- Thread starter
- #81
GregP
Major
Nice pics Catch22. I did one of those, too, and had to have a moderator remove.
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
Glider
Captain
Many thanks Catch, looks like I can trust the memory for a bit longer. I wonder what the impact was on its performance?
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Yeah? Well, I never said you said they would make good carrier fighters, so there. And all sorts of aircraft have been 'configured' as carrier aircraft and successfully launched and landed without ever having a practical future as a carrier based aircraft. The Mosquito springs to mind as a case in point.
Regarding the P 51, IIRC the main issue was the high landing speed dictated by the laminar flow wings. The inline engine probably counted against it too.
Here is a little more info on the carrier Mustang. Mustang! - Documents
I believe that the name of the Mustang in the article is wrong however, it should be FJ-1D Seahorse?
I believe that the name of the Mustang in the article is wrong however, it should be FJ-1D Seahorse?
Catch22
Major
Thanks for the link Bob, I'll have to have a look.
Yes, the US Navy didn't like having inline engines not just because they weren't quite as durable, but also because you have to store the coolant in an already limited space.
Yes, the US Navy didn't like having inline engines not just because they weren't quite as durable, but also because you have to store the coolant in an already limited space.
Not to speak of another dangerous and flammable liquid (Ethylene glycol) to have aboard of a Carrier, to be stored, replaced in possible leaking radiators etc ....
Last edited:
N4521U
Colonel
I didn't know the ETO needed as folding wing airplane?
Just sayin.
Just sayin.
Ethylene Glycol at 100% concentration is difficult to set alight. It is technically flammable with a flashpoint of about 200 degrees centigrade. It's normal boiling point is 197.3 degrees C. It is not particularly dangerous otherwise.
You wouldn't want to drink it but just take a look at any airport in winter to see how it is used as a de-iceing agent. It breaks down rapidly in the environment.
Compared to many other far more dangerous substances stored on an aircraft carrier I can't see anything but space being a consideration.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Vision over the nose and stall speed (too high) were two 'downcheck' items for carrier suitability..
My point was while the single-engine Ps could be rigged for carrier take-offs and landings that in itself hardly made them feasible for the type of combat operations we were facing in the PTO. I get your point specific to the P47.
There actually wasn't any vision over the nose of the F6F, either. They, too, had to zig-zag into position, to avoid hitting anything in their path.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
In my opinion, prior to the introduction of water injection on the F4U and F6F, approximately Jan '44, I think both would have been reasonably equal to the Fw 190A-3/4 in speed and climb at all altitudes, the F6F-3 was rather slow but made up for in in climb superiority. I think this is also true for the Bf 109G at low to medium altitudes. However at higher bomber altitudes of 20-25k, I think both would be at a disadvantage to the Bf 109, the F4U being roughly equal to the Bf in airspeed but with much less climbing ability and the F6F suffering both in airspeed, significantly, and climb. With good internal fuel, the F4U-1 could have performed the long range escort and deep interdiction missions in 1943 but the poorly protected wing tanks would be questionable. With 50 less gallons of internal fuel than the P-47C/early Ds, the F6Fs could not execute the long range escort or deep interdiction missions any better than the P-47s did. So, if the F4Us had been sent to ETO when available, bombers could possibly have been better protected. Both (the F6F was not available until mid '43) may have been effective in mid-range western Europe interdiction efforts. After Jan, '44, the AAF had P-51s and later model P-47s so the F4U-1D (w/water), and with reduced internal fuel, and F6F-3 (w/water) would have been superfluous.
Last edited:
David, the Fw-190s (A-3 to A-6 were in strength of the LW back then) in 1943 can do 410 mph, and the best figure I can find for the F4U in that year is 395 mph. The tests, involving the Fw, F4U and F6F (one is here), do show that Fw has both better RoC and climbing speed, and that it takes WER (not available in 1943) for the F4U to outpace the Fw, albeit only below 20000ft.
The wing tanks of the early F4Us can be put into a good use, if the Allies employ 'relay system' - the Spitfire IX can cover the bomb raid maybe until Belgium is reached, and by that time the F4U should use up the wing fuel and carry on with fuselage (protected) fuel. I agree that, once the P-47 historically got even the 108 gal tank, that makes much more sense as a best Allied fighter to go to Germany proper, though not as deep as the Merlin Mustang and late P-47Ds.
The wing tanks of the early F4Us can be put into a good use, if the Allies employ 'relay system' - the Spitfire IX can cover the bomb raid maybe until Belgium is reached, and by that time the F4U should use up the wing fuel and carry on with fuselage (protected) fuel. I agree that, once the P-47 historically got even the 108 gal tank, that makes much more sense as a best Allied fighter to go to Germany proper, though not as deep as the Merlin Mustang and late P-47Ds.
I don't know about you boys and girls, but this, above, is the question I tried to answer. The big problem as I see it the Allies faced was in the fresh Luftwaffe and fresh AA fire they encountered from the land bases the deeper into Germany they went in these heavy-bomber missions. The question asked, though, didn't regard whether the F4U and the F6F would have provided better limousine service in the ETO. Rather, it asked what impact they'd have likely had as against the Luftwaffe fighters. Again, I think they'd have given the Luftwaffe fighters double-trouble, in that they'd have added a serious dive-bombing dimension to the task of intercepting these heavy-bombers. Whether, as fighters, they'd have rated superior as against the Luftwaffe fighters, I have no idea, honestly. I'll submit, though, that our other fighters probably didn't rate all that shabby, there, either. Their problems rather were they were encountering fresh fire, and in larger and larger numbers, the deeper into Germany they went. Dive on those land bases in those F4Us and F6Fs, as they dove on the carriers and land bases in the PTO, while under fighter fire and AA. Send in bombing-fighting squadrons just for that purpose, and clear those land bases out of there, ahead of the heavy-bombers and their escorts. Put the Luftwaffe fighters to more than interception, put them to the defense of their land bases. In the F4Us and the F6Fs, we didn't have just one or the other, we had both, a dive-bomber and a fighter. Utilize them, as such, as we had in the PTO. Do we rather want to rate them on their heavy-bomber escort capabilities? That's fine, but they faced the same constraints, there, as did the ETO fighters, and those mainly converged on range. Leave them in the PTO, if that's all we want to utilize them for.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Three words - Not Enough Range to escort deep, then dive down to strafe like the P-51 - and to a lesser extent the P-38.
The R-2800 genre (P-47, F4U, F6F needed ~325+ gallons internal fuel to effectively escort B-17s to and from Berlin and ~ 375 gallonsd to go to Brux, Posnan line. Only the P-47N crossed the last threshold, although the F4U-1A had 360 for just a little more range than the P-47D.
The F6F had 250 gallons and had less one way range than the P-47D. It could carry a lot more for ferry but once the xternals are gone you have to come home with what you have internally
The F6F did fight in the Med around the June-July 1944 timeframe in a few engagements with LW fighters and more or less came out with a draw.. but too small a sample to make judgments.
Glider
Captain
I would stick to using them to escort the 1943 B17/B24 raids. They would stop the attacks by the German twin fighters, probably force the 109's to stay with the original weapons limiting their danger to the bombers and the 190 wasn't great at height.
Start going low and you are starting to operate in the 190's best altitudes. I amnot sayng that they would match the P51 for range but they could make a big difference
Start going low and you are starting to operate in the 190's best altitudes. I amnot sayng that they would match the P51 for range but they could make a big difference
stug3
Staff Sergeant
Didnt the USAAF do this with 47s 51s medium bombers anyway?
- Thread starter
- #97
GregP
Major
Hey VBF,
The F6F has tremendous visibility over the nose. You can even see the runway in front of you in the 3-point attitude.
Go sit in one and check it out.
The F6F has tremendous visibility over the nose. You can even see the runway in front of you in the 3-point attitude.
Go sit in one and check it out.
Last edited:
Greg, they had to taxi in a sidewinder fashion. In fact, the ground crews were taught that, so they wouldn't get in the way. There was a big accident on my Dad's base when the pilot "zigged" (or "zagged," as the case may be, lol) into a fuel truck because the driver wasn't paying attention to how the F6F was coming out.
The range was what made those escort missions problematic, at least until the P51s. But why not dive on the bases within range? Clear out that much of the trail in advance of the bombers and their escorts. The F4Us and F6Fs could have handled that and fought off the fighters at the same time. It would have meant less resistance encountered for the bombers and their escorts.
- Thread starter
- #100
GregP
Major
VBF, all conventional gear planes must weave when they taxi. You can see the runway in an F6F, but not immediately right in front of you ... I'd estimate you can see the runway about 200 feet in front on outward. My point is the Hellcat had much better forward visibility than the Corsair or the Thunderbolt, both similarly powered. Visibility on short final was positively wonderful compared with the Corsair.
Combat raduis for the F6F-5 is specified as 945 miles. That's enough for some serious escort work. It wasn't as far as the P-51 but, then again, nothing else was either. For comparison purposes, combat radius for the P-47D is listed as 800 miles. The combat radius of the Vought F4U-1A is something like 500 miles (1,015 mile range = about half for radius).
So, the Hellcat was pretty good, range-wise, compared with contemporaries.
Combat raduis for the F6F-5 is specified as 945 miles. That's enough for some serious escort work. It wasn't as far as the P-51 but, then again, nothing else was either. For comparison purposes, combat radius for the P-47D is listed as 800 miles. The combat radius of the Vought F4U-1A is something like 500 miles (1,015 mile range = about half for radius).
So, the Hellcat was pretty good, range-wise, compared with contemporaries.
Last edited:
