Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[drgondog]

GregP "As an aside, the Hellcat had the best kill ratio of nay WWII fighter, and that was not by accident. It had world-class credentials in at least some areas or it would NOT have had the success it had. Corsairs and Hellcats came into service at almost the same time ... perhaps 1 month apart, and Hellcats shot down about twice as many Japanese aircraft as Corsairs. The Axis were lucky it wasn't used very much in the ETO. "

The Hellcat had far more air combat opportinities as the carrier task forces were the point of the spear... it is impossible to state that the Hellcat for example is 2x better because it had 2x more scores during the approximate same time.

As for terrorizing the Axis that is another claim difficult to substantiate given the lack of turbosupercharger for high altitude performance a la P-47 for ETO level escort duties? It might out turn an Fw 190 or 109 but would not have the tactical speed advantage to engage/withdraw that the 51 and 47 had - or the range of the 51, or the dive speed or the roll rates IIRC so where in your mind does the F6f suddenly bring to the ETO a capability not possessed by say the P-51B?

Put in TAC role and I buy your thesis.

 

[GregP]

A turn is composed of two things, instantaneous turn rate (comes into play in the first 45° to 75° of the turn) and sustained turn rate (after the instantaneous turn rate drops off). The instantaneous turn rate is tied to wing loading and the sustained turn rate is tied to the airfoil (the lift potential of the wing) and excess power available for turning (producing a centrepital lift vector). The Hellcat did not have a particularly high-speed airfoil, but it was definitely a thick wing producing a lot of lift at its corner velocity (top left of the V-N diagram), and it had a good excess of power, as did most R-2800-powered aircraft.

I don't claim the Hellcat could out-turn a Spitfire, but the Spitfires were not much used on the PTO. Yes, they were there, but were never a major foce there. Also, the Spitfire could not out-turn a Zero either, particularly at low to medium speeds. I believe we coverd that in earlier posts.

In trials against a captured A6M Model 52 Zero, the Zero had a slight climb margin over the Hellcat below 14,000 feet and the Hallcat had a slight climb margin over the Zero above 14,000 feet. The Hellcat was faster at all altitudes. The Zero was, by far, the more maneuverable at low speed, but they were much closer at higher speeds. The Hellcat rolled better above 235 mph, but not by a large margin. The Hellcat could dive better than the Zero at all altitudes and in all circumstances.

So, the Hellcat could initiate or terminate combat with the Zero in most circumstances. The only caveat was to not try to turn with a Zero at low to medium airspeeds. Other than that limitation, which was pretty much the same for ALL Allied fighter types ... the Hellcat was a better fighter than the Zero ... which was, after all, its main opponent for the bulk of the war. As for amrament, it had the standard American armament of the time, six 50 cal (12.7 mm) MG Brownings. The Corsair, Mustang and P-40 had the same armament. The P-47 had eight Brownings. The P-38 had four Brownings and one cannon and, I think, the best combination of guns since they were on the centerline of the aircraft.

While the total population of Mustangs shot down a few more enemy aircraft than the Hellcats did, they were deployed almost everywhere and had a lot more opportunities. The Hellcat was deployed almost but not quite exclusively to the Pacific, and shot down about twice as many aircraft as the Corsair, which was in service almost the same time as the Hellcat and in the same theater. It ended the war with an overall 19 : 1 kill ratio (proven) and, if you believe Wiki, had a kill ratio of 13 : 1 against Zeros; 9.5 : 1 against the Ki-84 Frank; and 3.7 : 1 against the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden during the last year of the war. I have no way to confirm or deny the individual figures by type from Wiki. I have records of the kills by pilot and date, but the victims are not identified, just a victory. I know we lost 270 Hellcats in air-ti-air combat, but I don't have the details, especially the type aircraft of the victor. In fact, we lost more Hellcats on operational sorties and training sorties with no enemy contact than we did in combat!

People might tend to think of the Hellcat as "homely," but it could and did deliver the goods while also being capable of taking a considerable amount of damage and still getting the pilot home to fight another day. People have argued that kill ratio over enemy aircraft is not the best criterion for the "best fighter." Usually these people are big fans of some other aircraft than the Hellcat, so they have come up with an excuse to dismiss it. In reality, it was in all the major battles in the Pacific after its introduction, beat the enemy every time in the major battles and in most minor battles, and swept the skies clean pretty much wherever it went. That's a hard plane to ignore if you are talking about war winning performance.

Last, I wonder where the story of the dogfight between the P-40 and Wildcats came from? And I wonder if the Wildcats were flown by veterans and the P-40's by new pilots. If they had switched the pilots, I bet the P-40's would have won, assuming the fight actually took place. I have never seen or heard that story before and have been reading about WWII aircraft for more than 40 years. Not saying it didn't happen, just strange to hear about it after all this time. Never heard that one in all the lectures at the Planes of Fame Museum from WWII combat pilots, many of whom were serving in the PTO. Source please? Just curious, not being picky.

 

[Ratsel]

Problem being the japs for the most part didn't believe in pilot protection, or plane armor for that matter. Most jap planes that got hit even by a few rounds, lit up easily. The Hellcat flying in the ETO wouldn't be the best choise imo.

 

[stona]

The Werknummer indicates it's original manufacture as a G6 during autumn 1943 by Messerschmitt at Regensburg. It may have started out as a 'standard' G-6 but the rear part of the bulge associated with the DB605D and DB605AS engines has been removed from both sides.The airframe seems to have been adapted to something closer to a G-5. In early 1944 the aircraft was re-built as a G6/AS with the more powerful DB605/AS engine that required the installation of new panels/fairings. The aircraft PROBABLY went to JG1,the two adjacent Werknummers were lost by I./JG1 in May. It was then damaged on a ferry flight and re-built again by Ludwig Hasen (?),Flugzeug-Repararatur-Werk,Munster in December 1944.It was now that it acquired the MK 108 cannon (U4) and the equipment for the 300 litre drop tank (R3).
You've got Green's book so you will be aware of the odd panels,bumps etc on this very interesting airframe,worth a thread of its own!
The final specification/identity which you correctly quoted has little to do with the aircrafts original 1943 identity.

All this from notes from various sources (much of it from Brett Green's book that you mentioned) that I made before a trip to Australia and a LONG diversion to see this machine 'in the flesh'.

(?) Can't read my handwriting! Hasen or Hansen I think

Cheers
Steve

 

[riacrato]

There is no need for an excuse, the Hellcat entered the war in numbers when the IJN fighter force was more or less beaten with barely any capable pilots left. It is not very surprising to have more non-combat write-offs than actually "killed" planes and it's probably the case for most fighter aircraft that served in WW2. Exchange ratios reflect the whole situation not just the quality of the plane so the wiki figures just prove that the Japanese situation was abysmal and that relatively, the J2M was their most capable adversary against the Hellcat (even that is a bold statement as it assumes all other things are equal). I wonder how the exchange ratio of the P-51 was against the Me 262 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the same ballpark (~3:1). The 1945 Fw 190 D-9s is said to be about equal to the P-51, combat had also shifted to more favourable heights for the Jumo 213, but I bet its exchange ratio against e.g. the P-51 is pretty bad.

 

[renrich]

Corsair went into combat in mid February 1943. The Hellcat did not go into combat until the end of August, 1943. The USN decided to replace all Hellcats with Corsairs in May, 1944 because the Corsair was the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier fighter. Read the comparison beween the FW190, the F6F and F4U on the Williams site and then decide which was the best fighter of the two Navy AC. With equal pilot skills a 1v1 between Hellcat would almost always turn out to the advantage of the Corsai. The marginal performance advantage of the Hellcat over the IJN fighters was always a source of concern.

 

[GregP]

I thoroughly enjoy reading Mr. Brown's books and articles, but I take his opinions as the opinion of a very good test pilot who is not necessarily familiar with the individual intracasies mounts he flew.

To clarify, I think a Corsair pilot with 500+ hours in type would likely wax Mr. Brown's tail in a dogfight, but Eric Brown could certainly fly a good test card, stick to the test plan and come back with good, reliable data. He might NOT have been able to wring the best performance out of a particular aircraft, and very probably knew that, but his impressions were from the point of view of a top-notch test pilot.

In a combat aircraft, I'd sooner take the opinions of Jounnie Johnson, Clive Caldwell, David McCampbell, Erich Hartmann, or Sailor Malan.

While Eric Brown wasn't a famous combat pilot, as a test pilot, Eric Brown's opinions were spot on, even if he might disremember a few numbers 40+ years after the fact. To me Eric Brown ranks right up there as one of the best, with Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, Steve Hinton, Roland Beaumont, Hans-Werner Lerche, Fritz Wendel, Victor Pugachev, Janusz Żurakowski and quite a few more great stcks.

 

[Ratsel]

Chuck Yeager said at 100ft altitude, nothing could beat a P-39, is that a accurate statement? Eric Brown also said the P-47 in a dive exceeding mach .75 was a death sentence. He also said a Bf 109G could do mach .85 in a dive, again, accurate statements?

 

[GregP]

Thanks, but I've read the comparisons. Most were written to promote one particular aircraft, not to do an objective comparion. It shows up even in the fighter conference proceedings.

Since I volunteer at an active WWII flying museum, work on them, and build Allison engines, and have been researching WWII planes for more than 40 years, I pretty much already have my opinions and I decidedly have all the performance numbers that are published.

I've seen test where a particular Corsair variant is rated at some speed WAY faster than a Hellcat, but when they cruise around side by side at the same power settings and rpm, it makes the numbers look might suspicious! ... especially to the pilots flying them. The only thing the Corsair has the Hellcat doesn't in the engine department is ram air, and that won't make a difference as wide as the published numbers indicate.

Our Corsair (F4U-1D) has the same engine and prop as the Hellcat we had for years until recently. By same, I mean same same propeller number down to the blade part numbers. The Corsair has a -8W engine and the Hellcat has a -10W engine, but they had the same rpm and power ratings. They flew side-by-side at identical power settings in lo and high blower, with the Corsair having a very slight edge in the main stage due to the ram air induction. The Hellcat didn't have ram air in the main stage to prevent carb icing around the carriers.

Anyone is free to have their favorites and we all do, as I notice from posts. It would be a boring workd if we all thought the same, wouldn't it?

 

[GregP]

You tell me Ratsel.

 

[renrich]

From "America's Hundred Thousand" "A modern evaluation of a Corsair found it to be "the weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P47D and an F6F5. A WW2 pilot noted the Corsair as a "high strung predator" while the Hellcat was a "nice safe pussycat." Why would the Navy state that the Hellcats should be replaced ASAP by Corsairs if the Corsair was not superior? As a matter of fact, post war, the Bearcats in the fleet were replaced by Corsairs because the Corsair was a better fighter-bomber.

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat WAS a nice safe pussycat. it was easy to fly slow and easy to fly near the edge since it talked to the pilot aerodynamically. The Corsair was much more abrupt and had much worse slow-speed manners and stall manners ... and the visibility was abysmal. But, it certaily had been designed to carry bombs from the outset and the Hellcat wasn't designed for that task to the same extent, and it wasn't in the original spec, either.

Sounds to me as if the Navy decided that the war was winding down and they thought they were going to be flying more ground support than they anticipated (invasion of Japan and all ...), so they made the logical choice. No use keep two types if you can perform the duties with one ... and they had the same engine, so the engine spares could be kept.

Hey, I didn't say the Corsair was a bad choice and it wasn't. I said the Hellcat was a great fighter and it was. If you disagree, then we'll have to disagree, and that's OK.

But the Hellcat still shot down about twice as many enemy planes as the Corsair, and all the Corsair fans in the world can't change that. to me, that means the Hellcat made a much bigger contribution to winning the war, which is what defines a great warplane. Winning battles doesn't cut it if you lose the war. And if the Hellcat made those kills against a less well-trained Japanese pilot force, then so did the Corsair since the Corsair flew in the same theater and at about the same timeframe, so the same enemy pilots fought both types.

 

[jim]

I posses 3 of Mr Browns Books. In my opinion are very interesting and often provide information which is dificult to obtain . He does say thinks that disagree with other sources. E.G in diving speed of Bf 109 g disagrees with Helmut Lipferts diary. That s normal. A combat pilot is more willing to approach the maximum limits of its aircraft than a test pilot. On the other hand he claims that a P51 can outurn a Bf 109 which of course is not true. I dont believe he is biased. He reports his personal experiences flying specific examples of varius aircrafts often with varius limitations.
e.g. german aircrafts were poorly maintained during alleid slavery and -as he admits- no Mw50 was available. Also he then had not the extreme knowledge that we have today about types,sub types etc..
But he was an anlosaxon that lived in germany and spoke the language .So he had a good image of both worlds. So its comment, while with inaccurancies provide a balanced image of the aircrafts evolution. Perhaps that balance is which disturbs some english speaking people who are familiar with sites that "prove" how superior and untouchable angloamericans aircrafts were. (I admit however that its critisism against F4U is too much)
Mr Vanir
Even if he flew a D12 ,that would made a difference over a D9 only at altitude. Jumo 213F and 213A both had an unboosted rating of 1750 hp at 0m . I dont understand your comment that a D9 was slower at sea level than a D12 . And how trust you have in those american that rebuilt the D9? What experience they had in german systems? Jumo 213A often underperformed even in german service..And anyway D12 was in production in1945 and thus more indicative of german aircraft maximum capabilities .

 

[GregP]

You think a P-51 can't out-turn a 109? Why in the world would you think that? I'd agree if the opponent were Me 109F, but the P-51D usually fought against the G and later variants, with equal wing loading, so the instantaneous turn rates would be very similar, with the sustained turn rates being related to the airfoils and excess power. Most aerial attacks were decided well before the sustained turn rates would come into play.

The Me 109G was a good plane with known faults, particularly in roll and yaw, and was about equal to the P-51D in turn rate (pitch), and perhaps a bit better at low speed due to the slats ... but a decent P-51 driver would not GET to slow speeds, would he? he woudl separate and re-attack at higher speed.

 

[Ratsel]

separate and re-attack... really? with other enemy planes all over? more then likely he disengaged the 109 becouse dropping the 51 flaps still couldn't turn with it either. you seem to forget that some of these 109 pilots knew every trick in the book on what there aircraft can do. Example: the Legend of Y-29, fw. Franz Meindl 31 kill ace Bf 109G-14 WNr.784 765 'blaue 11' of 8./JG11, made three seasoned P-51 pilots look like complete factory fresh green rookies (all were dogfighting at the same time). Then a fourth P-51 pilot came in, same results. Some say the forth P-51 pilot got Meindl, but Uwe Benkel, internationally known historic wreck recoverist, found Meindl Plane, which showed a ginormous flak hit that most probably killed him. When your time is up, its up.

 

[kettbo]

Too many hounds are the death of the fox

 

[GregP]

Ratsel, I didn't forget anything and your analysis of what might happen is conjecture on your part. Sure, the Germans had good pilots, even great ones. Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall come to mind right away. Best of the best in anybody's book.

The Allies had good pilots, too, and the P-51 was more than a match for the Me 109 from the time it first escorted a bomber into Europe.

In the end, the Allied side won. Near the end of the war the real problem for a typical Mustang pilot was finding an Me 109 in the air, not shooting it down.

I was speaking from the wing loading numbers, which are easily calculated, and from numerous WWII reports of Mustangs shooting down Me 109s in turning dogfights. You can find gun camera films of it easily on youtube and google.

It is not necessary to for you to attack me personally because I don't agree with you. It's OK not to agree. So, please make your points without assuming I personally forget things or went otherwise mentally unstable. Your own reasoning, if valid, is very probably more compelling than questioning mine and makes your points well enough. I'll strive to do the same for you and everyone else.

 

[GregP]

Good one, kettbo!

There is a simlar story of what happened to Saburo Sakai when he was caught by a gaggle of Hellcats and survivied by snap-rolls when attacked ... until the Hellcats got tired of it and flew away. More likely they ran low on fuel and broke off before swimming home. I heard him talk about in in Arizona in the 1980's. He also told us of a Hellcat pilot who was caught by 20+ Zeros and survived by superior flying. Methinks it happened on all sides, and wasn't aircraft-related.

It ain't the quality of the airplane, it's the quality of the man flying it. Everyone had great pilots, including the numeriocally smaller air forces in the conflict.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Ratsel "Chuck Yeager said at 100ft altitude, nothing could beat a P-39" I have read that before and love it! Thats why I would cruise my Cobra at 200ft, and dive to combat altitude when jumped!!! ha ha!

I think there is merit in both arguments about the Hellcat. It was in a position to get air to air kills against the Japanese, that no other plane was afforded. I also think that the Pacific fighters, and the Hellcat in particular, are more often overlooked because the "foe" wasn't as great as the Allies faced against the Luftwaffe.

I have read 1 of Brown's books. I think he is biased. But thats ok, what he offers is worth the trade-off.

 

[vanir]

The P-47 flown was by Lindberg not Yaeger, it was a C model and the air force wanted to investigate its dive speed limitations compared to manufacturer quotes. He found Republic Air overstated its safe dive speed by more than 100mph and discovered some unairworthy features under aerobatic combat conditions, so the P-47D series was meant to fix those. The D has a higher safe dive speed than the C.

The Messer had a very clean and streamlined, lightweight airframe with a good divespeed, but suffered elevator and other control issues at very high speed. Despite the fact its airframe Mach limit is comparatively high (beaten only by things like the Spit and Mustang), it isn't much more than a thrown stone at that speed. These kind of figures are really just the bonus round on a gameshow, you've already lost control of the aircraft and corkscrewed 15km in a plummet and incredibly when most fighters would've desintegrated you're in one piece, but if you ever manage to land the thing it'll be joining the scrap heap.

Ratsel that's a very big can of worms you've opened but I don't think I'm really up to it today. In October 44 southern Germany and Bohemia trust me they were putting whatever was laying around the factory floor in anything except the K-4, G-10 and Erla lines (they made G-10 and K-4). Believe me some G-14 had 605A-1 crate motors in them and were barely more than restamped G-6s with an engine replacement and the new radio navigation set fitted, with an MW50 field kit slapped on and a guage bolted in. If the opportunity was there several G-6, particularly G-6/AS issued in Feb44 which had blown engines by April but were otherwise in perfect condition, were actually taken back to an assembly lot and had the update gear fitted, you can tell these by the heavier jig restamping, right over the old G-6 numbers.
And fuel was assigned by airfield, not aircraft models. By Jan45 the aircraft were assigned from the body of accessable remaining service fighters by what fuel was available where. If 5./JG301 had DB motors and 12./JG301 had DC motors then 5 staffeln gets sent to one field with B4 and 12 staffeln gets split and sent to another with C3.

The only evidence that 605DC or ASC motors ever used 1.98ata and C3 (ie. 2000hp trim) is the fact JG301 operated G-10 and G-14/AS but the airfield those staffeln were stationed was exclusively supplied with C3 fuel, there is no record of B4 deliveries or supply to them, only of C3. Since we know the G-10 exclusively used the DB-605D series engine from the 109K, these should have been the DC engine.
The Luftwaffe in 1945 simply sent the Antons to C3 fields, Messers and Doras to B4 fields, essentially letting chips lay where they fell because logistics and industry was so bad. The majority of G-10 and K-4 were at B4 fields with either not enough C3 delivered for their sortie rate or no C3 supplied. But even where a 605DB is using C3 fuel it doesn't have to be recalibrated, it can function at 1.8ata without using MW50, which improves throttle height at overboost.

The DC is just a DB engine with 1.98ata recalibration and spark tuning for C3. It's a field mod, takes seconds, the nomenclature is purely administrative and the stamping is for fuel identification.
Same with the ASM/AM deal, the M for MW50 was restamped onto A-1 and AS engines using the older chamber design but late series piston crowns. They're retuned for C3 fuel and 1.7ata overboost but are otherwise A-1 engines and A-1 engines fitted with a 603 blower. The D motor sought to find some kind of midpoint between the AM and ASM performance extremes (4500m and 6500m) greatly improve reliability and performance at lower engine settings on the basic A-1, oil cooling, airflow dynamics and bottom end were the big concerns. The ASB motor is a D motor bottom end used with the 603 blower, I've compared technical details between the ASB and DB and there are none other than the blower, which has slightly different performance curves at medium settings and is more fuel efficient.

So the G-14 in October 44 mostly got 605ASM and were low engine life hotrods with 1800bhp field performance and 1500hp overboost at 6000 metres. The only differences that weren't purely administrative between it and a G-6/AS in March 44 are MW50 kit, a guage and some new radios. If it was a factory conversion it got a new instrument panel, if it was done in the field the guage was just bolted to the cockpit interior. Some done in the field didn't get MW50, just the new radios but were still reclassified as G-14. Most G-6/AS didn't have MW50, all G-14/AS did. In March 1945 however the G-14/AS started getting the ASB motor when they came in for an engine replacement (the ASM and AM hole pistons at full throttle within dozens of flying hours), so a 1945 G-14 could be K-4 standard like the G-10.

The only difference between the 605A-1 and 605AS is they put a DB-603 blower on the AS and made some tuning changes, this experimentation was performed in early 1942 after they were playing around with GM-1 on the channel front for about a year. A higher altitude engine was a more long term fix for a high altitude interceptor, the Fw-190A had become preferred as a low-mid altitude one.

From the very beginning the 605A was designed to use about 1550hp at normal military but the piston crowns and combustion chambers just couldn't deliver and it had burn through problems even at 1475hp, the 1300hp restriction was placed until new piston crowns entered production, but it was always chasing 1550hp military (the 601A-1 actually achieves this in mid-43 at about 1500 metres but they wanted it on the bench).

By this time MW30 (meant for bombers) or MW50 was already planned for series production but the engine kits were still in the development and planning stages, BMW/Focke Wulf and Daimler/Messerschmitt had two different ideas and approaches on the subject, and Tank's höhenjäger team had already supplied the first interim Dora prototypes based off A-6 airframes and were finding the new Jumo 213A was underpowered in the heavy little airframe, so they didn't know what kind of overboost system they were going to try, whilst Tank actually asked for Daimler engines.

Oh christ there's so much to it. Look the moral of the story is that from 1944 to the end of the war the Me-109 had little in the way of standardised equipment, performance or specification by subtype and that was the whole idea of simplifying production. Instead of having categorised fitments you just had a custom order policy and everybody, JG26, JG301, JG54 all operated mixed formations by then, and then the Erla factory made their own fighter-only specification. G-6, G-8, G-14, G-10 and K-4 all leap into a big fog there, a G-14/AS in Feb45 can be higher spec than a G-10 in Dec44, the Erla G-10 is higher performing than a common K-4 but Erla also made a lightened and streamlined K-4 in 1945 that must've been the fastest Messer of the war (figures around 730km/h and higher are tossed around for Erla G-10).

You bring the impression Ratsel that it was organised all nicely like a comfy American airplane plant in Indiana wheat fields on a pleasant sunny afternoon. It wasn't. Models and fitments were all over the place. I've read authoritive accounts of simply grabbing engines from broken crates and putting them in mix and match G-6 airframes and sending it out the door in early 45, G-14 with crate 605A-1 bolted in because that was the engine available and artillery shells were popping all around the factory at the time.