Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[cimmex]

I have that book concerning the restoration at Smithsonian too. Indeed the plane was obviously converted from an A-7 to F-8 standard. One old W-Nr was found when all the paint was stripped down but the book gives no hint to any combat damage. BTW the plane was count as new plane in the inventory list…
cimmex

 

[DonL]

This is the difference in german statistic between built and despose (here, reconstruction and repair count too), but from my logic, you can only loosse an a/c one time. Because also the repaired or reconstructed a/c is the old one built a/c and not an other one.

If one a/c (for example Nr. 1000) was three times heavily damaged and got three times a big indusrty repair, this are not three losses to my logic, it is a loss, when it is not anymore repaired but scraped.

So I disagree with Njaco.

 

[BiffF15]

This is the difference in german statistic between built and despose (here, reconstruction and repair count too), but from my logic, you can only loosse an a/c one time. Because also the repaired or reconstructed a/c is the old one built a/c and not an other one.

If one a/c (for example Nr. 1000) was three times heavily damaged and got three times a big indusrty repair, this are not three losses to my logic, it is a loss, when it is not anymore repaired but scraped.

DonL,

I'm on the fence regarding how a military accounts for an airplane. If a plane is shot down, say he dead sticks it in, and is subsequently repaired and flown then:

Does the "kill" get rescinded? Does the opposing force count that plane as destroyed and the repaired one as "new"? Does the military that owened the airplane never strike it off or does it?

The reason I ask is I've seen the USAF take two different F-15's, that suffered some event, and "mate" the good sections together to make an aircraft they put back in the inventory. How would you handle that accounting wise?

Cheers,
Biff

 

[buffnut453]

Kill still counts. Repaired aircraft are considered "new" but typically the measure is available front-line strength rather than a total profit/loss count across a country's aircraft manufacturing and air combat activities.

 

[DonL]

DonL,

I'm on the fence regarding how a military accounts for an airplane. If a plane is shot down, say he dead sticks it in, and is subsequently repaired and flown then:

Does the "kill" get rescinded? Does the opposing force count that plane as destroyed and the repaired one as "new"? Does the military that owened the airplane never strike it off or does it?

The reason I ask is I've seen the USAF take two different F-15's, that suffered some event, and "mate" the good sections together to make an aircraft they put back in the inventory. How would you handle that accounting wise?

Cheers,
Biff

Hi Biff, very interesting questions.

For your F15 example, to me one a/c is lost and one is repaired, which one depends on the manufactor and which indenfication number the new one is flying.

The other question is tricky and I think it is the issue why I started the discussion with parsifal.

If someone claimed an Airforce had over 150000 total losses to all causes, but only 123000 a/c's were built something is wrong. If you count/add the repair and reconstruction numbers, the numbers will nearly match and perhaps are accurate.
But at which time then you specify a loss as a loss? Everytime an a/c will be send back to the industry to got a repair (so it is for tihs time out of service)?

For example, Marseille's 17 killes at one day, are heavily discussed all over the world and many people didn't accept that 17 kills, because 4-5 aircrafts managed to got back heavily or very heavily damaged, some were written off some were reapaired.

A written off a/c is to me a loss, a repared a/c is to me no loss from logic.

 

[BiffF15]

Hi Biff, very interesting questions.

For your F15 example, to me one a/c is lost and one is repaired, which one depends on the manufactor and which indenfication number the new one is flying.

The other question is tricky and I think it is the issue why I started the discussion with parsifal.

If someone claimed an Airforce had over 150000 total losses to all causes, but only 123000 a/c's were built something is wrong. If you count/add the repair and reconstruction numbers, the numbers will nearly match and perhaps are accurate.
But at which time then you specify a loss as a loss? Everytime an a/c will be send back to the industry to got a repair (so it is for tihs time out of service)?

For example, Marseille's 17 killes at one day, are heavily discussed all over the world and many people didn't accept that 17 kills, because 4-5 aircrafts managed to got back heavily or very heavily damaged, some were written off some were reapaired.

A written off a/c is to me a loss, a repared a/c is to me no loss from logic.

DonL,

I'm in agreement that in the event two aircraft are "created" from one, that the flying example carries the tail number from one of the two. However, in this case (I don't know how the USAF did it's accounting), both aircraft I would think were scratched off the list. Once the parts and pieces were turned into a flying airplane again then the tail number used would have to be "un-written" off.

If an Air Force claims to have destroyed more aircraft than available then I would think something was wrong with the math. However, I could see where parts are pooled and flyable aircraft rise from the ashes. In this case I would think if it was destroyed again, it would count as another airframe from a "post engagement view". An example is two planes get shot up and crash land. Both were witnessed to crash land and are passed as "kills" to the pilots who shot them down. Those two aircraft are then "recycled" into a flyable airframe which subsequently gets shot down again. Do you take away a kill from the previous guys, or not "award" one to the third pilot? I would think all three get kills awarded. One version of accounting. The military whose pilots did the shooting down would account for three aircraft "destroyed", and the military who lost those aircraft would count either two or three losses. I would count it as three losses but that's just my view, and that's based on how not how many I got from the factory, but how many aircraft I lost to combat operations. These are my opine only.

As for Marseille's kill record (17 in a day). If the planes landed then I would think it's not a kill, if they crashlanded (not on the airfield) then I would think it's a kill. I've read that the allied records do not support his 17 in a day claims but have not seen any proof.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Hellcat or Spitfire?

If I were flying in the PTO I would choose the Hellcat. If I were flying in Europe, then the Spit.

However, if it were up to me I would probably have been flying a P-51 with the Griffon motor / contra prop configuratin, equipped with both GM-1 and MW-50... in 1942!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[drgondog]

As I mentioned earlier, the Mission-primary and Mission-secondary are the determinants.

Air superiority fighter - all altitudes then Spitfire within 200 mile radius, from 200 to 350 - Hellcat
Recon - Spitfire
Fighter Bomber - Hellcat
Fleet bomber escort (10,000 to 15K) - Hellcat only because of range advantage.
Fighter Sweeps within 300 miles - Spit
Dogfighter any altitude - Spit

 

[Glider]

Showing my age here, but I get liking a post and unliking a post, but can someone tell me what Give me bacon is supposed to imply?

 

[Airframes]

Ah, that's for really liking a post!

 

[parsifal]

Kill still counts. Repaired aircraft are considered "new" but typically the measure is available front-line strength rather than a total profit/loss count across a country's aircraft manufacturing and air combat activities.

Id never thought of that.....it might account, at least in part, th chronic mismatch in losses and numbers that applies to all nattionalities. My previous posts related clearly to claims and not confirmed kills...I did that because the Hellcats claims are very clearly laid out in the USN post war report on claims (and this has since been very heavily challenged, because it does not reconcile to Japanese records). The same will, i expect, apply to the RAFs claims against the Luftwaffe. The claims will be greater than the actual losses, and, now that you have clarified the issue of multiple kills can occur on the same airframe.

I should have cottoned onto this earlier. Many times aircraft are "written off" but are salvaged to create a "new aircraft. Sometimes this mighht inolve canibalisation of one damed airframe to ressurrect two other airframes written off.

it explains a lot for me.

 

[Aozora]

I should have cottoned onto this earlier. Many times aircraft are "written off" but are salvaged to create a "new aircraft. Sometimes this mighht inolve canibalisation of one damed airframe to ressurrect two other airframes written off.

it explains a lot for me.

Here's an interesting article on the logistics of the RAF during the Battle of Britain; the comments about the civilian repair depots are interesting:

View attachment Logistics of Battle of Britain.pdf

An aircraft which looks like a wreck could be repaired:

And end up looking like this...

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

I can't see where the Spitfire has an advantage
Hellcat=376 mph
Spitfire=363 mph
Hellcat Night Fighter=2x20mm cannons, 4x.50 caliber machine guns
Spitfire=2x20mm cannons, 4x.303 Lewis Machine Guns
Weren't the .50 caliber guns better then the .303s?

 

[Shortround6]

Spitfires used Lewis Machine guns?

 

[rochie]

Spitfires used Lewis Machine guns?

Yup co pilot climbed out onto wings to reload them !

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

i'd take the spit. i know of a mustang pilot who while coming back from a mission over the channel saw a spit on patrol and decided to play with the guy and bounced him. the spit ended up playing with him instead. he walked away with a little more humility and a lot more respect for that plane.

Yes, and since when does a P-51 have legs?

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

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.

I read the Hellcat cost 35k

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

I still like the Hellcat better

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

Yup co pilot climbed out onto wings to reload them !

Sorry, I read wrong. It said 4x.303 Browning Machine guns, not Lewis

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

I would go for the Hellcat for everywhere. I read the Hellcat had quite a bit more armor then the Spitty