USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
I was wondering that too.
Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Nice trick, In 1943 an R-2800-51 (C-46 engine with two speed/single stage supercharger) could cost $26,400.00 depending on contract. Throw in the prop, machine guns, radios and instruments and Grumman must have been giving the plane away.
AN F6F may have cost 35k but that would be for just the bare airframe, without government furnished equipment (GFE). GFE included engines, props, radios, some instruments, armament( guns) and some other parts.
Totalize
Tech Sergeant
I seem to recall a statement from the great John Wayne in Flying leathernecks (yes I know its just a movie) something to the effect (I am paraphrasing) that his pilots better take care of their (hellcat) machines as they cost the taxpayer's $500,000 each. If you multiply that by x15 in today's dollars that would make each plane ~$7.5Million each.
As for which I a/c I would take, the operational requirements and environment each operated in were quite different from each other. For Europe the Spit is the better choice hands down but for the pacific I would choose the Hellcat. Actually, I would choose the Corsair but thats not a choice here.
As for which I a/c I would take, the operational requirements and environment each operated in were quite different from each other. For Europe the Spit is the better choice hands down but for the pacific I would choose the Hellcat. Actually, I would choose the Corsair but thats not a choice here.
Last edited:
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
Well, once again Wikipedia lies
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
I am positive the Hellcat even with everything does not cost $500,000 each
You know, what armnament is better is a real tough question that seems to be tough to answer.
What I use as a real, real rough method is 2 .50 cal = 1 20mm, 2 .303 cal = 1 .50 cal
Again, real real rough. Not all 20 mm's are created equal - the earlier Zero's 20mm's were plagued by low velocity and a bit low rate of fire compared to other 20's. Not to mention they did not have ballistic properties close to their other machgine guns. Look at the German 30mm MK108 with the "mine shell" ammor - good rate of fire, low velocity, and a huge explosive load compared to other shells. The low velocity makes perhaps not the best against fighters, but against bombers it would seem to be a great weapon.
But by far most Hellcats carried the 6 50's. The Spit's 20mm Hispano was a pretty good weapon for rate of fire and velocity, so I'd put them close to equal.
A couple other things to consider - cowl mounted guns were marginally more effective than wing mounted ones to to harmonization issues, and there is an advantage of having weapons with the exact same ballistic qualities as well. and we have not even touched on magazine capacity, measured in how many seconds you can fire on target.
If you are comparing a Spitfire and the Hellcat, which first became operational in 1943, the earliest Mark of Spitfire you should use is the IX with a top speed of 408 mph which became operational in mid 1942.
Last edited:
Cannon were the more effective armament. Only the US persisted with machine guns by the end of the war but then they were trying to shoot down fighters, not bombers and the .50calibre machine gun did this perfectly well. The British may have been too by 1944/5 but their move to cannon had occurred earlier.
Whereas Typhoons and Tempests were cannon armed many later Spitfires used cannon in combination with .50 calibre machine guns, not .303,in the 'E' wing. Mk 21 onward carried 4 x 20mm cannon.
You can debate the relative penetration and efficiency as much as you like, but there is a reason why, post war, cannon superceded machine guns entirely.
Cheers
Steve
Whereas Typhoons and Tempests were cannon armed many later Spitfires used cannon in combination with .50 calibre machine guns, not .303,in the 'E' wing. Mk 21 onward carried 4 x 20mm cannon.
You can debate the relative penetration and efficiency as much as you like, but there is a reason why, post war, cannon superceded machine guns entirely.
Cheers
Steve
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
Thanks for that! That helps me a lot
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
I would still take the Hellcat. In my opinion, the Hellcat is WAAAAAAY prettier and way tougher
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
The Hellcat had more scores then the Spitty. That is the bottom line here. Hellcat was more effective, and was a fighter. I read (maybe not reliable, but maybe) that the Spitty was supposed to be an intercepter and had way less range then the Hellcat.
USS Enterprise CV-6
Airman
This is a matter of opionin. What the Hellcat lacks in speed it makes up for in armor. What the Spitfire lacks in armor is makes up for in speed. It would come down to the skill of the pilot. If the pilots were both rookies, with the same level of training but on the different aircraft, it would just come down to luck or which one you like better.
buffnut453
Captain
Care to provide some evidence for that statement?
No argument the F6F was a high scoring fighter. Then again, the Hellcat did not have to fight against fighters of similar performance in a Battle of Britain, nor did it spend a couple of years flying over France and the Low Countries in a situation where the enemy held a tactical advantage, nor was it used in a theatre where its primary role was that of a low-altitude tactical fighter-bomber. Different scenarios, so hard to compare relative scores so easily.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
How much armour did the two aircraft carry.
I can't make up my mind on whether you are blind, deluded, or merely insane.
I find it difficult to give much credit to kills a fighter gets when over 10% of it's kills were from a battle called a "Turkey Shoot"
OK, maybe not fully 10%, some of those Japanese planes were destroyed by AA fire as well. But close to 10% none the less.
In all seriousness though, these kills came from a target rich enviroment like the Pacific in which the Hellcats usually outnumbered the opposition, had great advantages in pilot training, and logistics advantages as well. IIRC if a Zero had a pilot of decent skill flying it, they were competitive against the Hellcat.
The Harlem Globetrotters have the best record of any professional basketball team for the last 30 years or so - but if you always play the Washington Generals, you SHOULD have the best record in sports.
Shortround6
Major General
In a dogfight with both planes close to base the Hellcat is in trouble. It is slower, can't climb as well, neither one has a real advantage in dive ( one may start quicker but be limited in top dive speed?), but the Spitfire can turn better. Hellcat is running out of options.
Armor can keep you from becoming dead, it often does NOT allow you to continue the fight with performance unimpaired. A couple of holes almost a foot across from 20mm shells in either fuselage or wing WILL slow you down even if they do no other damage.
Spitfire pilot has several choices for breaking combat almost at will. The F6F pilot does not.
The F6F is a lot better at a number of other jobs than the Spitfire though.
Armor can keep you from becoming dead, it often does NOT allow you to continue the fight with performance unimpaired. A couple of holes almost a foot across from 20mm shells in either fuselage or wing WILL slow you down even if they do no other damage.
Spitfire pilot has several choices for breaking combat almost at will. The F6F pilot does not.
The F6F is a lot better at a number of other jobs than the Spitfire though.
I've just re-thought my position.
I agree. Now, the ME109 Had more kills than any other fighter, there are a handful of numbers out there but even using conservative numbers it had well over 10,000 kills, including a 25:1 loss ratio for Finnish flown aircraft.
So therefore, based on judging planes by their kills, the ME109 was at least twice as good as any Aliied fighter.
I agree. Now, the ME109 Had more kills than any other fighter, there are a handful of numbers out there but even using conservative numbers it had well over 10,000 kills, including a 25:1 loss ratio for Finnish flown aircraft.
So therefore, based on judging planes by their kills, the ME109 was at least twice as good as any Aliied fighter.
