Corsair and Hellcat in Europe (1 Viewer)

[tomo pauk]

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....ted, there is other data showing differently.

I do follow you thoughts - the 20-30mph airspeed difference for the planes that should be as similar/identical as possible does induce some head scratching

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.

Either that (the bolded part), or the comparison with planes executing tests with same fuel fraction?

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

No sweat, your comments are reasonable and worth reading

 

[GregP]

Hi Jabberwocky,

I knew the Bf 109 had a decent roll rate at lower speeds, but the general statements in here make me think the posters were expecting the Bf 109 to come in faster. Above 280 mph the ailerons in the 109 get very stiff and at 350 - 400 mph are almost unmovable ... according to pilot reports and from talking with people I know who fly Ha.1112 Buchons. When you ask about high speed roll rate, they tell you that it takes two hands on the stick to get maybe a one fifth deflection of the ailerons at anything above 330 mph and that at any faster speeds, it it difficult to roll at all. What is the Bf 109 roll rate at 300 - 320 mph? Not very good.

Therein lies the rub. The Hellcats fought in the Pacific by NOT getting slow as the Zeros wanted then to, but by staying fast and using their strengths against the Zero's weaknesses. The Bf 109 was similar in that the 109 pilot wanted the fight to get slow, right in the middle of his best maneuvering range. The Hellcats pilots didn't let things get slow in the Pacific, so my take is they'd do the same in the ETO since the pilots fighting the Bf 109 in the ETO KNEW not to get slow against it. Surely they would not council the newly-arrived Hellcat pilots otherwise?

So if the Hellcats fought smart, they'd be coming in at 290 - 320 mph, right where the rolling advantage of the Bf 109 goes away. The speed also gives the much more maneuverable Hellcat a decent zoom climb for a good long burst or two before the better sustained climb rate of the Bf 109 could pull it out of range. So, I don't really believe the Bf 109 would have much of an advantage other than sustained climb and all out top speed (where the Bf 109 couldn't fight anyway). Using either of these advantages is breaking off combat, unles the 109 repositions and reattacks, leaving the Hellcat free to continue its mission. If it does reposition and reattack, the Hellcats are not caught unaware (so no ambush kills) and the dogfight, which should go to the Hellcat, is on.

Anyway, that is one take on it. Naturally there will be insiances of things going different ways in combat, but I think the Hellcat would have done fine as a fighter in the ETO, as I already said.

 

[drgondog]

looking at America's Hundred Thousand for comparative feel for diving, the F6F-5/P-38 and F4U-1D were all about 50-60mph slower in a dive compared to P-47D and P-51D - which means by implication that both the FW 190 and Bf 109 would out dive the USN fighters.

The Hellcat would be a handful in a manuevering close merge fight with both of those but in late 1943/early 1944 the a/c were F6F-3 and F4U-1 and 1A. In general, the Hellcat's Only advantage over the P-47 in middle altitudes to 25K is turning radius. Ditto P-51B - but not by a wide margin.

If either the 109 or 190 spot a Hellcat and chose to not engage - they don't, and the F6F can't force the fight. Conversely if the F6F gets caught - it can't out run or out dive the 109 and 190.

Totally different situation than PTO environment against principal IJN fighters.

 

[VBF-13]

Not concluding that it is useless, just that it won't do what some people think it will. Hellcat holds 250 gallons of fuel for it's R-2800 while a P-47 holds 305 gallons to start with. The two planes are just about equal in speed at 5,000 ft or so ( or with in a couple %) on equal power so they have about the same drag. Why do people think the Hellcat can fly further?

If you fly the P-47 the same way the Navy flew the Hellcat for range you get about the same or better range. P-47 is supposed to fly 880 miles on 265 gallons of internal fuel at 200-205mph IAS at altitudes from sea level to 12,000ft.
Since it was considered very short legged in Europe why would the Hellcat be considered longer ranged?

We are also changing the game from what would happen if you substituted the Hellcat for plane XXX in Europe to what would happen if you had hundreds of extra fighters/fighter bombers in Europe at the time in question.

Won't happen any better than the P-47... They were flying the same escort profile, Namely Penetration and Withdrawal - then hand off to P-51/P-38. [...]

But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber. It was a hog and wasn't trimmed out for dive-bombing. It would have went crashing into the ground if it tried to do that. The F6Fs could have done more than just shoot up the ground with their .50s. They could have bombed the heck out of those bases. Those bases were launching at those bomber missions well before those missions reached their targets. Identify where they were and come in with squadrons of bomber-fighters and bomb them so they wouldn't be there to harass the next missions that went by. We didn't have anything constituted in the ETO to do that, and to take on the fighter-cover from those bases, while they were at it. That's where the F6Fs would have made an impact. Whatever their reach was, within that reach. They were no SBDs. They didn't need to be fighter-covered. They were fighters, in and of themselves. Take advantage of what they were built to do, and, for that matter, did. Utilize them just as fighters, understand, you're under-utilizing them. Systematically-incorporate both those capabilities, then figure how effective they'd be. Their training was split between gunnery and bombing, guys, for a reason.

 

[stona]

But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber.

But it could and did (at least in trials) bomb from a ninety degree dive. It was the USAAF's preferred CAS aircraft in the ETO,bombing typically from a sixty degree dive. If that's not dive bombing I'm not sure what is!
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

You don't need to dive bomb an airfield. Low level shallow dives will work just fine.

A lot of Japanese airfields got bombed and Strafed by B-25s and A-20s and they sure as heck were not dive bombing.

Hellcats go into action for the first time at the end of August 1943. P-47s had gone into action in April. P-47s go on first bombing mission end of November 1943. Granted it is with a single 500lb bomb per plane and is group bombing but the Hellcats are not going to bring anything to Europe much quicker than the P-47 could.

The US could have not sent P-47s to the Pacific and used the extra planes as fighter bomber/airfield attack planes in Europe

 

[VBF-13]

But it could and did (at least in trials) bomb from a ninety degree dive. It was the USAAF's preferred CAS aircraft in the ETO,bombing typically from a sixty degree dive. If that's not dive bombing I'm not sure what is!
Cheers
Steve

Steve, I know, and I'll credit you for informing me of those trials, as I didn't know about them. But, let's do a reality check. Is there any fighter that can't be rigged to dive-bomb? That doesn't make the fighter an effective dive-bomber, though, does it? And, I'll still maintain, that big aircraft would have had big problems trying to dive-bomb. That's why, in reality, all it did was shot up the ground. Seriously, what dive-bombing runs were the P47s put to? I don't know that they were seriously utilized in that aspect, at all.

 

[VBF-13]

The US could have not sent P-47s to the Pacific and used the extra planes as fighter bomber/airfield attack planes in Europe

That's it, we took your P47s!

Short, I love the P47, and I hate looking like I'm condemning it. I hear you, though. And, fighting over land, as opposed to over sea, wouldn't be a cake walk, as you also pointed out. I still think you could have used good bombing-fighting aircraft, there, though, and, systematically-incorporated into the strategy, they'd have systematically-obliterated those bases. I know that's conclusory, but I'm not as bright as you boys are to support that very much better than I already have. Suffice it to say, keep swinging away. I'm listening. With both ears.

 

[drgondog]

But guys, the P47 was no dive-bomber. It was a hog and wasn't trimmed out for dive-bombing. It would have went crashing into the ground if it tried to do that.

???? I may agree that a P-47 was not as good a dive bomber as, say, an A-36, but it manged to 'do' a LOT of dive bombing in the MTO and ETO without crashing.. so what attributes do you think make the F6F more suited to ETO, particularly considering German Flak vs Japanese Flak?

The F6Fs could have done more than just shoot up the ground with their .50s. They could have bombed the heck out of those bases. Those bases were launching at those bomber missions well before those missions reached their targets. Identify where they were and come in with squadrons of bomber-fighters and bomb them so they wouldn't be there to harass the next missions that went by.

Have you, by chance read anything about ETO Airpower? The statement is nonsense! a.) the Jug carried an excellent bombload, b.) was as tough or tougher than any USN fighter, c.) had 33% more firepower than the F6F, d.) had greater range with a bomb load, e.) was faster. What don't you like about the Jug vs Hellcat at low level CAS or 'dive bombing' German airfields (which BTW they did, starting in late 1943)

We didn't have anything constituted in the ETO to do that, and to take on the fighter-cover from those bases, while they were at it.

That goes back to my question above. You seem devoid of any operational history knowledge of ETO and MTO Fighter Command operations of 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF. Do yourself a wee favor and go to AAF Statistical Digest and look up the bomb tonnage dropped by each of those commands - by fighter aircraft.

That's where the F6Fs would have made an impact. Whatever their reach was, within that reach. They were no SBDs. They didn't need to be fighter-covered. They were fighters, in and of themselves. Take advantage of what they were built to do, and, for that matter, did. Utilize them just as fighters, understand, you're under-utilizing them. Systematically-incorporate both those capabilities, then figure how effective they'd be. Their training was split between gunnery and bombing, guys, for a reason.

The F6F could not do anything relative to strafing, bombing or air to air combat with German fighters (except turn) better than the P-47.. the 8th and 9th AF shot the hell out of German rail, barge and road traffic, harassed armor, crapped on airfields from the French Coast to Poland - with aircraft that operated far beyond the F6F's range - and defeated aircraft superior to the average F6F adversary above altitudes that the F6F typically operated.

I'm on record for appreciating the F6F but it was not a game changer for defeating Germany in the ETO or MTO.

BTW - airfields in occupied countries within F6F range were just that - Fields -. hard to obliterate sod. when and if you are successful, move your base of operations to the next field, and the next, etc. Even 'permanent bases like Templehof and Oberphaffenhofen with concrete runways and permanent buildings were impossible to knock out - even with bombers - and WAY beyond F6F range. Lots of slave labor to fill in the holes - today -.

 

[GregP]

The F6F is a considerably better air-to-air dogfighter ... I'm sure you know the record.

When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.

 

[drgondog]

The F6F is a considerably better air-to-air dogfighter ... I'm sure you know the record.

Yes. Suitably impressed but it wasn't going to score that well in ETO against 109 and 190... and the victory credit boards might be considerably more thorough in ETO than PTO.

When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.

Carrier losses in North Sea? Baltic? The RN and USN wasn't keen on navigating carrier battle groups close enough for F6F and F4U to be valuable - at least not to my knowledge. Even in the med south of France during Dragoon, where the USN Hellcat Did engage LW, the Hellcat didn't impress as much as one might imagine... perhaps the LW didn't get the memo on 11:1?

Nobody I know is a detractor of the F6F.

The debate is 'so what' when you move from A6M which is much slower, lightly armored and extremely flammable and only better in low speed combat- to the Bf 109 and Fw 190 which is faster than you, and both have several (not all) performance edges against the F6F.

 

[VBF-13]

???? I may agree that a P-47 was not as good a dive bomber as, say, an A-36, but it manged to 'do' a LOT of dive bombing in the MTO and ETO without crashing.. so what attributes do you think make the F6F more suited to ETO, particularly considering German Flak vs Japanese Flak?
[...]
That goes back to my question above. You seem devoid of any operational history knowledge of ETO and MTO Fighter Command operations of 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF. Do yourself a wee favor and go to AAF Statistical Digest and look up the bomb tonnage dropped by each of those commands - by fighter aircraft.

I'd think the differential would be in putting those bombs on the pitcher's mound as opposed to just somewhere in the ballpark or parking lot. The tonnage of bombs dropped isn't necessarily going to tell you that. To find that out you're going to have to look at what they trained on. I'm going to maintain no P47 is going to hit anything even as big as a carrier, unless by accident, while the record is the F6Fs hit those size targets in the PTO as a matter of course. You're just under-appreciating that record, it seems. The P47s didn't train anywhere near as exacting as did the F6Fs in dive-bombing, if, indeed, they had any such training in that, at all. Contrasted with the F6Fs, besides the gunnery training the F6Fs had, they trained as hard in dive-bombing as did the SBDs. Just get out a month of training log on the P47s, and I trust you'll see that.

 

[Shortround6]

P-47s did manage to hit a lot of things. Granted there is a lot of over claiming just like air to air but P-47s from D-day to VE day claimed 86,000 railroad coaches, 9,000 locomotives, 68,000 motor vehicles and 6,000 armored vehicles. Cut that to 1/3 if you want, it doesn't matter. If they can hit trains and vehicles on roads they can hit not only air fields but planes, trucks, hangers and building on the airfields.

The P-47 pilots may have gotten OJT. They were allowed to return on the deck from some escort missions and shoot up targets of opportunity.

The F6F pilots may have been better but to claim that the P-47s couldn't hit an airfield that measured hundreds of yds by hundreds of yds and wasn't moving (unlike the carrier) is rather degrading to both the P-47 and it's pilots.

 

[GregP]

I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.

Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.

 

[davparlr]

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.

According to America's Hundred Thousand, the British Hellcat I entered service on July 1st, 1943.

I do follow you thoughts - the 20-30mph airspeed difference for the planes that should be as similar/identical as possible does induce some head scratching

I do a lot of head scratching when I research the F4U.

Either that (the bolded part), or the comparison with planes executing tests with same fuel fraction?

Fraction (I assume you are talking about fuel as a percent of aircraft weight) makes no sense to me as it doesn't really relate to combat capability and doesn't take in aircraft efficiency (the P-51 is very efficient and can do more with less fuel than any other fighter I know of). I am more interested in performance comparison of aircraft on the same mission profile, eg., climb to altitude, combat equal times using equal firing times (potency of armament could be a complexing variable), return to base, and using fuel and ammo weight required by each aircraft as the base weight for comparison. For example, the F4U empty weight is some 2000 lbs heavier than the Fw 190 and would most likely use more fuel to perform same mission, in this case, maybe 190 gallons (based on weight percentage in this particular instance since both aircraft are similar and radial powered?). Another method that I think would be appropriate would be the expected weight at reasonable combat circumstances. How much weight would a P-51 be at after flying 600 miles and jettison external tanks against how much weight a Bf 109 would be at after climb to altitude and flight to battle area, and jettisoning any tanks? This is has more variables that would make comparison complex.

When I strated this threadm I thought it would end up in a discussion of potential carrier losses, not the debate we've had. I can say that I haven't met anybody who has ever flown a Hellcat that wasn't sure it was one geat fighter.

The pilots flying F6F at the Joint Conference were not overly impressed with the F6F-5 listing it 5th on the list of best all-around fighter below 25 thousand feet behind, in order, F8F, P-51,F4U-1, and F7F.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, I know ... but none of the ones preferred did better in the crucible of combat.

The fuel fraction (fuel as a fraction of overall weight) is widely used as a comparative parameter. It is one of the chief weaknesses of the F-35 ...

 

[Milosh]

I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.

Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.

But a logical deduction can be made as the German fighters were a lot more robust and had a performance advantage over the Japanese fighters.

 

[GregP]

So you may think. The Zero was fragile, but many later Japanese types were not and the Hellcat did just fine ... best in the PTO, actaully, aginst ALL comers, not just the fragile ones. Sorry, in a what if, there are no right answers that can be final. It's a "what if." Good arguments, but they can go both ways.

The discussion is neat, but it didn't happen, so it's just discussion.

 

[drgondog]

I disagree with your contention that the Hellcat wasn't going to score that well in the ETO, but you already know that. I know of no reason why the victory credit boards in the ETO might be more through than the PTO and several why the ETO victory credit board might be suspect. Chief among them is loss of records to bombing.

Greg - can you point me to documented VCB for USN? or documented claims review process?

Since this is a what if, let's agree that we disagree ... and can't prove it either way with the data available.

See above - if the process existed, and demonstrated to be followed you get a 'tie'. The ETO metric was a.) did you see it destroyed? and b.) did a witness attest to what you saw or did your film show it? If a. and b. are not Yes, the ETO fighter pilot was not awarded a victory credit.

 

[drgondog]

The pilots flying F6F at the Joint Conference were not overly impressed with the F6F-5 listing it 5th on the list of best all-around fighter below 25 thousand feet behind, in order, F8F, P-51,F4U-1, and F7F.

Dave - the P-51D was ranked 1 below 25K and the P-47 1 above 25K. Page 606 The F8F wasn't included in the survey.