stream and then the speed at those altitudes to obtain the initiative and engage the opposing fighters at a distance from the bomber stream. As fine an aircraft as the Hellcat and Corsair are they do not possess these qualities and would have struggled to be effective in this application.

2. It seems logical to me that the Hellcat would have been used principally as carrier based fighter where it is outstanding but limiting to its role in the ETO. If it were adapted for a more land based mission I think ultimately it would have occupied a similar niche to the P-40 as a multirole FB in less contested airspace like the MTO where the combat envelope was at lower altitudes and the Hellcat would have advantages against likely opposition aircraft.

3. It seems logical to me as well that the Corsair would find a role similar to that in the PTO in close air support and tactical combat air cover. In this role I think it would be outstanding and possibly superior to any other allied aircraft in that role. One can wonder how the evolution of CAS in the ETO/MTO would have evolved had the Corsair been in theater beginning in early 1944.

A couple speculations:

4. Had the Hellcat and Corsair found major use in the MTO/ETO its not hard to imagine that an evolutionary path similar to other ETO fighter aircraft would have been taken:

1. The development of a lightened version of each aircraft stripped of excess weight associated with shipboard operations,
2. The development of an improved visibility version of each aircraft with cut-down fuselage and bubble canopies.
3. The development of a high performance version with uprated engines and improved propellors and cleaned up skin.
4. The development of a new wing and further lightened airframe.

In Grumman's case, I think we have an idea where this would head with the F8F Bearcat.
In Vought's case my guess is this would look like a cross between the F4U5 and the F2G

Those are my thoughts. Worthy or not. FWIW, I think both aircraft are fantastic and while I don't think either was suited for the ETO in an escort fighter role each would have found meaningful use in an appropriate role in the theater had they been needed there.

On the other hand, I wonder how late model Corsairs would have faired against Lovochkin LA-5/7's or Yak - 3/9's? But, that's a question for another thread...

I really like what you have to say here but with one caveat:

If for some reason a need did developed for extensive US Naval involvement in ETO there would probably have been a greater urgency for the better performing F6F-6 variant to be produced until F8F production could fully spin up. To free up factory floors for the newest Grumman product existing F6F-5 air frames may have been retrofitted with the more powerful R-2800-18W engine, as both F6F-6 prototypes were basically re-engined F6F-5s with minimal modifications made to the air frame as a whole. Just an opinion however.

And let's not forget about the hot-rod F4U-4. Entering production in early 1945, It's performance certainly matched or bettered most any land-based piston-engined fighter of it's day. German pilots would definitely have had their hands full fighting this one.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I really like what you have to say here but with one caveat:

If for some reason a need did developed for extensive US Naval involvement in ETO there would probably have been a greater urgency for the better performing F6F-6 variant to be produced until F8F production could fully spin up. To free up factory floors for the newest Grumman product existing F6F-5 air frames may have been retrofitted with the more powerful R-2800-18W engine, as both F6F-6 prototypes were basically re-engined F6F-5s with minimal modifications made to the air frame as a whole. Just an opinion however.

And let's not forget about the hot-rod F4U-4. Entering production in early 1945, It's performance certainly matched or bettered most any land-based piston-engined fighter of it's day. German pilots would definitely have had their hands full fighting this one.

Resp:
Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Resp:
Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.

Late to the party.

 

[drgondog]

Resp:
Let's not forget the F8F Bearcat.

But the F8F contemporary is the P-51H.

I agreed most of the above comments about the F6F and F4U (any variant), with the following points for consideration..
1. Their ability to secure battlefield air superiority in CAS role IMO would have been as good or maybe better than all the AAF fighters heavily engaged in Air-Ground support. In addition the F6F was superior re: battle damage vulnerability over both the F4U and The P-51 and P-38. Have to ponder the P-47 comparison. Oil cooler location and added vulnerability of the Turbo would have to be considered, but think F6F superior.
2. OTOH the payload/range comparison in which external racks were devoted to weapons, both the Navy fighters had greatly reduced combat radius compared to all AAF fighters. The F4U-1 should not be used in comparison because its auxiliary wing tanks were not self sealing and would have been restricted from AAF ops.
3. Their ability to escort at medium altitudes would have been good but not great and well into their top performance strike zone in air-air. What they lacked in speed comparison to Merlin P-51 (until F4U-4) but balanced with better turn, would have served well against Fw 190A and Bf 109G. Pilot skill and tactical advantage IMO would be te primary determinant of 'which is best'.
4. Due to relatively low internal fuel, both would have been relegated to high altitude Penetration and Withdrawal Support greater than Spitfire but much less range than even the P-47. That said, the critical altitudes for their R-2800s, while less than P-47D, was in the same envelope as the Fw 190 and Bf 109. All would have been more or less equal with respect to design HP available in just about any envelope. It was above 20K where the P-51B/P-47D and P-38J increased their margin of HP available to HP required for maneuverability, speed and acceleration at higher altitudes.

 

[Barrett]

Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.

What Rich said. Bob was one of the most accomplished aviators of his generation, and of course that's saying something.

BTW: his colleague in the Shangri-La tests was former VB-3 squadronmate Sid Bottomley who flew the PBJ (B-25) tests. Sid was a grand gent--used to see him regularly in San Diego's Hangar Flier Liars meetings.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Bob Elder, an old family friend and the guy who did land and take off a P-51 from a carrier, USS Shangri-La in November 1944, once told me the P-51 was great to fly but take off from and land on a carrier, repeat as necessary, was not in the cards.

Resp:
I would think that aircraft designed for Naval use from carriers would have a greater lift rate for lesser speeds. Of course aircraft weight, or lack of it would provide better lift. Greater lift would necessitate shorter distance for takeoff. Thoughts?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I would think that aircraft designed for Naval use from carriers would have a greater lift rate for lesser speeds. Of course aircraft weight, or lack of it would provide better lift.

Goes with the territory. Up until the advent of J57/J79 class engines, carrier ops were essentially STOL operations compared to their land based counterparts. Carrier aircraft were always marginally inferior performance wise to their terrestrial cousins. (Zero and Bearcat excepted)
The aerodynamics demanded for low speed handling tend to be an obstacle to high speed performance. And the ruggedness required for a lifetime of "bash and dash" ops tends to exact a weight penalty that further degrades performance. Witness the P51 carrier ops test pilot who said that a lifetime of deck ops "just wasn't in the cards" for the ponybird. A too lightly constructed carrier bird tends to gain weight like a dieter at Christmastime due to all the crack patches and structural repairs and reinforcements it undergoes to keep it airworthy. At NATTC they had an FJ Fury (the latest swept wing version) that had more patches, straps, and braces to deal with fatigue cracking than you could point a stick at. It was a thousand pounds overweight, and kept as an example to impress AMS (Aviation Maintenance, Structural) trainees of the seriousness of their trade.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Navalwarrior]

Goes with the territory. Up until the advent of J57/J79 class engines, carrier ops were essentially STOL operations compared to their land based counterparts. Carrier aircraft were always marginally inferior performance wise to their terrestrial cousins. (Zero and Bearcat excepted)
The aerodynamics demanded for low speed handling tend to be an obstacle to high speed performance. And the ruggedness required for a lifetime of "bash and dash" ops tends to exact a weight penalty that further degrades performance. Witness the P51 carrier ops test pilot who said that a lifetime of deck ops "just wasn't in the cards" for the ponybird. A too lightly constructed carrier bird tends to gain weight like a dieter at Christmastime due to all the crack patches and structural repairs and reinforcements it undergoes to keep it airworthy. At NATTC they had an FJ Fury (the latest swept wing version) that had more patches, straps, and braces to deal with fatigue cracking than you could point a stick at. It was a thousand pounds overweight, and kept as an example to impress AMS (Aviation Maintenance, Structural) trainees of the seriousness of their trade.
Cheers,
Wes

Resp:
Thanks much. It explains a lot. In reading about the restoration of a Brewster F3A-1 Corsair, they mentioned the large number of bolts, rivets, braces, etc. that went into its assembly was more than what the rebuilder's were used to. I believe that in 1930s to early 1940 the manufacturers tended to over engineer aircraft.