f6f-5 vs 109

[fly boy]

what do you think would happen

 

[drgondog]

what do you think would happen

Depends on the mission. If high altitude escort of B-17s at 25K, the 109 probably is very effective against the F6F. The F6F needs to be in 15-20K range for all its attributes to be effective against the 109 (in my opinion).

If medium altitude/TAC flying in 9th AF it (F6F) is a better dog fighter and capable fighter bomber - probably better able to defend itself against both the Fw 190 and Me 109 at low to medium altitudes than any version of the P-47.

None of the USN ships transfer well to 8th AF and Strategic bombing campaign except later versions of F4U-4 and -5.

 

[fly boy]

ok but this is more of a what if kind of thing

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As Bill pointed out, it would depend on where the battle took place.

It is not cut and dry fly boy.

 

[Amsel]

Very close call. Both a/c have similar speed even at altitude. I am doing some more studying before I make my vote. I have the tendancy to vote for the Me 109 but looking at the F6F3 performance trials it seems that they are similar.

Which Me 109 are you wanting to compare?

 

[drgondog]

Very close call. Both a/c have similar speed even at altitude. I am doing some more studying before I make my vote. I have the tendancy to vote for the Me 109 but looking at the F6F3 performance trials it seems that they are similar.

Which Me 109 are you wanting to compare?

The -3 (corrected to -5) was being delivered throughout late 43 and all of 44 with the P&W 2800-10W so it's critical altitude for speed was around 22K. At that altitude its speed against the Fw 190A-5/6 and Me 109G-5/6 was significantly lower and max climb of 3100 fps for op loaded F6F-3 ( should be -5) was max around 0-3K feet.

The 109 would be much faster and climb better at 25K. Doubt if it could out turn the F6F anywhere or roll with it at high speed but I have no data to support that conlusion..

A P-51B was far superior in speed/climb/acceleration, equal in roll, and less in turn to F6F-3 and -5 at all altitudes and the B was reasonably matched by the 109G-6 and succeeding variants.

The F4U-4 should equally put the F6F-3 and -5 at a disadvantage.

I would say for escorting B-17s it would be sorely pressed at 25K-30K by the 109G-6 and equally at a disadvantage at 20-22K escorting B24s against the Fw 190A-6. That altitude wasn't its strike zone for air to air combat.

 

[Amsel]

I agree 100% that the F6F would not be a very good bomber escort. I do think though if the Me 109 was based out of Rabaul the F6F would enjoy the superiority. And the Hellcat would be the victor more times then the Me 109 in a PTO fighter sweep over the islands. Fighting in the lower altitudes the Me 109 has no advantage and the F6F3 has a 3600 fpm rate of climb at sea level and a high speed of 340mph at 10,500(overload).

 

[renrich]

Remember, the question involves the F6F5 which had the more powerful engine with water injection. That model was a legitimate 400 mph AC at critical altitude in combat power.

 

[drgondog]

Remember, the question involves the F6F5 which had the more powerful engine with water injection. That model was a legitimate 400 mph AC at critical altitude in combat power.

Correct me if I'm wrong Ren but IIRC the -5 had the two stage 2800-10W and it's max speed was 380mph. I was actually thinking about the F6F-5 and mistakenly put -3 in post above. The -3 was even slower than the 380 with less climb.

The -6 was originally two -5's at tail end of production with R2800-18W and it and only it (the subsequent -6) was a 400mph ship - and way late in the war? I verified that with wiki but won't swear to validity of memory or wiki.

 

[timshatz]

And we don't know which 109 we're talking about. Might do well against an E, ok against an F and have trouble with the G.

 

[drgondog]

I agree 100% that the F6F would not be a very good bomber escort. I do think though if the Me 109 was based out of Rabaul the F6F would enjoy the superiority. And the Hellcat would be the victor more times then the Me 109 in a PTO fighter sweep over the islands. Fighting in the lower altitudes the Me 109 has no advantage and the F6F3 has a 3600 fpm rate of climb at sea level and a high speed of 340mph at 10,500(overload).

Amsel - I basically agree for USN carrier ops - mostly low to medium altitude but the 109 should always have enough time to always gain an altitude and speed advantage to start the fight and would be superior in both speed and climb in middle to high altitudes?

Given equal quality pilots I think I would tend to favor the 109 even in pacific for Truk/Rabaul type tagets where range factor for defenders not as critical. It is hard to judge but the 109 remained competitive even at the end of the war in the Ost Front where all the fights were at low/medium altitudes against very good Soviet fighters.

Had the USN/USMC/USAAF/RAAF been facing the same quality of pilots as IJN had at beginning of the war the fights would have been much tougher even against the A6M and later variants.

The -5 would have been in its prime in late 43 through late 44 and would have been matched against 109G-6 and -10 and -14 - all very good dogfighters.. later the k-4 which was a lot faster and climbed a lot faster.

 

[renrich]

According to Dean, the F6F5 with the R280010W had 2250 HP at SL, combat power, 1975 HP at 20000 feet, combat power. He also states that Vmax figures for Hellcat varied a lot according to sources with Mfg. numbers being consistently higher than USN numbers but MFG. #s showed that the F6F 5 could touch 400 mph at 20000 feet with WEP. In my book by Linnekin he states the F6F5 was an honest 400 mph AC but he may have been flying AC with F6F6 engine since he served post war. I wonder how realistic it is to always quote numbers at Vmax with WEP or combat power. Seems to me that military power is a better gauge of true performance. Also, the test of the F4U1 and F6F3 versus FW190 by the USN seemed to indicate that both Navy planes could cope nicely with the FW, which some would say was superior to the 109. To me, It looks a lot like what the mission was like as to how the various AC would perform against one another. If the fight was a long way from base, the Hellcat would have an advantage since the 109 would probably not be there. Also the Hellcat seemed to do well in the few encounters against the LW.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Anybody have any information on those encounters of F6f vs. Bf 109?

 

[renrich]

I show 8 kills by the F6F in the ETO and this was by US pilots. There were 2 kills by F4F with US pilots. Interestingly there were 26 kills by US piloted F4Fs in the Med. Most must have been during Torch but I would like to have particulars of all those kills. I think that some Hellcats saw action in the ETO with the FAA but not sure.

 

[renrich]

Take it for what it is worth but here is Eric Brown's opinion of a fight between an F6F3 and the Me109G6. "This would involve 2 fighters of almost equal performance. The Me would not be able to to exploit it's prowess in the vertical plane, and it would certainly be out maneuvered as well as outgunned by the Hellcat, whose view would be an asset. There was really no maneuver the german fighter could use effectively to evade the Hellcat which would , nonetheless have to be flown to it's limits to ensure a kill. VERDICT; The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the ME109G-6 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of sweat." Not bad for a fighter armed with those overweight, obsolete and underpowered BMGs.

 

[drgondog]

I respect Brown but he notoriously discounts the 109 and has publically stated the F6F was his number 1 over Spit, 109, Mustang and Fw 190... and I wonder why he doesn't think a 109G-6 in a corkscrew climbing turn to right would not be a problem for an F6F-3 or -5? It was a problem for the Mustang which, in the P-51B, had a better climb rate than either the -3 or the -5 though most of the flight profile (if not all of it).

Possibly the F6F, although lower climb rate, may have had a steeper initial climb angle than a 51? Then it might stay with the 109 in a crokscrew climb..

Secondly it isn't clear cut that a 109 in a skilled pilot's hands won't turn with a F6F-5. I have yet to see objective turn data for either ship and god knows we have debated it long enough.

Last, why does Brown think the F6F will do well above 20K against the 109G-6, or since it is -5 we are talking about - how about against the -10 or K-4 since they also would be contemporaries?

Oh well, like so many debates here on the 109 there is a shortfall of solid flight tests evaluating combat manueverability.

 

[Amsel]

The Me 109 took a lot of training in order to fly effectively and
needed a lot of pilot attention during high speed maneuvering which
likely is the reason most Luftwaffer pilots engaged in single high
speed attacks and then dove or climbed away. It also explains why
almost any allied fighter could turn inside the 109, especially at high
speeds.
There were no rudder or aileron trim tabs and the rudder NEEDED one.
At high speed, a significant amount of left rudder was required to
center the ball or the airplane would fly sideways which of course
affected aim. During an extended highspeed flight, the pilot could
become significantly fatigued from the need to apply continuous left
rudder. Consequently at high speed, the 109 could be turned quicker to
the right than to the left. Now you know why; the right leg was less
tired.

At high speed the elevator trim had to be applied or the airplane
became very nose heavy. Also, the elevators got so heavy at high speed
that the pilot literally could not pull significant G's which of course
limited it's maneuverability.

The prop was a variable speed unit but NOT automatic like the allies
had. It was a lever controled prop with a guage indicating where the
pitch was. The prop was capable of significant pitch changes but the
pilot had to make them. In contrast, the Allied pilots had a constant
speed prop, they simply set power and let the prop take care of itself.
They did not care nor did they want to be bothered by what rpm the
prop was maintaining while sweating out a combat situation.

Aerodynamically, the Me 109 was very dirty with a significantly higher
drag coefficient than it's counterparts the P-51 and Spitfire.

Other allied pilots who flew the Messerschmitt commented on how
directionally unstable the airplane was requiring constant course
corrections to maintain flight direction. This is not uncommon in WWII
fighters as a certain amount of instability assists the pilot in
directional changes which are necessary for combat maneuvering

Some overview of Leonard K. Carson's book "Pursue and Destroy" which is
mostly about the P-51 and also about his career flying it. In the last part of the book he compares German fighters to American. He has flown the Me 109. It is not hard technical data though. I am a great fan of the Me 109 Btw.

 

[Soren]

I mostly agree with Bill on this one.

I do believe the 109F G will outturn the F6F-3 5, not by much though.

 

[Timppa]

Joe Christy mention in his book a British comparison test between Hellcat and captured Bf109G. The latter held superiority in climb and level speed, while the Hellcat was much superior in turning. Dive was almost equal, Bf109 pulling ahead, but only "foot by foot".
Hence their recommendation was to try to get the Bf109 into a turning fight.

 

[renrich]

Bill, I agree with you about Brown's evaluations, and as we have discussed before, they seem often to be contradictory. In that same book, he evaluates ACM between a Hellcat and FW190 and says that pilot proficiency will determine the outcome as the two fighters are closely matched. I only quoted him because it is one man's opinion and thought it would add a little spice to the discussion. I do think that Brown's opinion that the Hellcat's battery of six fifties is very formidable in fighter versus fighter combat is probably on the mark.