Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[GregP]

I would suggest it wasn't and they weren't. They were not carrier-capable and didn't have range. The Hellcat could turn with a Zero for at least PART of a complete turn and the Spitfire, in most versions, could not.

So ... again, if I were flying from a land base, I might choose a Spitfire or a Hellcat (Hellcat for me and Spitifre for others), but it would be a Hellcat hands down if I were flying from a carrier and needed to go more than a short distance and actually land back aboard.

 

[wuzak]

Being on a carrier is the only reason to prefer a Hellcat.

Spitfires could out-turn the Zero - provided it was flown at speed favourable to the Spitfire.

 

[GregP]

Things are not always provided.

As Saburo Sakai knew very well.

The F6F was EXPERT at shooting down the opposition, is large quantities.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey, there was 2 versions of the Hellcat: F6F-3 and F6F-5 (not including the night fighter version). There was a lot (don't know exactly, but you do) of Spits. It would come down to the skill of the pilot and the determination. A TBF Avenger could take out a B-29, if it was a good enough version. Also, it says, "Which would you rather go into combat in?" And I would prefer the Hellcat

And there were 23 or 24 versions of the Spitfire, navalized versions as well as high altitude versions. You're talking a lot of nonsense to people who have not only been in this community for many years but who also have worked on and flown airplanes INCLUDING some of these same warbirds, so unless you have some real world experience aside from your meaningless opinions, I suggest you sit down and shut up, you might learn something!!!!

I'm going to tolerate your youthful antics and novice comments for the time being but I suggest, as a newbe you read some of the forum rules before you go shooting your mouth off about things you know little or nothing about.

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

And there were 23 or 24 versions of the Spitfire, navalized versions as well as high altitude versions. You're talking a lot of nonsense to people who have not only been in this community for many years but who also have worked on and flown airplanes INCLUDING some of these same warbirds, so unless you have some real world experience aside from your meaningless opinions, I suggest you sit down and shut up, you might learn something!!!!

I'm going to tolerate your youthful antics and novice comments for the time being but I suggest, as a newbe you read some of the forum rules before you go shooting your mouth off about things you know little or nothing about.

Hey, the question simply says, "Which would you rather take into combat?" And all I am saying is that I would prefer the Hellcat. Why am I not allowed to have an opinion exactly?
Not trying to be rude, but why am I not allowed to?

 

[BiffF15]

USS Enterprise,

This is a great forum and yes you are allowed to post your opinons. The part that makes this a great forum is the seriously large amount of coporate knowledge on tap here. Realize when (not if) you post an opinon it might be challenged by someone usually using referencing or having actual first hand data. I've changed my opinon (gained new knowledge) on many things since I started participating here.

Look at this as a place of learning, and where your opinons will get vetted (proved or disapproved). I have stated things on here and have been "jumped". I learned to make my point in the form of a question, or do more homework after being questioned. Don't take it as a personal attack, take it as a comparision of opinons backed up with references.

The majority of folks on here are great and regardless if I disagree I learn something in the process!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hey, the question simply says, "Which would you rather take into combat?" And all I am saying is that I would prefer the Hellcat. Why am I not allowed to have an opinion exactly?
Not trying to be rude, but why am I not allowed to?

USS Enterprise,

This is a great forum and yes you are allowed to post your opinons. The part that makes this a great forum is the seriously large amount of coporate knowledge on tap here. Realize when (not if) you post an opinon it might be challenged by someone usually using referencing or having actual first hand data. I've changed my opinon (gained new knowledge) on many things since I started participating here.

Look at this as a place of learning, and where your opinons will get vetted (proved or disapproved). I have stated things on here and have been "jumped". I learned to make my point in the form of a question, or do more homework after being questioned. Don't take it as a personal attack, take it as a comparision of opinons backed up with references.

The majority of folks on here are great and regardless if I disagree I learn something in the process!

Cheers,
Biff

Kid - listen to Biff, BTW he used to drive F-15s, again you might learn something.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree. I would rather take the Hellcat for a CV and Spitty from the land. I mean, I love the Hellcat, but it wasn't as good operating from a ground base as the Spitty.

What does it matter if it is flying from a carrier top, or from ground base? Once its in the air it operates the same?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I still think the Hellcat could shred the Spitty, because it can if I think it can

What?

 

[stona]

What does it matter if it is flying from a carrier top, or from ground base? Once its in the air it operates the same?

Getting a Spitfire/Seafire back on the carrier would be one of the challenges I wouldn't fancy Definitely not an easy aeroplane to operate from carriers, it wasn't designed for that.

Carriers also have a nasty tendency to be surrounded by vast tracts of ocean which, given the Spitfire's limited range, is also not something I'd be terribly excited about

You are right of course that once in the air it makes no difference, which is why I went for the better dogfighter, the Spitfire, in a post about 1,000 years ago.

Cheers

Steve

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

FLYBOYJ

I am allowed to have my opinion and you may have yours. It is an opinion question and there is no wrong answer.

I respect your opinions and ask you respect mine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FLYBOYJ

I am allowed to have my opinion and you may have yours. It is an opinion question and there is no wrong answer.

I respect your opinions and ask you respect mine.

It's all good - but be prepared to back up your opinions. Again I suggest you READ some of the posts for new members and UNDERSTAND how we work here...

 

[parsifal]

Hellcat turn radius at its optimum combat speeds was about 670 feet. optimum turn radius for a spitfire @ 12000 feet and at sustained speeds in excess of 300 mph was 676 ft. On the face of it, the Hellcat can out turn a spitfire (by about a smidgeon), but we are not comparing apples to apples here. The speeds art which the Spitfire is making that turn are significantly greater than for Hellcat. If you compare the turn radius at similar speeds, the Spitfire will out turn the Hellcat by a comfortable margin.

RAAF tests conducted in 1943 after the drubbing it received at the hands of the A6M3 revealed that at lower speeds, the Zeke could easily out turn the Spit, but at higher speeds the tables were turned and the Spit could sustain a turn rate equal to or better than the Zeke. this was never matched by the Hellcat, except at speeds that the Zeke couldnt even be flown at.

There is no question in my mind, the Spitfire was a more manouverable plane in the horizontal plane.

Hellcat always held a range advantage over the Spit, but not by much. In 1945, when the BPF committed Hellcats, Corsairs and Seafire IIIs to the battles off Japan, Hellcats and Corsairs were found to have an effective combat radius of just over 230 miles. Seafires were 175 miles. The Seafire XV, which just missed the war, had comparable range to the Hellcat, whilst the Seafire 47 had greater effective combat radius and endurance to the F6F

One of the great pieces of misinformation relates to the Seafire accident rates. When first deployed, in 1942-3 it suffered an attrocious accident rate. This was found to be be related to :

1) Pilot inexperience with the type and hurried conversion training
2) Placement of the type on escort carriers which lacked deck length and the ship speed to get enough wind under the wings of the Seafire to make operations safe and reliable. hellcats were generally not operated from the decks of escort carriers
3) related to the above the low wind conditions into which they were first operated contributed to a high attrition rate
4) weak land gear which frequently failed in landings

Seafire IIIs operating with the BPF in 1945 were exclusively operated from the decks of fleet carriers, which levels up the playing field vis a viz the Hellcat operations. A lot of time was spent in preparing the air crew to using the type, and the new version of the Seafire had revised landing gear. wind conditions, deck spaces and ship speed were all much better suited to the characteristics of the Seafire than the CVEs that it was first placed on. Such was the success of these changes, the Seafire IIIs in the 1945 operations that the type enjoyed the lowest attrition rate of the three fighter types used by the BPF, and given that attrition rates in the BPF were about the same as the USN overall, this brings into focus that the Spitfire, properly prepred, was at least as good as the hellcat in deck handling operations.

Seafires were found by the BPF to be the most effective weapon against the Japanese suicide aircraft, the superior firepower and better low altitude handling and performance of the Seafire being particularly useful.

There is no question both types had their strengths and their weaknesses, and each type contributed greatly to the allied victory. However after the war, a lot of hyperbole has been written about both types , but in particular the hellcat, for which its proponents cannot be persuaded away from.



0 ,

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

Kid - listen to Biff, BTW he used to drive F-15s, again you might learn something.....

How do you know my age?

I could be older then you

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How do you know my age?

I could be older then you

Ok, enough - take a few days off and come back when you pull your head out of your butt.

 

[parsifal]

that was a train wreck waiting to happen

 

[parsifal]

What does it matter if it is flying from a carrier top, or from ground base? Once its in the air it operates the same?

in terms of the engineering issues, absolutely correct, but in terms of tactics and role, it is not necessarily the case the naval fighter has exactly the same role as a land based fighter.

The theory at least is that a land based fighter is basically an air denial weapon. its there to either try and deny control of the airspace to an enemy intruder. if operating in an offensive role, its there to win air supremacy, or failing that air superiority.

For carrier based aircraft, only once in WWII was a naval based carrier air group tasked with actually winning air superiority on a permanent basis, and that was off the coast of japan in 1945. At other times the naval fighter when used offensively was tasked with temporarily suppressing enemy airspace whilst something specific was achieved by the strike aircraft. Examples of that might be the raids over Rabaul or Truk. When operating defensively, which was the more usual role, the aim was to deny control of airspace over the Task Force, and the most important role in that scenario was not to engage and destroy enemy fighters so much, in the manner of land based air, but to above all else, to get in and destroy the enemy strike aircraft or at least prevent them from attacking effectively. Phil sea was a classic example of that.

The difference is subtle, i know, buts its real, and it is significant

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Getting a Spitfire/Seafire back on the carrier would be one of the challenges I wouldn't fancy Definitely not an easy aeroplane to operate from carriers, it wasn't designed for that.

Carriers also have a nasty tendency to be surrounded by vast tracts of ocean which, given the Spitfire's limited range, is also not something I'd be terribly excited about

You are right of course that once in the air it makes no difference, which is why I went for the better dogfighter, the Spitfire, in a post about 1,000 years ago.

Cheers

Steve

I agree.

He however was saying that a Hellcat does not operate well from a land base...

 

[gjs238]

Kid - listen to Biff, BTW he used to drive F-15s, again you might learn something.....

 

[BiffF15]

I think I would pick a Spit Mk14 with the bubble canopy.

Pros:
Spit - faster, lighter, better power to weight ratio, more maneuverable, better visibility
Hellcat - legs, air cooled engine

If the fight requried both aircraft to take off and fly a long distance prior to their engagement then the Hellcat could fight longer. If the fight allowed both to takeoff at light fuel weights then the advantage I would think would go more to the Spit (power to weight would be greater).

Regardless of the altitude the fight starts the lower it goes I think the greater the advantage the Spitfire will have (lighter weight / wing loading) and it should have a speed advantage as well.

Of course this is my opinon but I welcome disenting points of view.

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I think it might be a bit more "even" of a fight between the F8F Bearcat and the late model Spit...