Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

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

I dunno......

German Crude Steel Production.
1940 = 21.5 million metric tons
1943 = 30.6 million metric tons

German Aluminium Production
1940 = 265.3 000 metric tons
1943 = 432.0 000 metric tons

German Iron Ore Production
1940 = 29.5 million metric tons
1943 = 56.2 million metric tons

German Coal Production
1940 = 364.8 million metric tons
1943 = 429.0 million metric tons

from "WWII Data Book" by John Ellis pgs 275, 276, 277

It doesn't look as dire as you contend. Looks like production actually increased. Now what are your sources?
 
DonL said:
Why?

The $35000 are without equipment and engine.

The engines, radios and guns were usually furnished by the government AKA "GFE."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hello Don,

Do me a favor, here, slow down. In the sum of just three replies you've managed to cut down what Joe told you to the one sentence you've got referenced, above. I'm not saying you're talking yourself into that $75,000 on the F6Fs. But, let's see. I'm trying to understand what's behind that figure.

I don't have the Navy/Grumman contract on the F6F in my hip pocket but I might be able to manage to get one with some time and effort. Let's just call it I know people. If I do, of course, this thread is welcome to it. Short of that, this is how I have you on figuring these costs. Let's just keep this simple and compare as against these fly-ready, out-the-door P51s, which we have at $51,000 per machine. You're reasoning a fly-ready F6F couldn't have started at that price and through efficiencies of scale and hard negotiating ended up at $35,000 per machine, unless that was without the engine. Am I right about that? Is that all you've got? Or, is there more?

I'd also like to know what Joe thinks on whether it's conceivable these F6Fs ended up ferry-ready at $35,000. Joe, how about it? I'd take it an expert opinion. That's why it'd be important to know.
 
The only figure I can find for the Hellcat says it cost about $50,000 flyaway, probably late-war but noit so indicated. People who quote price usually take the lower number for some reason.

Also, the costs of many WWII items were sometimes reported minus GFE (government furnished equipment), such as engine, propeller, radios, and AGE (aerospace ground equipment) such as generators to help start a dead-battery aircraft and the like. Many times the government supplied the instruments so they would be standard, including gunsights and any radar / avionics that were used.

The Hellcat is not complicated and is easy to repair, but uses a complex engine (R-2800). To me, $50K seems very likely for the airframe minus the GFE cost but installed anyway.
 
Last edited:

I think the only way we can find out for sure is to see a contract, Again the $35,000 might have been per unit without GFE. Grumman may have also considered production numbers were they have a reduced profit margin but made up for it with units delivered. They could have also taken a slight loss per unit knowing that the real profits were going to be in after delivery support (spares). I'm speculating here but maybe someone can find info on Grumman's F6F contract with the Navy.
 
Me personally, i'd take the F6F. I'd much rather get shot at in a F6F than burnt up trying to get out of a Spitfire.
 
Ruud said:
Me personally, i'd take the F6F. I'd much rather get shot at in a F6F than burnt up trying to get out of a Spitfire.
Click to expand...

I didnt quite get this. Are you suggesting the Spitfire was more of a fire risk than the hellcat. Thats a first for me, if Im reading you correctly. If so, why do you say that?
 
The Spitfire was a lot of things ... but able to take punishment like an F6F, no way! The Spitfire is much more delicate than an F6F ... having sat in and worked on both (F6F-3 and Mk IX).

Nothing wrong with the Spit at all but, if I knew I were to be taking fire, I'd choose a Hellcat every time ... if given the choice. Anyone who wouldn't has simply never been inside both airframes. Just personal opinion. The R-2800 is renowned for taking battale damage and still flying home, even with a cylinder shot away. Can't say the same for the Merlin. The structure of the F6F is MUCH more rugged.
 
F6F is RUGGED. The Spitfire having the fuel tank sitting right in front of you... Every BoB RAF pilot's worst nightmare was being burned up while getting shot down.

Doesn't make one superior to the other. Just makes me want to pick the Hellcat as with my eyesight and reflexes, there is no way i am surviving for long in a dog fight.
 
well, we have these observatioons to go by, which is more than I can contribute. But what is a more scientific or methodical way to measure "ruggedness". I would suggest one way to approach this issue would be to compare airframe weights.....get rid of the engines, the armour, the fule, the armament.....what do the respective airframes weigh? Another good surrogate measure might be to know the number of fasteners...literally the numbers of nuts, bolts and rivets, used to hold the things together.

The Spit did have a reputation of being lightweight, or fragile, but ive wondered how that might be measured. I think it fair to say as well, that it probably also had a higher and better performance arc to the Hellcat, and probably a heavier punch. Which makes an aircraft more survivable....being able to absorb more punishment, or having the performance to get out of trouble in the first place. A lot of that is a function of the opposition and skills of the pilots flying the aircraft.
 
The Spitfire was a lot of things ... but able to take punishment like an F6F, no way! The Spitfire is much more delicate than an F6F
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you, Greg, the Hellcat could take a heck of beating by comparison to the Spitfire. Designed as a carrier aircraft this is a given.

I'd much rather get shot at in a F6F than burnt up trying to get out of a Spitfire.
Click to expand...

There's a certain flawed logic to this although its a bit like the excuse supporters of the Halifax use to compare their favourite to the Lancaster; you were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster. The response is, of course that you are also more likely to get shot down in a Halifax than in a Lancaster. (not saying that's the case between the Spit and F6F, before anyone misreads the comparison!)
 
Ruud said:
The Spitfire having the fuel tank sitting right in front of you... Every BoB RAF pilot's worst nightmare was being burned up while getting shot down.
Click to expand...

Didn't happen as much as you think because the Spitfire's fuel tanks were reasonably well protected with layers of "linatex", plus a fireproof bulkhead directly behind - however, because there was high octane avgas in close proximity to explosive devices, hot engines or bullets, some pilots did suffer. Unfortunately the Hurricane had a worse record because there was no fireproof bulkhead between the instrument panel and direct-feed fuel tank (the fuel from the wing tanks was pumped into the fuselage tank then to the engine) until late in the battle, after Dowding insisted that something be done, plus the lower cockpit was completely open to the wing root fuel tanks.

Agreed that the F6F was rugged cf the Spitfire, but it had the advantages of a structure made for heavy carrier operations, plus a radial engine and several years of operational experience behind the design. As with the usual myths of the Spitfire being hard to build, it wasn't as delicate as it looked.
 
Compared to the Zero or Oscar the Spitfire was a tank. Compared to the Hellcat it was made of tinfoil. Of course, you could argue that the the Spitfire's agility was its armor, but at the end of the day it depends on the opposition. I'd take the Spit in the ETO against the German fighters, and the Hellcat by a mile against the Zeros and Oscars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
8
Views
435
Snautzer01
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
Menu
Log in
Register