F4U in Europe

[DarrenW]

Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."

Fully agree. And what does anyone gain from "fudging" the numbers if the idea is to better understand an enemy's equipment and thus learn how to better deal with real world combat situations???

 

[Clayton Magnet]

hat has been lost here is the value of the Hellcat as a shipboard fighter. It served as an off-shore strike fighter during Operation Dragoon in August 1944, where the Hellcat saw action against German targets in Southern France and it made a very good accounting of itself. It was used in both the air superiority and ground attack role, with US Navy pilots destroying 825 vehicles and damaging another 334, along with a further 84 locomotives. Eight Luftwaffe aircraft were also brought down during the two week operation.

I am assuming, but I think a Spitfire Mk.V would quite easily turn inside a Hellcat, at lower to medium speeds. It would be closer at higher speeds though, probably. The FAA also used Gannets (F6F's) against Luftwaffe units in Norway, and the Grumman's gave a good account of themselves, but they are fairly isolated incidents, and don't really prove much. The F6F was probably the best all around carrier fighter of the war, but would have been at a disadvantage over Europe, if it had been fielded there in any sort of numbers. The F4U would have done better, but again, why bother?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."

Reminds me of this test, which was shown to new American recruits, before they deployed to Europe. Pure propaganda, intended to bolster their spirits, in the hopes that the first time an MG42 fires at them, they don't dig in and refuse to advance. Fact of the matter was, in some cases, the German guns WERE better, and formed the basis for new allied designs after the war. No point telling the 17 year old kid that, though

 

[DarrenW]

The FAA also used Gannets (F6F's) against Luftwaffe units in Norway

Just a small caveat needed here: The British only briefly called the F6F the Gannet (before it entered combat operations). By February 1944 all FAA F6Fs officially became known as Hellcat Mk.Is.

but I think a Spitfire Mk.V would quite easily turn inside a Hellcat

I think "quite easily" would be stretch but we can just agree to disagree on this point.

 

[SaparotRob]

Always go for the Thompson M-1921. It never ran out of ammo. Just watch Sergeant Saunders on the tv show Combat.

 

[Howard Gibson]

So with that in mind, how well would the F4U stack up against the Tiffy?

I am looking at data from ww2aircraftperformance.org, and I see that the Typhoon is faster below 15,000ft, and much faster below 10,000ft. The F4U hits about the same top speed as the Typhoon at a somewhat higher altitude.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I think "quite easily" would be stretch but we can just agree to disagree on this point

Turn radius is difficult to measure and compare, but if relative wing loading is anything to go by, then the Mk.V is about 10 lb/ft2​ less than a Hellcat, 27 vs 37.
But there is more to it than that, so who knows.

 

[swampyankee]

I think one should note that several fighters that were successful in the ETO did not succeed in the Pacific.

I think it's unlikely either the Corsair or Hellcat would be significantly outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters. One should also note that the US did comparisons between its own aircraft, and the Corsair, at least, was well able to meet any USAAF contemporary on equal terms.

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.

Spitfire faster? Sure, but a better turner? I'd like to see that measured in a flight comparison test.

That assumes both are at normal fighter weights and not long-range or heavy loads. The radial was closer to the CG in the Hellcat than the Merlin was in the Spitfire. That usually means better pitch rate ... not always, though.

 

[wuzak]

The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.

The F6F had ~ 50% extra wing area compared to the Spitfire V and ~90% more gross weight.

In other words, roughly 40% greater wing loading.

I would imagine that the big wing area is best in low speed manoeuvring, but a little detrimental at high speeds.

 

[Macandy]

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.

It was a stipulated requirement of Lend Lease that on end of war plus 12 weeks, all LL equipment had to be either, (1) Returned to US custody - no charge, (2) Declared as destroyed/written off - No charge, (2) Retained by end user - to be paid for at 10c on the $

There was a US list of equipment they would accept back, things like D model P-51's, but @90% of LL equipment was stricken off US charge on VJ Day as 'obsolete'.
Anything so declared, things like F4F Wildcats, P-40 Tomahawks, were to be destroyed in place by the end users and written off the LL bill.

The UK retained and paid for plenty of LL planes like the Dakota. The US didn't want to pay to bring home huge numbers of obsolete and war weary planes to scrap as well as depress its aircraft industry.

 

[DarrenW]

One should also note that the US did comparisons between its own aircraft, and the Corsair, at least, was well able to meet any USAAF contemporary on equal terms.

The Army Air Force also evaluated the Hellcat and gave it a pretty decent rating overall:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.

Spitfire faster? Sure, but a better turner? I'd like to see that measured in a flight comparison test.

That assumes both are at normal fighter weights and not long-range or heavy loads. The radial was closer to the CG in the Hellcat than the Merlin was in the Spitfire. That usually means better pitch rate ... not always, though.

I would also like to see a flight comparison test. But if Wikipedia is worth anything, then the Mk.V Spitfire wing loading was about 10 pounds per square foot less than an F6F. A griffon engined Mk.XIV, which arguably could be considered a contemporary of the Hellcat, as they entered service within a few months of each other, had a closer, but still lower wing loading than an F6F. While wing loading was only part of the equation, the Spit Mk.V's was still significantly lower.

 

[DarrenW]

the Mk.V Spitfire wing loading was about 10 pounds per square foot less than an F6F.

Calculations performed concerning wing loading can be deceiving. For example, it was common practice for the US Navy to test aircraft at their overload weight but use them operationally at their normal weight. Concerning the F6F this would shave off approximately 1,000 lbs and lower the wing loading to just over 34 lbs per square foot. What would have been the normal loaded weight of a Spitfire Mk. V? Just asking because I'm no expert on the Spitfire but I know some of you here are.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

for what its worth, a US Navy test of the Ki-61 found "the Tony is greatly superior to the F6F in turns below 180 knots" but the advantage decreased slightly at 20000'. Considering the Ki-61 was a Japanese fighter designed to not stress horizontal maneuverability, yet still comfortably turned inside a Hellcat, is telling.

 

[DarrenW]

for what its worth, a US Navy test of the Ki-61 found "the Tony is greatly superior to the F6F in turns below 180 knots" but the advantage decreased slightly at 20000'. Considering the Ki-61 was a Japanese fighter designed to not stress horizontal maneuverability, yet still comfortably turned inside a Hellcat, is telling.

View attachment 649477

That's actually not too shocking really. The KI-61 was notably maneuverable and held up well when tested against it's contemporaries, both allied and axis types combined. Here is a quote from a web article that seems very well researched with good sources (although it doesn't list any details of the exact flight testing performed):

The Ki-61 was pitted against other Japanese fighters, as well as against the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3, of which two had been bought by the IJA from the Germans, and the Curtiss P-40E, several of which had fallen into Japanese hands after the capture of the Dutch East Indies.

While test pilots were a little skeptical of the new aircraft at first, pilots with combat experience appreciated the Ki-61's self-sealing fuel tanks, heavier armor and armament, and fast diving speed. The air combat tests showed the Ki-61 to be faster than all its adversaries, and it easily out-maneuvered everything it went up against except the Japanese Nakajima Ki-43.

Source: The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien & Ki-100

Also we need to quantify what actually is meant by "greatly superior" in the American report, as the representative graph has no scale to help us truly understand how critical the evaluators were when comparing the outcome of the tests.

I'm actually in agreement that the Spitfire had an edge in the turn department but to say the British fighter could "quite easily turn inside a Hellcat" I think is somewhat of an exaggeration to say the least.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I'm actually in agreement that the Spitfire had an edge in the turn department but to say the British fighter could "quite easily turn inside a Hellcat" I think is somewhat of an exaggeration to say the least.

well, a Seafire III was flown against an F6F in the Patuxent River trials, perhaps someone has the report?

 

[DarrenW]

I understand that the control surfaces utilized during the implementation of a coordinated turn are the ailerons, rudder, and elevators. Maybe we can look further on the effectiveness of these in regards to both the Hellcat and Spitfire and draw some conclusions???

Hopefully real world pilots such as BiffF15 and FlyboyJ can also chime in and tell us what their thoughts are in regards to what factors can effect turn performance such as control surface design, wing loading, engine/propeller torque, location of CG, ect, not to mention altitude and speed at which the turn is initiated.

Any aircraft engineers or aerodynamicists out there as well?

 

[DarrenW]

well, a Seafire III was flown against an F6F in the Patuxent River trials, perhaps someone has the report?

Are you referring to the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Are you referring to the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944?

Correct. A Seafire III was included I believe, but it was something of an afterthought. Would be a little worse performing than a Mk.V, but the turn rates would be similar I think