Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 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.
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.
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.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.
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.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
That's it, we took your P47s!The US could have not sent P-47s to the Pacific and used the extra planes as fighter bomber/airfield attack planes in Europe
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 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.
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.???? 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.
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.
I do a lot of head scratching when I research the F4U.Tomo pauk said: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
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.Either that (the bolded part), or the comparison with planes executing tests with same fuel fraction?
GregP said: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.
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.
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.
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.