Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
All the advantages stated by BiffF15 would still be applicable in a Mark IX or VIII, albiet less pronounced. However, available more than a year before the first Hellcats.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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...
...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....
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
OMG! Those last few pages were....... entertaining??!!?? For the record, Wikipedia as a source for your opinion will give you a very, very poor and ultimately wrong opinion!
I'm gonna play Devil's advocate and say you might have missed one, Parsifal!
Trägergruppe 186 was also operational in the early days of the war before finally becoming StG 1.
Hey parsifal, where did you find the minimum turn radius for the Spitfire ... or the Hellcat?
I haven't seen those tests and would like to do so.
Thanks!
You are probably right about being on opposite sides of the fence.
Minimum turn radius has everything to do with the strength of the airframe and the excess power. For instance, the airframe might well handle, say. +6 g, but the aircraft might not have enough excess power to stay level in a 6 g turn. If so, then he can stay level at 6 g. If not, he descends to maintain speed and g or backs off on the g's until he CAN stay level. I am under the very strong impression that no WWII fighter aircraft had enough excess power to handle a sustained 6 g turn, and would love to find out I am wrong from some hard data.
So, while I might believe differently from you, I don't really have hard data to argue with.
Therefore, I wanted to read the reports and see for myself. If the data exist, it would be good to have. I'll start digging on it.
Cheers.
Rolls of the Zeke 52 were equal to those of the F6F-5 at speeds under 200 knots and inferior above that speed, due to high control forces.
The Zeke 52 was greatly superior to the F6F-5 in slow speed turns at low and medium altitudes, its advantage decreasing to about parity at 30,000 ft. In slow speed turns it could gain one turn in 3 and 1/2 at 10,000 ft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
OMG! Those last few pages were....... entertaining??!!?? For the record, Wikipedia as a source for your opinion will give you a very, very poor and ultimately wrong opinion!
Ok call me a heretic, then...Just listen to that growling throaty roar. if you are not moved by that, you have no soul people
Ok call me a heretic, then...
To me, there's nothing more moving than the sound of a radial engine at work!
Ok call me a heretic, then...
To me, there's nothing more moving than the sound of a radial engine at work!
I love both the V-12's and the radial sounds. So. I'm with you on both accounts. My favorite fighters were radials ... unless I happen to be next to a V-12 at the time, then I'm not so sure.
So, I'm one of those guys who never met a high-performance aircraft he didn't like.
As to which turns best or which WAS the best at some mission, it will NEVER be settled, but we ALL want to see them fly anytime was can see it and, better yet, hitch a ride.
I wasn't the biggest P-40 fan unit I got a ride in one. Now I love them! ... and can't wait for the next one.
Call me names.
- Greg