Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[tomo pauk]

Hopefully these tables can shed some light about the combat radius issues. The P-38J and P-51B are listed without the additional fuel tankage.

Please note that cruising altitudes and speeds (the USN specification) are far 'leaner' than USAF specifications applicable for ETO duties (25000 ft at 210 mph IAS, or circa 300 mph, as already noted by Shortround6, and as can be read at the war-time table found at pg. 599 of the book 'US Hundred thousands'). The USAF specification for the cruise altitude of 10000 ft also involves the 210 mph IAS, and, eg. the P-51 will make roughly 50 miles there than at 25K. The P-51B with 180+150 gals will have 460 miles combat radius at 25K, 500 miles at 10K, and, by USN specification, 550 miles. Again, SR6 is spot on ('European conditions make difference'), that should not surprise us
The P-47 should do, by USN specification, 650 miles (305 + 300 USG), and by USAF specifications, only 425 miles at 25K.
The F4U-1 (237+170 gals) does some 10% less than P-51B (on USN spec), so we might get only a tad above 400 miles @ 25000 ft for the F4U-1 on USAF spec?

edit: right-click at a picture and open it separately, in full size/hi res

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The P-51B with 180+150 gals will have 460 miles combat radius at 25K, 500 miles at 10K, and, by USN specification, 550 miles. ...

The F4U-1 (237+170 gals) does some 10% less than P-51B (on USN spec), so we might get only a tad above 400 miles @ 25000 ft for the F4U-1 on USAF spec?

...or maybe not (the 400 miles radius for the F4U), once the R-2800 operates in Auto-rich, the fuel consumption skyrockets vs. the V-1650:

That kind of increase, 3-3.5 times more vs. consumption in Auto-lean is the factor that steeply reduces the radius of the P-47, USN vs. USAF cruising specs. And would surely hamper other R-2800 fighters, so anything above 350 miles (USAF specs, on 25K) would be a minor miracle.

edit: for the sake of completeness, here is the (or one of) engine data table for the P-47:

 

[GregP]

Hi Tomo, I can't read the report number. Could you provide the document numbers?

 

[GregP]

I have to laugh at the Merlin chart. We have operated these engines for 50 years and do so every weekend. We fly two P-51D Mustangs almost constantly. There are a total of 3 Mustangs that operate regularly out of Chino, and all run the same fuel consumption. They cruise at 60 gph after takeoff and climbout. When you get them much leaner, you are flirting with destroying the engine. On the upper end we only get to 150 gph since there is NO reason whatsoever to use WER in a private P-51.

We also operate quite a few R-2800's (Corsair, P-47, Bearcat, Flugwerke Fw 190, and the occasional Hellcat) and plan on 85 - 90 gph in Auto-Lean depending on cruise speed. Auto-Rich is for startup, takeoff and airshow mode ... and dogfighting for fun. As with the P-51, the R-2800' are never operated past military power settings since we aren't at war ... but we also don't mind using 2,000 hp for takeoff and initial climbout.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi Tomo, I can'y read the report number. Could you provide the document numbers?

I've posted the F4U data here, the snapshots from the post 121 are from there.

I have to laugh at the Merlin chart. We have operated these engines for 50 years and do so every weekend. We fly two P-51D Mustangs almost constantly. There are a total of 3 Mustangs that operate regularly out of Chino, and all run the same fuel consumption. They cruise at 60 gph after takeoff and climbout. When you get them much leaner, you are flirting with destroying the engine. On the upper end we only get to 150 gph since there is NO reason whatsoever to use WER in a private P-51.

Some of the engine data tables have the remark saying that figures printed in red are not flight tested, and the Merlin table is all-red??

 

[drgondog]

Understand peacetime but the 51 typically cruised at 39"/2400 (331 TAS@25K) to 46"/2700 rpm (357TA@25K) w 2/110 gallon tanks) fpr typical Berlin Mission and deep R/v like Brunswick.. pretty lean.

For max sfc w/2x110's it was 32"@2250 for 291mph TAS at 25K... almost 5 miles per gallon

 

[GregP]

Drgondog, the 32" at 2,250 rpm ... do you remember the fuel flow for that? I think it should be close to 55 - 60 gph.

 

[CobberKane]

I'm confused (a common situation). All the assertions that the Hellcat would have been a competitive fighter over Europe in 1945 (which is when it would have been available) seem to been just that - assertions. The best direct comparison we have of the F6F with a German fighter is against the Fw190, a fighter introduced in in 1843 which was still outperformed the Hellcat in most parameters. In practice the Hellcat would have been facing the likes of Fw 190Ds and A-8s. Sure it could outrun either, but so could the Spit V and that didn't prevent it being shot out of the sky in droves before the Brits came up with the IX, which could match the 190 in other performance parameters.
I don't think that would have happened to the Hellcat, but in most situations it would have been at inferior to late war German fighters.
In the fighter bomber role the F6F may have done well, but better than P-47, Typhoon or Tempest? It was arguably tougher than the latter two, but considerably slower and thus less able to avoid interception. The Tempest certainly would have outperformed it in low level combat.
To my mind the F6F was one of the great fighter WWII, and I doubt there would be one contributor to this forum who would disagree. It was perfect as a carrier fighter in the Pacific; tough as nails, relatively easy to fly and tailor-made for the kind of tactics that destroyed the air arm of the IJN. but the performance advantages that enabled it to dominate Ki-43s and Zeros would have disappeared over Europe. As an air superiority fighter at least it would have been second rate, and second rate is usually dead.

 

[drgondog]

Drgondog, the 32" at 2,250 rpm ... do you remember the fuel flow for that? I thuink it should be close to 55 - 60 gph.

It is ~ 57gallons per hour but with two 110 gallon externals- which reduced cruise speed by 47mph TAS from clean w/racks..

 

[davparlr]

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.

F4U airspeed analysis has always been a pain to me because of unusual inconsistency of data as my late forum friend Renrich, who will be sorely missed, would have agreed. In this case, max airspeed, as reported by Ray Wagner's "American Combat Planes", a usually reliable source, is 417 mph. This is also reflected in Navy test of the F4U-1 with water, which shows max airspeed in Mil power (no water) as about the same.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg

As you have noted, there is other data showing differently.

I do have a problem with the comparison test you referenced. The data on the F4U looks suspect. A max speed of 408 mph with water is quite low as shown by the above test and others. Information in the test may explain this. It stated that the F4U engine overheated during high power test, maybe due to too much leaning. This may indicate an engine problem or an improper setting. Also, the test of the two Navy birds was at overload fighter weight. Had the F4U been loaded at the same level as the Fw 190, that is, with 138 gallons of fuel, it would have weighed over 1000 lbs less! This would have a major impact on climb and a smaller one on airspeed. This comparison would provide a more accurate airframe to airframe test. I believe this weight difference also applies to the F6F.

All in all, I still believe that my comment is reasonable.

 

[GregP]

Many comparative tests are "fixed" one way or the other, depending on what they want to show. One that sitck out is a British test of a P-51 against a Spitfire where the P-51 was manifold pressure limited but the Spitfire wasn't. Naturally, the Spitfire came out looking just great. I've seen some test from the USA that are biased toward US types, some German-American tests biaed toward the German planes, etc.

It's tough to find tests where all the participants are loaded more or less equally and the engines are allowed to be used equally. When you can find them, they make interesting reading.

I think it is quite interesting that so many different designers can come up with so many different planes that perform so closely to one another, despite widely differing power levels and configurations.

 

[davparlr]

In practice the Hellcat would have been facing the likes of Fw 190Ds and A-8s.

The F6F was operational in Mid '43, the A-8 was produced in early '44, the D was available in late '44.

 

[GregP]

If the the Focke-Wulfs had caught some Hellcats, they might have wished they hadn't, But ... this is a "what if" thread and we all seem to have diffrent thoughts about it.

After 9 pages of replies, maybe it's time to get back to the real world and let this one go.

 

[Milosh]

Spitfire VIII

2200rpm, +2lb > 40gph
2400rpm, +2lb > 45gph

2650rpm, +2lb > 49gph
2650rpm, +4lb > 55gph

 

[CobberKane]

Many comparative tests are "fixed" one way or the other, depending on what they want to show. One that sitck out is a British test of a P-51 against a Spitfire where the P-51 was manifold pressure limited but the Spitfire wasn't. Naturally, the Spitfire came out looking just great. I've seen some test from the USA that are biased toward US types, some German-American tests biaed toward the German planes, etc.

It's tough to find tests where all the participants are loaded more or less equally and the engines are allowed to be used equally. When you can find them, they make interesting reading.

I think it is quite interesting that so many different designers can come up with so many different planes that perform so closely to one another, despite widely differing power levels and configurations.

That's fine Greg, but as you mentioned the bias tends to be in favour of the planes belonging to the side doing the testing. nonetheless, the Fw190 A-5 consistently outperformed the F6F in an American test, so if bias existed you might expect it to be in favour of the Hellcat rather than against it. I would be very dubious of anyone (and I'm not suggesting you are doing this) who was happy to discount the results of this comparison by saying 'it might be wrong'.
Many people, not least the pilots who flew it, love the Hellcat. Why wouldn't they? But I find the premise that it could have matched contemporary German fighters over Europe in 1944 - 45 difficult to accept considering that the only direct comparison between the Hellcat and a German figher saw it being generraly outperformed by an Fw 190 that had already been superceded

davaprir - I believe the Hellcat entered service in November of 1943, so I'm considering how it might have fared against LW fighters from that time to the end of the war, the year 44-45. That's why I included Fw190A-8s and Bf109G 6 and 10s.

 

[GregP]

Well Cobber, the Hellcat had the best air-to-air combat record of WWII by a WIDE margin over than next best fighter in US service, so it's possible that if met the Fw 190, the 190 pilot might get a surprise. Apparently we have different views on this one and, since it's a "what if," that's OK. I disagree that the Hellcat would have been other than very successful in Europe.

Since it never happened, we'll never know, will we? Most kills in WWII were ambush kills but, if a dogfight happened, methinks the Hellcat would have done just fine. It's OK if you feel otherwise. There wasn't a Bf 109 ever made that could turn with a Hellcat.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Bf 109G6 vs Hellcat (F6F-3):

I'd give speed, climb and roll advantages to the Messerschmitt.
Turn and controllability to the Grumman.
Dive was reportedly the same (based on second hand reports of 109 vs F6F tests by the Fleet Air Arm)
Armament is about equal.

Eric Brown loved the Hellcat and though it was a better fighter than the Bf 109, but thought the contest would be a difficult win for the big Grumman bird.

 

[GregP]

I'd give speed and climb to the Bf 109 (F model onward) and do not know enough first-hand information to rate the roll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here until I find out for myself. Getting this stuff is hard, even when you know people who fly it, and the few reports you see seem to differ, but the F6F seems to have had a bit of a slow roll rate.

Anything with an R-2800 in it probably had great acceleration and a good dive capability. Once the Bf 109 got faster than 350 mph in a dive, I'd give the Hellcat the nod since it remained very controllable in a dive and the Bf 109 did not once it got fast.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'd give speed and climb to the Bf 109 (F model onward) and do not know enough first-hand information to rate the roll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here until I find out for myself. Getting this stuff is hard, even when you know people who fly it, and the few reports you see seem to differ, but the F6F seems to have ha da bit of a low roll rate.

Anything with an R-2800 in it probably had great acceleration and a good dive capability. Once the Bf 109 got faster than 350 mph in a dive, I'd give the Hellcat the nod since it remained very controllable in a dive and the Bf 109 did not once it got fast.

FAA tests on Hellcat rate of roll are available at WW2aircraftperformance.com

Best rate of roll was about 67 deg/sec at 180 mph (rolling to the right). That about bottom third as far as WW2 fighters go.

By comparison, the best rate of roll of the 109G was up at about 85-90 deg/sec, at about 240-250 mph.

 

[CobberKane]

Well Cobber, the Hellcat had the best air-to-air combat record of WWII by a WIDE margin over than next best fighter in US service, so it's possible that if met the Fw 190, the 190 pilot might get a surprise. Apparently we have different views on this one and, since it's a "what if," that's OK. I disagree that the Hellcat would have been other than very successful in Europe.

Since it never happened, we'll never know, will we? Most kills in WWII were ambush kills but, if a dogfight happened, methinks the Hellcat would have done just fine. It's OK if you feel otherwise. There wasn't a Bf 109 ever made that could turn with a Hellcat.

Indeed the Hellcat had the best kill to loss record of any allied fighter, and that alone would cement it as one of the greats - just not in Europe. And certainly it could outurn any 109, or 190 for that matter I guess. So could a Spit V. But going on what has just been posted, and the USN test v the 190 A-5, the Hellcat would have been inferior to late war German fighters in climb, speed and roll. I can' t see any clear superiority other than turn radius. So I would ask a question; what WWII fighter ever consistently bested opposition that could outrun it, outclimb it and otherwise equal it in all areas bar turn?
Like you said, it's okay to feel otherwise, but wanting it to be don't make it so.
As a post script, I feel kind of like a Hellcat basher here, and that's not the case. It was a terrific fighter that did what it was meant to do superbly, but it was never meant to tangle with 109s or 190s over Europe, any more than they were meant to be launched off carriers in the Pacific.