Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

Glider said:
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?

I was wondering that too.

Shortround6 · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
I read the Hellcat cost 35k

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 · Mar 31, 2014

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.

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

Shortround6 said:
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.

Well, once again Wikipedia lies

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

Totalize said:
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.

I am positive the Hellcat even with everything does not cost $500,000 each

Garyt · Mar 31, 2014

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?

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.

redcoat · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
I can't see where the Spitfire has an advantage
Hellcat=376 mph
Spitfire=363 mph

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.

stona · Mar 31, 2014

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

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

Garyt said:
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.

Thanks for that! That helps me a lot

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

redcoat said:
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.

I would still take the Hellcat. In my opinion, the Hellcat is WAAAAAAY prettier and way tougher

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

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.

Garyt · Mar 31, 2014

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

In principle I fully agree - give me 4x20mm any day vs a .50 cal setup.

When you look at a 2x20mm mixed with 7.x mm machine guns - it gets a lot closer.

USS Enterprise CV-6 · Mar 31, 2014

redcoat said:
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.

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 · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
The Hellcat had more scores then the Spitty.

Care to provide some evidence for that statement?

Aozora · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
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.

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 · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
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.

How much armour did the two aircraft carry.

redcoat · Mar 31, 2014

USS Enterprise CV-6 said:
the Hellcat is WAAAAAAY prettier

I can't make up my mind on whether you are blind, deluded, or merely insane.

Garyt · Mar 31, 2014

The Hellcat had more scores then the Spitty. That is the bottom line here.

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 · Mar 31, 2014

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.

Garyt · Mar 31, 2014

I've just re-thought my position.

he Hellcat had more scores then the Spitty. That is the bottom line here.

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.

Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

Airman

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Airman

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Major

Airman

Airman

Airman

Senior Airman

Airman

Captain

Staff Sergeant

1st Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Major General

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads