Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Extremely - especially after RAF Mossie's ruined his "I am the Greatest" speech at the Sportsplatz!
Corsair and Hellcat in Europe
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Extremely - especially after RAF Mossie's ruined his "I am the Greatest" speech at the Sportsplatz!
That's not a bad synopsis of some of these carrier-constraints and the reason these Grumman machines won out on those carriers. Let me just use this big opportunity to suggest we get our heads out of the sand, in a manner of speaking. These F6Fs were never figured for 1000-mile round trips. They were figured for bombing-fighting in maybe half that range. If they're long-range escorts, they're that, if anything, by accident, not by design. As such, I wouldn't even figure them for long-range escorting. I'd rather figure them for what they could do, and did, and very well, that being, shot up the skies, and precision-bombed, at one in the same time. Utilized in that manner, the Japanese had nothing that could stop them. What makes one think the Germans had anything that could stop them? I just don't see that. I rather see whatever Luftwaffe bases within the range of these F6Fs gone, kaput, done for, out of there, and I see it on the basis of the track record of these F6Fs when deployed to that same type of operation in the PTO, over, and over, again. Otherwise, I'd say, keep them in the PTO, we've got enough in an escort-fighter in the P51. Whatever the history in the ETO, those Luftwaffe bases weren't neutralized. All the F6Fs did in large part in the PTO was neutralize the Japanese launching bases. Take out the manufacturing, too, it was right there. Precision-bomb that, too. That's what these F6Fs were good for. Let the other machines handle what they were good for. Even if the F6Fs did have the fuel-range to escort and engage when necessary in fighter-combat, that would have been under-utilization, in my opinion. Sub-in the F4Us for the F6Fs, they were equally as fit.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
They were supposed to escort bombers, but the bombers they were supposed to escort were Grumman Avengers and Curtiss Helldivers, not turbo charged B-17s.
AS for blasting German airfields, that would take a bit of work:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-b.jpg
British figured the "range" with a pair of 500lb bombs was 705 miles but after you figure in take-off, climb, 20 minute reserve and that fuel sucking 15 minutes at military power in the target area "range" fell to 423 miles or 210 mile of radius.
It is about 110-130 miles from the COAST of England to the COAST of Holland or 211 miles from Ipswich to Zwolle, Holland.
In the Pacific the F6F could play fighter bomber from it's carriers at close range to it's targets. Unless you plunk Carriers in the Channel or North Sea the F6F has a bit of a range problem. That is OK as so did a lot of other planes in the ETO. Typhoons were even shorter ranged when carrying a pair of bombs.
Fun web site for distances.
Distance.to - Distance calculator worldwide
AS for blasting German airfields, that would take a bit of work:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-b.jpg
British figured the "range" with a pair of 500lb bombs was 705 miles but after you figure in take-off, climb, 20 minute reserve and that fuel sucking 15 minutes at military power in the target area "range" fell to 423 miles or 210 mile of radius.
It is about 110-130 miles from the COAST of England to the COAST of Holland or 211 miles from Ipswich to Zwolle, Holland.
In the Pacific the F6F could play fighter bomber from it's carriers at close range to it's targets. Unless you plunk Carriers in the Channel or North Sea the F6F has a bit of a range problem. That is OK as so did a lot of other planes in the ETO. Typhoons were even shorter ranged when carrying a pair of bombs.
Fun web site for distances.
Distance.to - Distance calculator worldwide
We seem to be losing our grasp on reality here!
Can anyone explain to me, with hard facts and figures, why the Hellcat or Corsair might be any better at attacking ground targets than P-47s or any other allied aircraft of the time? Did they have some wonderful weapon or device unavailable in the ETO? Maybe a superior rocket or bomb/gun sight? Maybe some kind of wonder cannon or machine gun ammunition? They did not.
There's a lot of supposition and assumption with little evidence as far as I can see.
On a more practical level,comparing Luftwaffe bases and infrastructure in Europe to the Japanese force structure, their parlous state of supply and isolation across the Pacific Islands is like comparing chalk and cheese.
The naval aircraft may indeed have destroyed a lot of Japanese aircraft in the Pacific. Unlike in the case of the Luftwaffe these could not be replaced.Take a look at German single engine fighter production in 1944. These aircraft did not subsequently have to be shipped hundreds/thousands of miles across the Pacific. They could be easily flown directly to the front. It's a ridiculous comparison.
In any case aircraft did not for the most part neutralise those Japanese bases, Marines, boots on the ground did (along with the rest of the USN).
Cheers
Steve
Can anyone explain to me, with hard facts and figures, why the Hellcat or Corsair might be any better at attacking ground targets than P-47s or any other allied aircraft of the time? Did they have some wonderful weapon or device unavailable in the ETO? Maybe a superior rocket or bomb/gun sight? Maybe some kind of wonder cannon or machine gun ammunition? They did not.
There's a lot of supposition and assumption with little evidence as far as I can see.
On a more practical level,comparing Luftwaffe bases and infrastructure in Europe to the Japanese force structure, their parlous state of supply and isolation across the Pacific Islands is like comparing chalk and cheese.
The naval aircraft may indeed have destroyed a lot of Japanese aircraft in the Pacific. Unlike in the case of the Luftwaffe these could not be replaced.Take a look at German single engine fighter production in 1944. These aircraft did not subsequently have to be shipped hundreds/thousands of miles across the Pacific. They could be easily flown directly to the front. It's a ridiculous comparison.
In any case aircraft did not for the most part neutralise those Japanese bases, Marines, boots on the ground did (along with the rest of the USN).
Cheers
Steve
They had a track record, Steve. That's what they had. They had a track record of getting in and out through fighter and AA resistance while precision-bombing the targets they were put after. What's so difficult to accept about that?
The question related to how they'd be utilized. How would they fit? What difference, if any, would they have brought? I think they'd have brought getting anything they went after, I think that's what their track record says they'd have brought, and they'd have brought it while shaking off the Luftwaffe and AA and packing 2000 pounds of bombs under their bellies. We'll never know, though. Will we?
The question related to how they'd be utilized. How would they fit? What difference, if any, would they have brought? I think they'd have brought getting anything they went after, I think that's what their track record says they'd have brought, and they'd have brought it while shaking off the Luftwaffe and AA and packing 2000 pounds of bombs under their bellies. We'll never know, though. Will we?
Don't be silly. All we need to do is borrow someone's Hellcat, find some drop tanks and get 2000lbs of bombs, then ...
They wouldn't have achieved anything that the types in the ETO already did. The 8th AF and their RAF allies had a track record too.
Bombing and strafing a Pacific island airstrip, destroying its irreplaceable aircraft is quite different from the task facing allied air forces in Europe. Airfields are easily repaired, given the man power and machinery, both of which the Germans had. Cratering a runway will put an airfield out of action for hours at best. I know just how quickly things could be patched up from the RAF experience in the BoB and particularly Malta.
If the USN destroyed the Japanese aircraft on an island airstrip then it ceased to function as such. In the ETO, at least until early 1945, this was not the case. Replacement aircraft would be picked up and flown in from the relevant air park. To defeat the Luftwaffe you had to kill its pilots, not destroy its aircraft on the ground.
Whether the Hellcat would have been able to compete with its mid/late war adversaries is something we'll never know for sure. That's why I have not expressed an opinion. It was a very good aeroplane, but so were those flown by the opposition.
There is no evidence at all that they would have been any more effective in a ground attack role.
Cheers
Steve
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
I agree. I never entered into the debate about whether the Hellcat's range was adequate for escort wort in the ETO because I don' t know enough about such things, but transposing the Hellcats fighter bomber success into the ETO seems to run into the same problem as transposing its record as a fighter: proponents say 'it did this against the Japanese therefore it could do it against the Germans' without explanation as to why the Hellcat would do so much better than type actually tasked with the job that had similar or better performance.
Japanese airfields were almost completely cut off from supplies. Destroy fuel or aircraft and they could not be replaced. history shows that even when subjected to an enormous strategic bombing and interdiction campaign the Germans still continued to repair and use airfields until they were overrun.
A while back I posed a question to enthusiasts of the Hellcat over Europe in the air superiority role: what did the Hellcat have that would have enabled it to compete when than Spit V, which would appear to have similar performance, was outclassed? To extrapolate: what did the Hellcat have that would have made it so much better than the P47 or Typhoon in the fighter bomber role - unless being considerably slower than either was somehow a help.
Japanese airfields were almost completely cut off from supplies. Destroy fuel or aircraft and they could not be replaced. history shows that even when subjected to an enormous strategic bombing and interdiction campaign the Germans still continued to repair and use airfields until they were overrun.
A while back I posed a question to enthusiasts of the Hellcat over Europe in the air superiority role: what did the Hellcat have that would have enabled it to compete when than Spit V, which would appear to have similar performance, was outclassed? To extrapolate: what did the Hellcat have that would have made it so much better than the P47 or Typhoon in the fighter bomber role - unless being considerably slower than either was somehow a help.
Steve, if I had the F6Fs in Europe, I wouldn't be escorting with them. That, in my humble opinion, would be under-utilizing them. Neither, however, would I simply be bombing grass with them. Those Luftwaffe bases would be an immediate objective so as to provide some breathing room for the heavy-bomber missions, but that would just be the start of it. Get the manufacturing and ferrying-out of those fighters to those land bases, that's where that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to shine. The RAF and AF had twice the bombing capacity as the F6Fs in the P38s and their other larger-sized bomber-fighters, but what did those do, as regards those factories? The heavy-bombers got one of them, once, I think, but how precisely, given it was back up in a matter of weeks or so? I think that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to get what they're going after, and against all odds. Now, sure, let's digress and point out that ratio is likely claims-based and biased. I'd think it a fair reply to that, what such ratios aren't? You factor in that home-team bias with respect to those F6F claims, you factor it in, everywhere, across the board, and you end up the same, comparatively. The F6Fs had easy pickings in the Pacific? I don't know that I'm too persuaded on that, either. There were P38s out there and attrition doesn't seem to explain why they never achieved the ratio the F6Fs achieved. I know, the Japanese just threw their worst pilots at the F6Fs? With the kind of attrition some of you boys go on and on about it's a wonder every Allied aircraft in the Pacific didn't achieve that 19:1.
But, I digress...
But, I digress...
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Lets see if I under stand this right.
F6F doesn't have enough fuel carrying a 150 gallon drop tank to accompany the bombers to targets in Germany and return BUT it can carry bombs to targets in Germany and return to England on internal fuel only?
Please look at a map. Look at the documents available at : F6F Performance Trials
Or any where else you can find and show HOW a F6F could fly from England and hit (bomb) Factories in Germany and NOT have it be a one way trip?
This doesn't make the F6F bad. The P-47, P-38 and even the P-51 could NOT do it either which is WHY they didn't do it.
NO single engine ( or even most twin engine) fighter/s could fly 4-500 miles ONE WAY carrying 2000lbs of bombs and then turn around and fly home at survivable speeds and altitudes.
Even an F7F Tigercat had a "combat" radius of 435 N miles carrying TWO 1000lb bombs AND a 300 gallon belly tank. AND it needs to fly home at 1500 ft (yes fifteen hundred feet) at 170knts. A speed that could be matched by a good Beechcraft Bonanza.
F6F could fly 433 mile Radius with TWO 500lb bombs and a 150 gallon belly tank but it has to cruise at power settings that would give about 232 mph clean at 20,000ft.
If the Luftwaffe can force teh plane to drop either the bombs OR the drop tank before it is empty it is a "mission kill" even if not one bullet hits the F6F.
OK, Sherlock, I wasn't thinking about running out of gas in those operations. That would finish me. Unless it was possible to launch from closer.
You're two-for-two. That would explain that.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
watch the sarcastic name calling, please.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Steve, if I had the F6Fs in Europe, I wouldn't be escorting with them. That, in my humble opinion, would be under-utilizing them. Neither, however, would I simply be bombing grass with them. Those Luftwaffe bases would be an immediate objective so as to provide some breathing room for the heavy-bomber missions, but that would just be the start of it. Get the manufacturing and ferrying-out of those fighters to those land bases, that's where that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to shine. The RAF and AF had twice the bombing capacity as the F6Fs in the P38s and their other larger-sized bomber-fighters, but what did those do, as regards those factories? The heavy-bombers got one of them, once, I think, but how precisely, given it was back up in a matter of weeks or so? I think that 19:1 says those F6Fs are going to get what they're going after, and against all odds. Now, sure, let's digress and point out that ratio is likely claims-based and biased. I'd think it a fair reply to that, what such ratios aren't? You factor in that home-team bias with respect to those F6F claims, you factor it in, everywhere, across the board, and you end up the same, comparatively. The F6Fs had easy pickings in the Pacific? I don't know that I'm too persuaded on that, either. There were P38s out there and attrition doesn't seem to explain why they never achieved the ratio the F6Fs achieved. I know, the Japanese just threw their worst pilots at the F6Fs? With the kind of attrition some of you boys go on and on about it's a wonder every Allied aircraft in the Pacific didn't achieve that 19:1.
But, I digress...
I'm feeling ignored and rejected, and you guys are supposed to be my friends, not my wife. Every time I ask perfectly reasonable questions like 'what performance characteristic of the Hellcat would have enabled it to succeed as an air superiority fighter against the late war German fighters when aircraft like the Spitfire V, with apparently similar performance, did not?' or 'What was it about the Hellcat would make it an equal or better fighter bomber than aircraft like the Typhoon or P-47 that were faster, could carry as much and had better firepower?' All I hear are chants of 'nineteen to one in the PTO, nineteen to one in the PTO!'
Honestly, I'm here to be convinced. But if kill ratios and results in an entirely different theatre with different opposition and different circumstances are all you have, why not leave the Hellcats where they are and bring in a bunch of P40s flown by New Zealanders? They were getting great kill ratios in the PTO at much the same time - no doubt they would dominate the LW over Northern Europe as well.
What's that I hear? 'Nineteen to one in the PTO...'
- Thread starter
- #254
GregP
Major
The internal fuel in the Hellcat, with 20 minutes combat is 625 miles. With a 150 gal droptank that get to 945 - 950 miles, depending on whom you believe. The Navy combat radius was with 1 hour reserve fuel.
That means if the Hellcat could drop tank OVER Berlin, it could make it home.
Some escorts had to drop tanks in combat before reaching Berlin ... but not all. The guys in FRONT dropped tanks and entered combat and turned back, the guys in the back or higher and not in front may not have done so due to the limited number of aircraft and good pilots the Luftwaffe had. When WE put up 1,000 fighters in waves, the Luftwaffe did NOT. 200 opposed by 25 - 75 is not a good fight. If not, then the guys who dropped tanks would turn around and the other guys would continue the escort. It's not all that complicated, and most likely worked similary for the escorts who DID the job in the actual war.
In any case, what they DID worked ... we won.
That means if the Hellcat could drop tank OVER Berlin, it could make it home.
Some escorts had to drop tanks in combat before reaching Berlin ... but not all. The guys in FRONT dropped tanks and entered combat and turned back, the guys in the back or higher and not in front may not have done so due to the limited number of aircraft and good pilots the Luftwaffe had. When WE put up 1,000 fighters in waves, the Luftwaffe did NOT. 200 opposed by 25 - 75 is not a good fight. If not, then the guys who dropped tanks would turn around and the other guys would continue the escort. It's not all that complicated, and most likely worked similary for the escorts who DID the job in the actual war.
In any case, what they DID worked ... we won.
I know how you feel! (with apologies for mangling the quote, though not to change the sense
)Cheers
Steve
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
...but that said, I reckon I can make one statement on which everyone will agree: the Grumman Hellcat was one hell of an airplane.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
You keep ignoring the the fact that while it could make it home, it would only do so by flying at a speed and altitude that would make it a sitting duck for ANY 109 including the "E" model and ANY anti-aircraft gun bigger than a 9mm MP-38.
O, according to the British:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-I-ads-a.jpg
It could NOT make it home IF it engaged in combat. Range 297 miles at 232mph at 20,000ft on internal fuel after subtracting a 105 IMP gallon "combat allowance" of take-off, climb to 20,000ft, 15 min combat, and a 20 min reserve at the end of the flight.
It is 360 miles from Berlin to Amsterdam.
Granted you can trade the take-off and climb fuel for more range.
it is 132 miles from Amsterdam to Lowestoft and it doesn't get any better than that.
"it could make it home" depending on how well it glides
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
It was "one hell of an airplane" and I agree with you on the rest, a few more facts would be nice and not a chant of 19:1 and a lot of pom-pom waving.
drgondog
Major
Yea!
FYI - here is a Range data summary for the P-47C with R-2800-21
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-tactical-inc2.jpg
Note several points for Combat Radius of this Jug with 305 gallons and no external tank @25000 feet.
170 miles with 20 minutes of combat, and 15 gallons of reserve.
190 miles @15000 feet.
Combat @ 100% MP, !00%RPM
Cruise @60%MP and 84%RPM
Key points - similar to same engine with similar sfc for auto rich and auto lean.
No calculations for forming up large formation and climbing to 25000 feet in formation.
No Single 150 gallon tank Drag (approximately 20mph for either P-47 or F6F) to reduce range/gallon while external tank is attached
Note: Max Range @54%MP and 63%RPM = 650 miles w/o Tank and 25 gallons reserve
Max Range calcs do not include formation take of times nor formation assembly times nor combat.
This would be approximately 650/280 = 2.3 miles per gallon absolute best case with no provision of burning 50 plus minutes warming up, taking off and assembling or using 20 minutes of combat power.
So let's do a 'Hypothetical F6F-3 Escort to Berlin with F6F-3 and 150 gallon external tank"
Assumptions - Fuel consumption of F6F w/R2800-10 about the same as the P-47C with R2800-21; That Cruise altitude and airspeed must be 25,000 feet and 300mph TAS with whatever throttle conditions are required for max range at that airspeed.
I'm speculating (absent valid data from you) that auto lean fuel consumption for F6F at 300mph is close to the Jug at 25000 feet - or approximately 2.2mi/gallon to maybe 2.5 mi per gallon - which is Jug consumption w/o tank in auto lean for max range at 25K per the link above
Average warmup before the 1st pair trundle to Active = 5 minutes
Average take off for 48 ships at 2 every 30 seconds = 24 minutes
Average time to complete formation assembly of last several ships off the runway = 5 minutes
Average climb in auto lean to 25,000 feet = 14 minutes on external fuel tank
Miles to get to R/V, say Brunswick, at 300mph (not sure the F6F can get 300mph in Auto Lean so this is Best case fuel consumption) - 400+ = 1 hour 20 minutes = 80 minutes at increased power to achieve 300 mpg with drag of 150 gallon tank until drop.. throttle and rpm setting as required to do 320mph w/o tank.
Miles to Ess above Bombers to Berlin and back to Brunswick = 250 miles at bomber speed 200 mph while F6F weaving at 300mph = 1 hour 15 minutes
Combat 20 minutes full Combat = 20 minutes full rich
Cruise 400 miles at 25,000 feet at 300 mph = 1 hour 20 minutes
Descend and land all 48 ships - one ship every 30 seconds (no weather) = 24 minutes
USN Standard = 1 Hour reserve.
So let's use 120 gallons per hour in auto lean as a high range to start with. (300 mph/2.5gph = 120 gallons every hour)
1.) 48 minutes from SE to 25,000 feet over English Coast. = 48/60 x 125 = .8x120= 96 gallons. 30 minutes internal = 60 gallons and 18 minutes internal = 36 gallons drop tank. 114 gallons left in drop tank, 190 gallons internal left
2.) Cruise 114g/120gph = .95 x 60 minutes = 57 minutes x 300 mph = Drop tanks @ 285mi from English Coast - 300 miles left to go to get to Berlin, 115mi to get to Brunswick with 190 gallons remaining internally.
3.) Cruise 115/300 = .38 hours to get to R/V = .37 x 120gph = 46 more gallons internal fuel to get to Brunswick and meet bombers. 144 gallons left for the mission.
4.) Cruise with bombers 250 miles. Bomber travel at 200mph TAS so 1 hour 15 minutes to bomb Berlin and return to Brunswick. 1.25 hours times 120 gph = 150 gallons. but you only have 144 left.
F6F starts long glide home west of Berlin and east of Brunswick. German fighters ignore gliding F6F's.
USN Fighter base waits for new replacements.
