Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What is a 2 stage supercharger or a 2 speed 2 stage engine?
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.
Thank you.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.
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.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.
except if you needed long legs and a carrier based aircraft.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.
How do you compare a steak to a potato?
Actually it's fourth, the Spifire in USAAF service in the ETO had a kill/loss ratio of 1.34:1Well 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)..
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.You are kidding, right? D'you expect us to take that seriously?
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.
Correction, then. They got it right the F6F-3rd time, lol.If they had got it right first time, wouldn't all Hellcats have subsequently been powered by R-2600s instead of R-2800s?
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.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.
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.
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...
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.I agree, but where is then any reason to choose a Hellcat over a Spitfire?