You know, that's right.VBF, all conventional gear planes must weave when they taxi.
Oh well, what else do you want to know?
![Laughing :lol: :lol:](/forum/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You know, that's right.VBF, all conventional gear planes must weave when they taxi.
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
Greg, then if that's the case, so much the better for the F6F-5s, in terms of how I'd utilize them in the ETO. I'd be looking to them to blaze the trail, so to speak. Why not utilize that capability? The bombers would find where the bases were through the fighters they'd draw to them. We could have sent whole squadrons of F6Fs after those bases in advance of the later missions to address that intercepting aircraft at their root. There would have been a number of ways we could have systematically incorporated that dive-bombing capability into those missions, were we of the mind for it. Instead, we let those bases alone, and the Luftwaffe fighters racked up ace after ace for it. That's where I'm thinking on this question. The F6Fs wrecked the Japanese fleet while engaging and ducking that fire, and they could very well have done the same thing, here, I believe, with respect to those land bases, had they been available and so utilized.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.
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.
C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.
Ethylene Glycol at 100% concentration is difficult to set alight. .....
Steve
Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
How's that?![]()
C'mon, European condtions don't change the range or radius.
I have several references that disagree with one another. One says combat radius was 945 miles. Two more, now that I checked it, say combat range was 945 miles. A couple of others say combat range was 945 mile and absolute ferry range was 1,530 miles. Looking at it logically, if the radius is 945 miles, then the range is twice that, and the 1,530 miles would be a LOT more for a one-way trip.
Quit looking at different range tables on first pass, but look at internal fuel. The F6F could carry 750 gallons external but its return range was entirel dependent on a.) internal fuel at warm, takeoff and forming up at altitude before switching to externals (250- ~50), and b.) how far they planned to go on fast cruise before slowing down to escort.
I believe the range naysayers are right on this one. From almost any standpoint it looks like the 945 miles is probably range, not radius. That changes things a bit as far as an escort goes, but I still think it would have fared just fine in Europe as a fighter. It's fighting qualities were VERY good.
In the real world, the Hellcat first saw action in September 1943, so decent numbers probably weren't available until early 1944. They probably could not have been successfully deployed to both the ETO and PTO at the same time.
It would have been interesting though.
Ok, enough playing devil's advocate.
I believe the Corsair and the Hellcat could have been successful replacements for the USAAF fighter types in 1943-1945, but they may have suffered somewhat heavier losses and might have forced the USAAF heavies to fight at slightly lower altitudes.
You jumped back in the hypothetical. The USN was not going to give up ANY F6F and fall back on F4F, ditto F4U-1 and -1A in late 1943. There just weren't any availabe. At the end of the day, they didn't have the effective operational ranges to exceed the P-47 except for Ferry and extraordinary missions which didn't have a probability of forced ejection of external fuel.
They posses advantages when it comes to ruggedness and general maneouverability and control harmony (broadly tying with the P-47 in the last two categories). Have a look at the P-51B vs F4U-1 trials Evaluation and Comparison Trials of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes (Although the USN bent the rules a little by running the Corsair at higher than normal boost).
Also notable in those trials was not only the Boost due to WI, but a.) the special surface prep for the 02930 yielding 8 kts improved 8kts speed via drag reduction and b.) doing the speed trails for the P-51B-7 at 9453 pounds GW at takeoff rather than at the 9100 stated in the report. That is Significant disadvantage for turn and climb. It would have been interesting if the USN chose to run the same Corsairs over the same conditions with the P-51B-7 version that had the 1650-7 and capable of 75" for WEP - particularly in climb and acceleration. The net of the report is "Do Not recommend this fighter". Interestingly, 9 months later at the Patuxant Fighter Conference hosted at Patuxent River NAS, the P-51D was rated over the F4U and F6F and P-47 and P-38 as Best Fighter under 25,000 feet.
Having said that, the F4U was better choice for USN independent of the performance.
Firepower is broadly similar, although the gun setups in the Navy aircraft were slightly more reliable than in the P-51D and much more reliable than in the P-51B/C.
No proof points in evidence for P-51D vs F4U..
They possess a performance disadvantage compared to the USAAF types above about 25,000 ft. The Hellcat is generally a 390-395 mph bird, the early F4Us about a 400-410 mph bird. With the two-speed, two stage Merlin powered P-51 and the turbosupercharged engines in the P-38 and P-47, high altitude combat was tailor made to the USAAF fighters, to go alongside the high altitude bombing campaign.
Agreed and USAAF wasn't going to tailor missions to the support altitude.
At the high altitudes of the European air war, I feel that the Navy fighters may have been roughly comprable to the main German fighter types, while the USAAF types were generally superior, or a least had a greater margin of performance. Apart from the P-38, the USAAF types had better dive performance and high speed performance.
I feel that the F6F could probably have subsitiuted for the P-38, and was probably a superior fighter bomber and fighter at medium altitudes. The F4U could have probably substituted for the P-47 - it would have made a better escort bomber and the two are within shades of each other in the fighter bomber stakes. The P-51B/C/D was probably the fighter of choice in Europe, particularly one the feed and wing/gear problems were fixed. I don't think either Navy type would have been a superior replacement in the long-range, high altitude escort role, which was the dominant mission type for about 18 months.
Short, you're stretching out a six-furlong sprinter then concluding it's useless because it can't make the mile-and-a-half. I'm not going to stay in my F6F with you in your P51 to Berlin and back, but I will do this for you, if you'll give me the chance. You tell me where your Luftwaffe interceptors are coming from and I'll take out their bases within my reach and clear out the ones in the sky for you while I'm at it.
How's that?![]()