Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[VBF-13]

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.

Let that be a lesson for you. When you imply by comparison the Hellcat was ugly, those are fighting words.

 

[GregP]

Hi Wuzak,

Regarding post #74, I have 15 victories in the ETO and 364 in the MTO for Spitfires in US service.

I only have ETO sortie data for seven types (listed previously). The highest was the P-47 at 423,435 combat sorties. All the rest have more than 23,000 sorties except for the P-61 which only flew 3,637 combat sorties in the ETO. I chose 20,000 because it was a bit smaller than the second lowest sortie count for the seven types for which I have data.

Jabberwockey,

Where are you finding the data? Does it have victories, losses broken out and sorties available? Would you post the source so I can look at it? If so, Thanks!

 

[MikeGazdik]

I'm not even going to read all of the other posts, because I know where this thread is going!!! As buffnut said, have to go Spitfire because it is so dang pretty!!! And as far as the original question "pure fighter", it again is the Spit. If I am a pilot, I want the Spit. If I am a General, I want the Hellcat. It is THE better weapon. It can do more missions than the Spit. But that is not the question at hand.

Hellcat vs Spitfire is like Glock vs Colt 1911. One selection is ugly as hell and works, the other is sexy as hell and works.

 

[buffnut453]

Let that be a lesson for you. When you imply by comparison the Hellcat was ugly, those are fighting words.

Truth hurts, dunnit!?!

 

[Jabberwocky]

Jabberwockey,

Where are you finding the data? Does it have victories, losses broken out and sorties available? Would you post the source so I can look at it? If so, Thanks!

The losses data is from my own research and cobbled together from the work of others and a number of sources - mostly copies of various USAAF documents like the 8th AF loss list (I think this is still available online), Spitfire serial number searches, RAF movement cards and other sources like Halley and Morgan and Shacklady. It's not exactly complete (particularly for the MTO, where the majority of operations were) and a lot of the loss/cause information is conflicting.

I was collecting the information about seven or eight years ago, when I was unemployed and thinking of writing a book on either USAAF Spitfires or Hawker Typhoon operations. Unfortunately (or fortuantely), I only got about 1/2 way through the basic information collecting stage before I got a job. Still, something for retirement.

A surprisingly large amount of the 600 or so Spitfires used by the USAAF were 'hacks': second hand war weary aircraft passed on by the RAF and used for general flying. They tended to get mis-treated - about 40 of the 'losses' I have listed are ground incidents or mechanical failures.

 

[Conslaw]

As a point-defense fighter, I'd rather have a Spitfire; but for almost any other purpose, I'd rather have a Hellcat. In the world of the hypothetical one-on-one dogfight, the Spitfire would have the edge. In a hypothetical two-on-two dogfight, the Spitfire should stay home. In a two-on-two battle, most of the Spitfire's advantages are nullified with beam-defense techniques. Offensively in this type battle the F6F's deflection shooting capabilities become a greater advantage. The long firing time of the .50 machine guns becomes more of an advantage than the hitting power of the Spits' 20mm cannon.

 

[GregP]

Thanks Jabberwockey. I have a lot of data that is somewhat partial, too. Sort of working on it now since it seems to be tough finding an engineering job right now ...

That's why I finally cracked the PDF restrictions on the USAAF Victory Credits LIst for WW2 and am trying to post it. I simply got around to it due to having the time and inclination ...

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

Once again, VBF, I think we are misinterpreting each other here. Nope, that's not the game I'm playing at all. The reson why I asked that question is because while I have no doubt about your knowledge of the Hellcat - and before we get on the wrong track, I actually think the Hellcat was an awesome aeroplane; I got the opportunity to get a close look at one in the UK once and it really impresses me as a machine - and lets face it, its combat record was exemplary - now I've got that out of the way - I don't actually believe you really know that much about the development of the Spitfire with a statement like that. They most certainly got it right the first time. The Spitfire Mk.I was contemporary to the F4F Wildcat and it was a superior performer to that aeroplane. The only fighter that could match it in an even contest in 1938 when the Mk.I first appeared was the Bf 109. There are only two instances where the Spitfire's performance was no match for its enemies, the Spit Mk.V with the Bf 109F and Fw 190, both the same time period, and the advent of jet fighters; even then, it still remained in service as a fighter until the early 1950s with the RAF and longer with other services.

As for the Merlin, simply speaking, as a basic block it underwent little transformation; bigger superchargers were fitted, which dramatically increased its performance and other modification, like American Bendix Stromberg injection carbs were fitted over the British SU carb to the 60 series engines, but not much actually changed on the engine itself. It remained the same bore and stroke throughout its long career.

Don't get me wrong (which I think you and Greg have); I don't think the Spitfire is 'superior' to the Hellcat - and I'm not doing this for any patriotic sense of loyalty (Geez, give me a break!); it's just that it is very difficult to compare the two (how many times have I had to write the same thing?), particularly their combat careers, which are so vastly different it makes comparison of figures meaningless, and reading through these posts, I'm not the only one who thinks so. If I had the choice of a carrier fighter, I'd choose the Hellcat hands down, but the thread title is, which one would we take if we had the choice, and yes, my choice is obvious. That doesn't make me an apologist, it makes me a realist. Why wouldn't I choose the Spitfire after the information I have provided? You guys are American and that makes you naturally gravitate to the Hellcat, and again, why wouldn't you? It's a great aeroplane with a great pedigree and combat history.

 

[VBF-13]

Nuuumannn, I think we see these aircraft in pretty much the same way.

On my comment, I just plum took you out of context. When you said the Hellcat "was not built in anywhere near the same number of variants and sub-marks," I took that as though you were questioning why. No wonder my comment didn't make sense. You weren't.

On the Spitfires, credit me with beyond just a speaking acquaintanceship. But there's a lot I can stand to learn, that's right.

 

[nuuumannn]

No worries VBF. Box of fluffies then? (That's slang for everything's good - in case you're wondering.)

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber,

If your rugby team loses, the circumstances don't matter ... you lost. It's the won and lost column that counts. Same for the Hellcat. It PERFORMED when the it was all on the line ... better than anything else did. Ergo, Hall of Fame performance that reads better than anything else that flew. What else do you need? Infinite replays like the 1972 basketball Olympics until your side wins?

Why not post figures including bomber and fighter victories, AAA, enemy A/C losses, and combat operational losees, and non-combat losses to back up your assertions? C'mon, I posted all that above.

Show me otherwise without the noise about quallity of opposition and all that stuff. It achieved what it acheived. So did the Soviets, Japanese, Germans, Italians, etc. Numbers don't lie unless they are lies in themselves, and these aren't. We're not talking about flukes in sports. This was combat, for life and death. Nobody "gave" the other side anything or "threw" the game. They won or died ... or sometimes flew home if they could get away from the other guys.

Luv ya, big fella - you are absolutely my favourite large, slow moving target.

 

[GregP]

Ah, mutual love ...

 

[VBF-13]

Truth hurts, dunnit!?!

You're brutal. But yeah, it does!

 

[beitou]

What was the opinion of the Spitfire of the US pilots who flew them?

 

[VBF-13]

No worries VBF. Box of fluffies then? (That's slang for everything's good - in case you're wondering.)

You saved me from looking it up.

 

[VBF-13]

What was the opinion of the Spitfire of the US pilots who flew them?

Darn, I was just going to mention that! It's like you read my mind.

There was a pilot in my Dad's club of retirees who was very big on these. I think he may have flown them, I'm not sure. But, that club was a lot of pilots, and I've never heard one bad word out of them on the Spitfire. Quite the contrary, I've always heard it held in the highest regard. And that's the truth.

 

[vinnye]

It would be interesting to hear what the former Eagle Squadron pilots thought of their Spitfires.
I do remember seeing one American pilot who flew in the BOB in a Spitfire , spoke very favourably about them.

 

[Readie]

What was the opinion of the Spitfire of the US pilots who flew them?

Loved the Spitfire.
Who wouldn't in all honesty.

 

[GregP]

We have heard from some of them at the Planes of Fame and they mostly loved it. A few loved it in the air, but found the Griffon engine models to be a bit nose-heavy, especially on wet ground where you could nose over while not touching the brakes when the gear digs in.
Mostly, they said you got used to it but it was disconcerting coming from a plane with no nose-heaviness while on the gear.

Several commented on the stick that pivots in the middle saying they didn't think they'd like it when they saw it, but found it to be quite natural in actual use. One said he'd love to have fitted the Spitfire stick into a P-51.

The only real negative comments were short range, relative fragility compared with US types, and a small bit of difficulty with the radio, which somehow seemed to have a slight tendency to get wet. Maybe these two guys simply flew Spitfires with some hastily-repaired battle damge over the radio? Sounds like a sealer job would handle it.

As for general flying characteristics, ALL said it was a fine aircraft and a joy to fly, and they didn't want to give them up.

 

[CobberKane]

The spitfire always seems to have been somewhat more than the sum of its parts. In terms of performance it was generally up there with the opposition, but it's trump card always seems to have been its impeccable flight manners, something hard the quantify in performance data. I can see how pilots moving to something like the the P-47 would have been aghast. Compared to the spitfire the thunderbolt was a fighter that did some things very badly and some things amazingly well. It would have taken a complete reset of the pilots instincts and tactics coming from the spitfire to the P-47, much more so than from, say, the spitfire to the mustang.