Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[Shortround6]

What is a 2 stage supercharger or a 2 speed 2 stage engine?

A two stage supercharger has one supercharger outlet blowing into the inlet of a second supercharger. The required pressure being built up in two stages rather than one.

At 23,000ft or so the Merlin two stage supercharger was compressing the air about 5.2 times what normal air pressure is at that altitude. No single stage supercharger could come close to that at the time.

 

[DonL]

All I can see is that this thread is starting to replicate the earlier one on the Hellcat and Corsair in Europe. Bottom line is that both were fine fighters and did exactly what was advertised on the box - the F6F was designed to beat the Japanese and that's exactly what it did; it was capable of beating or equaling the best carrier and land based fighters the Japanese could design, plus it could give the likes of the Fw 190 and mid-late Bf 109s a run for their money, which is no mean feat for a carrier based fighter loaded down with all the extra equipment, ruggedness and weight that the role entailed.

Do you have any substained data's for such a claim?
I have seriously my doubts that a F6F-3 or F6F-5 could match with the FW 190 A4, A6, A7, A8 and the Bf 109 G2, 6, 10, 14.
Both german a/c's are clearly faster and could outclimb the F6F every time besides other advantages.

After this report:
F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report

the Fw 190 A5 (a fighter bomber version) was superior to the F6F-3 except turning and no german fighter was ever a turn fighter. German tactics were boom and zoom and to fight in the vertical and not in the horizontal.
Where are the data's and numbers that a Hellcat could match with the fighter versions of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 G ?

 

[beitou]

A two stage supercharger has one supercharger outlet blowing into the inlet of a second supercharger. The required pressure being built up in two stages rather than one.

At 23,000ft or so the Merlin two stage supercharger was compressing the air about 5.2 times what normal air pressure is at that altitude. No single stage supercharger could come close to that at the time.

Thank you.

 

[Marcel]

Do you have any substained data's for such a claim?
I have seriously my doubts that a F6F-3 or F6F-5 could match with the FW 190 A4, A6, A7, A8 and the Bf 109 G2, 6, 10, 14.
Both german a/c's are clearly faster and could outclimb the F6F every time besides other advantages.

After this report:
F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report

the Fw 190 A5 (a fighter bomber version) was superior to the F6F-3 except turning and no german fighter were ever a turn fighter. German tactics were boom and zoom and to fight in the vertical and not in the horizontal.
Were are the data's and numbers that a Hellcat could match with the fighter versions of the Fw 190 and Bf 109 G ?

If I understand correctly, to give "a good run for their money" means that it was no sitting duck, the other aircraft realy have to work to beat it. It doesn't actually mean that it actually matched the other aircraft's performance.

 

[Readie]

Not really a fair comparison?

Fighter/interceptor. Spitfire.

I have to go with the defender of the realm.


Carrier borne bruiser. Hellcat

Cheers
John

 

[DonL]

If I understand correctly, to give "a good run for their money" means that it was no sitting duck, the other aircraft realy have to work to beat it. It doesn't actually mean that it actually matched the other aircraft's performance.

I agree, but where is then any reason to choose a Hellcat over a Spitfire?
As we know the Spitfire could match the german fighters or was superior.

To my estimation a Hellcat could possible match the performance of the Hurricane against the Bf109E, if at all.

To my opinion there is no question to choose, the Spitfire every time.

 

[Marcel]

I agree, but where is then any reason to choose a Hellcat over a Spitfire?
As we know the Spitfire could match the german fighters or was superior.

To my estimation a Hellcat could possible match the performance of the Hurricane against the Bf109E if ever.

To my opinion there no question to choose, the Spitfire every time.

except if you needed long legs and a carrier based aircraft.
I think both aircraft did well in their respective role. In that perspective you are absolutely right, there is no reason to prefer the Hellcat over the Spit in the ETO. On the other side, the Spitfire did not perform brilliantly better than the Hellcat against Japan. So in that case, I would say that there are no pressing arguments to choose the Spit over the Hellcat either.

The Hellcat did perform a whole lot better against the Japanese than the Hurricane, so I'm not so sure about your statement about that.

I should actually stay out of these kinds of pointless debates. How do you compare a steak to a potato?

 

[Readie]

How do you compare a steak to a potato?

Depends on the recipe and how good a cook you are I suppose
Bon Appetite
Cheers
John

 

[GregP]

Well Steve,

At 1771 air-to-air victories against 1758 combat losses in the ETO, the P-38 ranks third in USAAC fighter aircraft air-to-air kill-to-loss right behind the P-51 (4950 air-to-air victories against 2520 combat losses in the ETO) and the number one P-61 (58 air-to-air victories against 25 combat losses in the ETO).

Personally, I would tend to discount anything that didn't fly at least 20,000 sorties just to preclude the odd outliers. That would leave out the P-61, making the P-38 second to the P-51 with the P-47 coming in third (3082 air-to-air victories against 3077 combat losses) in the ETO.

All this, of course, ignores ground kills. If you want to include them, the numbers are available. I'm sure you have them or you wouldn't have posted the numbers. If you do, the P-38 ranks third in overall victories (all theaters combined) behind the P-51 and F6F, but the air-to-air best kill-to-loss ratio is still the F6F. The Buffalo in US service, more than 400 of them, had a combined victory total, all theaters included, of 13. Pitiful. The Beaufighter and Avenger did much better, and the P-39 was more than 10 times better in US service. So 10 Buffalos were about as effective as one P-39. As I said, pitiful.

They don't break out the P-51 kills into Allison and Merlin and they had completely different engines. All the FM-2 had was an uprated version of the same powerplant in the same airframe with the same propeller. Sorry, it is a Wildcat and belongs in the Wildcat family lumped with the F4F data.

If wanting a fair comparison makes me unreasonable, then I am. Circumstances don't matter; the people fought what they faced with what they had, and lower-priority theaters got the bottom of the barrel equipment. I'd much rather have the actual numbers. If looks could do it, then the MiG-3 would be up near the top instead of near the bottom.

I am not the boss in here and did not mean to imply I was, but it sure seems like asking for some substantiation generates a lot of sour grapes. So be it. If you can ever dig up some real numbers and substantiate them, maybe we can have some meaningful duscussions on actual versus fictional combat performance.

If not, be happy, it beats the converse.

 

[redcoat]

Well Steve,

At 1771 air-to-air victories against 1758 combat losses in the ETO, the P-38 ranks third in USAAC fighter aircraft air-to-air kill-to-loss right behind the P-51 (4950 air-to-air victories against 2520 combat losses in the ETO) and the number one P-61 (58 air-to-air victories against 25 combat losses in the ETO)..

Actually it's fourth, the Spifire in USAAF service in the ETO had a kill/loss ratio of 1.34:1

 

[VBF-13]

You are kidding, right? D'you expect us to take that seriously?

Nuuumannn, are you playing a game? I think you are. I think you're playing the How-Could-It-Have-Been-Improved game. I think that explains why you think I'm kidding. I'm not. You guys now even got me looking under the hood in that little game. I'm looking at what these Hellcats did. I'm looking at the very modest changes in the variations. Grumman got these aircraft good enough the first time around and it knew it and when to let good enough alone. That's all I was saying. I wasn't playing any game.

 

[GregP]

In US service the Spitfire ranks 8th in total victories (or 9th if you separate the F4F and FM-2) with 379, 15 of which came in the ETO. I don't have the Spitfire losses in US service broken out by theater. I have those data for the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-61, and A-36. Since the Spitfire only had 15 ETO victories in US service, I'd bet the action sorties are less than 20,000. That kind of takes it out of the running similar to the way I removed the P-61 due to not enough sorties to be significant.

Where did you find the losses for Spitfires in US service in the ETO?

In total victories for types in US service the worst was the Mosquito with 1 victory for the entire war scored in the MTO. The performance by the Mosquito is no doubt due to employment as a tactical and weather recinaissance platform and a bomber. We only got 40 Mosquitos from Canada and slighty more than 100 from Great Britain. The majority were bombers or recon platforms and weren't armed. I do not know the circumstances of the victory, but being unarmed doesn't make for a lot of air-to-air kills.

 

[Glider]

If I remember correctly it was an air to air collision whilst the Mosquito was taking evasive manoeuvers. The 109 didn't make it home but the mossie did

 

[wuzak]

In US service the Spitfire ranks 8th in total victories (or 9th if you separate the F4F and FM-2) with 379, 15 of which came in the ETO. I don't have the Spitfire losses in US service broken out by theater. I have those data for the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-61, and A-36. Since the Spitfire only had 15 ETO victories in US service, I'd bet the action sorties are less than 20,000. That kind of takes it out of the running similar to the way I removed the P-61 due to not enough sorties to be significant.

Sorry Greg, in one statement you say that the Spitfire had 379 victories in US service, then say it only had 15 in the ETO and make your success assumptions based on that.

20,000 sorties - that seems a number used to make the field very narrow. How many aircraft in US service achieved 20,000+ sorties?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Sorry Greg, in one statement you say that the Spitfire had 379 victories in US service, then say it only had 15 in the ETO and make your success assumptions based on that.

I have also seen 394 claims credited to Spitfires in USAAF service.

The vast majority of USAAF Spitfire kills were achieved in the MTO, with the 31st and the 52nd Fighter Groups. 194.5 were credited as confirmed, 39 probables and 124 damaged to the 31st, the 52nd claimed 152.33 confirmed, 22 probables and 71 damaged.

8th AF Spitfires flying with the 4th Figher Group claimed either 13 or 15 air to air kills. I've seen both figures used in a variety of official sources, so I'm not sure which is more accurate. 8th AF Spitfire losses were are generally given as either three or four lost to air to air fire, and another 11 lost to ground fire. There were also five other losses on ops, due to mechanical failures or accidents, and two losses on the ground.

There were also eight losses and two claims while USAAF squadrons were temporarily attached to the RAF.

ETO/MTO combined loss list gives 244 Spitfire losses while in USAAF use, to all causes. At a quick look, I can find 52 losses to air to air causes and another 90 where cause is not listed.

 

[wuzak]

Sorry, I should have made my point clearer Jabberwocky. Greg was discounting the Spitfire win/loss ratio based on the 15 kills in the ETO, not the overall record of 379-394 kills by USAAF Spitfires.

 

[VBF-13]

If they had got it right first time, wouldn't all Hellcats have subsequently been powered by R-2600s instead of R-2800s?

Correction, then. They got it right the F6F-3rd time, lol.

They got it right the the first time because they were practically handed the R-2800 with two stage supercharger on a plate.

Actually Grumman did an exceptional job, but then they had already done several design studies of planes powered by R-2600s. They had the R-2800 with two stage supercharger for the F4U already well along in development.

They were NOT trying to adapt a 1000hp plane to a 1500-2000hp engine. They were NOT saddled with engine that had a long and tortured development.

ANY successful airplane needs a good designer or team, a good engine, timing and a fair amount of luck.

Luck in being designed at the right time, luck in freedom from crashes in early development (or purchasers that will over look that), luck in availability of parts and accessories and luck in a whole lot of areas.

Sometimes luck in the form of other companies being able to take-over production/responsibilities to allow concentration on a new design.

You play the hand you're dealt. That is to say I'm not taking anything away from the Spitfire. On luck, I'm sorry, I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing that. The FMs and TBMs, of course, happened in order to free up Bethpage.

 

[Aozora]

I agree, but where is then any reason to choose a Hellcat over a Spitfire?
As we know the Spitfire could match the german fighters or was superior.

To my estimation a Hellcat could possible match the performance of the Hurricane against the Bf109E, if at all.

To my opinion there is no question to choose, the Spitfire every time.

I made myself perfectly clear "Bottom line is that both were fine fighters and did exactly what was advertised on the box" And no I didn't say the Hellcat could beat the German fighters, but neither would it have been easy meat, as some seem to imply, which was no mean feat for a carrier based fighter which was not designed for the purpose of beating the 109 or 190.

As a land-based fighter the Spitfire, from Mk VIII onwards, wins.

As an all-round carrier fighter the F6F was only really beaten by the F4U...

 

[buffnut453]

Well it seems my deliberate attempt to be ironic was taken waaayyy too literally and created quite a kerfuffle. However, the "simple maths" is now looking more complex as we caveat it by a minimum number of sorties and as a cross-section of entire aircraft production (although I'm not sure the latter is entirely valid - combat sorties, yes, but aircraft production isn't entirely relevant since many aircraft never actually flew on combat operations).

Ah well, must learn to be less subtle next time and put big, flashing "I'M ONLY JOKING" signs at the beginning and end of my post.

 

[VBF-13]

I agree, but where is then any reason to choose a Hellcat over a Spitfire?

Bombing, Don. Do you see this? The "G" is for bombing. It constituted half the hours in this one month of training. "F," gunnery, was the easy part. As a fighter, the ETO probably didn't need the Hellcat, you're probably right about that.