f6f-5 vs 109 (1 Viewer)

who would win

  • f6fs ripp most the 109s in two

    Votes: 38 43.2%
  • 109s kill most off

    Votes: 42 47.7%
  • nothing

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • other

    Votes: 5 5.7%

  • Total voters
    88

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

In one of my references, there is a evaluation flown between the F6F5 and Zero 52 and the Vmax of the Hellcat was 409 MPH at 21600 feet, Zero was 335 at 18000 feet. This thought occurred to me early this AM and while it has only a fuzzy connection to the subject of this thread, I would pose this question to those of you who are better informed than me. The Merlin and DBs that powered BFs and Spits and many others were around 1600 Cubic inches and started out generating around 1000 HP or maybe a little less but worked up in some cases to around 1700 HP which was almost an increase of 100%. The R2800 with 2800 CI started at about 1800 to 2000 HP and worked up to around 2500-2700 HP, not even a 50% increase. Why the big difference?
 
Both are obviously very capable aircraft. The F6F has great firepower, plenty of armor and decent all around performance. It didn't have the same blower the P-47 had despite the fact it shared the same engine and suffered at high altitudes.

In the vertical, I'd have to give the nod to the 109 (especially later versions with more horsepower). In a 1v1 with all other parameters the same (i.e. altitude, airspeed fuel load etc,..), I think I'd take the 109.

In Eric Bergerud's book Fire in the Sky, he elaborately describes how the Hellcat's strongest points were not performance-related, but were actually ease of build, stability in carrier ops, and sturdiness. It's advantages were exaggerated by tactics and training.

The 109 (at least the Gustav and later) was faster than the Zero in level flight, could dive better, had self-sealing fuel tanks, better armament and in the hands of an experienced pilot could still maneuver quite, quite well. I truly think the F6F would have its hands full with the 109.
 
yeah if the hellcat had anything over the 109 its like the f4f had over the zero- being able to not die in two seconds
 
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.

Problem is Timppa that the British never dared flying the Bf-109 to its limits in a turn fight, the pilots got scared as soon as the slats deployed and aborted the turn, thus they never came anywhere close to a maximum performance turn in the a/c. Hence why the British concluded that the Fw-190 turned much better than the Bf-109. In reality the Bf-109 turns much much better than the Fw-190, as you can read in Rechlin tests between the two a/c.

Chief Luftwaffe test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, who flew all captured Allied a/c as-well as LW a/c made it clear that the Bf-109 could even turn better than the Spitfire. It was all about keep pulling the stick backward and not backing off when the slats deployed.

And if the Bf-109 could outturn or even turn with a Spitfire I believe it could outturn a F6F-5 quite readily.
 
Ok lets do some guidelines here
First off it depends on altitude. Lets just say they are in that 15-20k range
Second of all what kind of mission are they doing
But the biggest one of all is the skill level of each pilot.
 
Problem is Timppa that the British never dared flying the Bf-109 to its limits in a turn fight, the pilots got scared as soon as the slats deployed and aborted the turn, thus they never came anywhere close to a maximum performance turn in the a/c. Hence why the British concluded that the Fw-190 turned much better than the Bf-109. In reality the Bf-109 turns much much better than the Fw-190, as you can read in Rechlin tests between the two a/c.

Soren, you have repeated this drivel for at least two years without submitting the rechlin tests or substantiation that experienced British test pilots were cowards while flying the 109.

Chief Luftwaffe test pilot Heinrich Beauvais, who flew all captured Allied a/c as-well as LW a/c made it clear that the Bf-109 could even turn better than the Spitfire. It was all about keep pulling the stick backward and not backing off when the slats deployed.

If he made it clear, where are his proof points? Why is he a better source than Brown in context of comparisons? For every Beauvais you trot out with a subjective opinion there are Brown's with equal or greater experience and an opposite point of view.

You Belive the 109 could out turn everything. We get that. You would have converts if you could Substantiate your faith with cold hard facts - but you never do.


And if the Bf-109 could outturn or even turn with a Spitfire I believe it could outturn a F6F-5 quite readily.

Statement without evidence - again. It is easy to conclude that the F6F was an excellent turning a/c with relatively light W/L, good hp/wt ratio and nice roll rate - ditto Me 109.

But less easy to conclude that either turned better than the other or better/worse than the Spit with the data to back it up.

You make the claims based on opinions and don't produce one iota of objective data.
 
You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence.

Soren you wouldn't be a politician would you or work in PR?
 
And I still can't believe that captured -109s were never fully stalled (because the test pilots were afraid when the slats deployed)

Joe - Totally agreed.

It is simply absurd to conclude that the RAF pilots performing comparative tests to determine strengths and weaknesses between the aircraft would not test the 109 to it's limits in both high speed and low speed stalls.

The whole point is combat advisories to the RAF and Allied fighter pilots flying against the 109 in combat.

I can buy the possibility that the captured birds weren't in top condition, but once again that is speculation - not fact.

Gunther Rall had similar comments (to RAFtest pilots) about the 109 - relative to low speed and high speed stalling characteristics as well as the discomfort with slat deployment. He probably had a lot more hours in 109s than 90% of all LW pilots fighting in the 109. I've been told that he was a pretty good stick man.

But Soren disagrees so we can all discount Rall's abilities.
 
Rall stated that he would let go of the stick or push it slightly forward when the slats deployed, others said that's where real manoeuvering began. Obviously there is more than one way of flying a plane.
 
These captured 109's were flown by more then one pilot , it was very common to take them to new squadrons and show them what they were facing , as well it was common to let some of the new squadron fly against the former enemy aircraft
Further more it is demeaning to any allied pilot to say that they were afraid of the slats, were german pilots smarter and braver
 
Rall stated that he would let go of the stick or push it slightly forward when the slats deployed, others said that's where real manoeuvering began. Obviously there is more than one way of flying a plane.

for ships in a stall/buffeting phase of a turn, pushing stick slightly is the general way of changing AoA and getting out of the stall but with slats working properly the stall should be delayed after slats deployed.

Rall knew how to fly the 109. IIRC that specific comment was referring to getting back on target as the high wing tended to deploy first on the slats - causing a yaw to the high side.
 
Boy that would be annoying.

but consistent.

High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.

One of the real benefits to glider training while flying recips is to better learn controlled and cordinated turns (use of rudder to 'kill' the yaw).. just like a carved turn in skis instead of a 'skid turn'.

If using just ailerons (you know this I suspect), the high wing falls a little behind and the cotton tuft in front of you on the nose will drift to the high wing to show how your bird is yawing - you then feed in a little rudder.

Too much rudder and the tuft drifts the other way and you back off on the rudder pressure a little.
 
I always kept one eye on the ball and "stepped on the ball." In the USN evaluation of the FW v F4U1 and F6F3 it was stated that the FW could not follow either USN AC in turns.
 
but consistent.

High lift means more induced drag on the high lift wing.

One of the real benefits to glider training while flying recips is to better learn controlled and cordinated turns (use of rudder to 'kill' the yaw).. just like a carved turn in skis instead of a 'skid turn'.

If using just ailerons (you know this I suspect), the high wing falls a little behind and the cotton tuft in front of you on the nose will drift to the high wing to show how your bird is yawing - you then feed in a little rudder.

Too much rudder and the tuft drifts the other way and you back off on the rudder pressure a little.

I have seen experienced PPL's be almost thrown by this. Its almost as if the light aircraft of today are almost too easy to fly and they have lost the habit of using the rudder in the turn.
 
You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence..

Agreed. To me wartime report or at least theoretical calculation always carries much more weight than pure opinion. And you know what they say about opinions: "Opinions are like ***holes: Everyone has one and they all stink". So I tend simply to ignore them.

That said, what Polls Forum is about if not opinions..:)
 
Problem here is people only read what they wanna read.

It isn't demeaning to say that the Allied pilots who flew the Bf-109 got scared that they were about to stall when the slats popped out, cause they did, as did rookie LW pilots in the a/c. So feel free to be offended, not my problem.

Rall's reason not to push past slat deployment was the fact that he nearly got killed in a Emil when one of the slats jammed in a tight turn, sending his a/c into an uncontrollable spin. After that he never pushed the 109 that far again in a turn.

And Bill that I haven't produced evidence of this fact is absolute rubbish, I have presented countless accounts, several which directly explained it to you, so be kind stop that BS.
 
You almost have to admire his persistence against all the evidence.

Soren you wouldn't be a politician would you or work in PR?

That's hilarious coming from you Glider.

You must believe you have provided some evidence, I'm still waiting to see it though.

What I'd like to know even more though is what you refer to when you say "all the evidence".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back