Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I honestly think the success or failure of a given type has more to do with its tactical situation that it finds iteself in. Spitfires did quite well flying defensively in 1940. They did less well in 1941-2 over western europes in an offensive role. There was strategic success, but tactically it was pretty one sided. Partly due to the quality of the opposition, something also to do with the limits of the spitfire itself 9limited range mostly), and a lot to do with poor strategic concepts. The Spitfire did recover, and by 1943-4, was back in the game and giving better than what it was suffering. opinion, but at least arguable. In the pacific (land based), success for the spitfire was prolematic. Case in point was the darwin Wing, where the zeke remained a formidable foe. I am convinced that this was due to incorrect tactical employment. Many of the pilots in the Darwin wing were ETO vets, where the fundamental advantage over German energy fighters was to get into a manouvre battle. Against the japanese this was fundamentally the wrong tactics to use against the Zeke.

At sea , the seafire had a terrible start, but by 1944, operational techniques were improving, to say nothing of the carriers on which they were embarked. seafires were not suited to CVEs and were in their wrong element in the super still conditions off Salerno. Operational techniques were also faulty. By 1945 this situation had been addressed, such that by 1945, the whole results had turned around.

So the spitfire/Seafire war experience was a bit patchy, whereas the Hellcat, operating from a single user, in a single tactical situation, never had that issue. Certainly the hellcat was an aircraft made for the job, but is it fair to compare a single purpose a/c used for just the purpose it was designed for, to an aircraft used for many different situations, and stretched to the limits of its design as far as application was concerned
 
Let's see, the Hellcat was used as a fleet defense CAP fighter, an air superiority fighter, an escort fighter for torpedo and dive bombers, a night fighter, a photo-reconaissance plane, a ground attack fighter-bomber, for picket duty, and even as a radio contolled drone bomb.

Doesn't seem to be exactly a single-purpose aircraft. The only thing the Spitfire did the Hellcat couldn't do was to be employed for high Mach number research. And it certainly could fly farther afield than the Spitfire, so they're about even in employment uses.

At least, I have found all of these uses in past readings since I am a big Hellcat fan. Love the Spitfire, but the Hellcat was quite versatile in its own right.
 
The Hellcat benefitted from tactics developed using Wildcats to combat the Zeros. Not sure if teh Darwin Spitfires had that experience on which to draw.
 
Don't believe they did.

If I recall, the Darwin Spitfire pilots were fresh from the ETO where they were sure of their tactics. The common belief in here seems to be that that PTO equipment would not do well in the ETO, but the reverse was certainly true in the case of the Darwin Spitfires. The "decreased quallity" Japanese pilots had them for breakfast. Might have been different if they were given some in-theater indoctrination, and I believe almost all the world's Air Forces anf Naval aviation arms instituted that after WWII ... lesson learned.
 
Were the Spitfires used at Darwin tropicalised? How good/bad was the radar coverage there?
 
You know Tomo, I've never heard about the radar available or the timeframe when it came into common use. I KNOW some of the ships had it, so it follows the ground installations did, too ... but I've not seen much data elaborating about either Allied OR Japanese radar covereage around Australia. Maybe it's still top secret and they had Kangaroos with radar vision who would kick or punch the nearest bloke when they saw a Japanese aircraft ... naaaahhhhh.

Must have had radar, but be damned if I know where it was located, what the coverage was, or when it started covering. Thanks for the new topic to look into! Since Australia didn't exactly suffer a fatal invasion, the coverage must have been adequate for the defense assets available to respond.
 
parsifal said:
Case in point was the darwin Wing, where the zeke remained a formidable foe.
Click to expand...
This would make an interesting thread. I don't know much about that campaign but those bombings covered a vast area and those Spitfires were in tough.
 
Greg, from what little I know, that wasn't the problem. The Zekes were the problem.
 
VBF-13 said:
The Zekes were the problem.
Click to expand...
They were part of, but not the only problem faced by the Spitfire wing.
Bad tactics - relying on the "big wing" concept, pilots fought as individuals not in element formations, poor gunnery skills.
Poor leadership on many occasions
Armament problems - 20mm cannons were prone to failure due to freezing
Mechanical problems - propeller CSU failures were frequent and caused many losses
Short range - lack of drop tanks until later in the campaign
lack of spare parts due to being at the end of a long supply chain.
All of this is detailed in the excellent book "Darwin spitfires" by Anthoney Cooper - recommended reading to those interested.
 
Thanks Wildcat!

The Zekes might not have been quite such a problem with good radar coverage ... advantageous starting position is a good thing. But poor leadership, poor tactics, freezing cannons (why didn't they freeze in the ETO and get fixed?), etc might have made great radar coverage relatively useless. Especailly without drop tanks in any offensive attempts.
 
Very interesting Wildcat, but the temperature over Darwin at 30,000 fet is about the same as over France or Germany ... pretty constant. Don't see how Darwin made a difference unless the Darwin area had enough rain to render all the guns wet ... seal the damned wings!

The Hamilton-Standard prop was VERY reliable (and still IS!). We could have simply sent props to reploace the British props until they solved the mystery ... which they WOULD have done ... and DID in the event. Each side could have stepped in and helped the other ... it's called cooperation against a common enemy. But politics makes things tough when simple calls between engineers can solve things. Wish Sir Stanley Hooker had talked with Allison! But the USAAF didn't WANT the 2-stage supercharger, they wanted turbochargers, so the Allison without the T/C wasn't altitude rated, byt teh USAAC got what they ordered.

Both sides could have done better with one another and simply didn't. Pity, it COULD have been magic, huh? Think about an Allison with a 2-stage RR supercharger (after the intake issue was solved), a Merlin with Allison rods and nose case, and props / armament being worked cooperatively by two countries. Might have won in 1944 ... and many fewer people would have died.
 

Average Annual Rainfall for Darwin is approximately 1.7-1.8m. And almost all of that comes in a 6 month period (ie, the wet season).


GregP said:
The Hamilton-Standard prop was VERY reliable (and still IS!). We could have simply sent props to reploace the British props until they solved the mystery ... which they WOULD have done ... and DID in the event.
Click to expand...

The de Havilland prop was licence built version of the Hamilton Standard - but I am guessing it was slightly different to fit the British output shafts, which were different to US SAW splined shafts.


GregP said:
a Merlin with Allison rods and nose case, and props / armament being worked cooperatively by two countries. Might have won in 1944 ... and many fewer people would have died.
Click to expand...

While rods may have fitted they weren't that necessary for Merlins in WW2 - the RR units were strong enough, and when they stepped up the power they strengthened components such as the rods.

The nose case wouldn't have worked. By the time Allison went to the simple spur reduction gear set Merlins had been in service 4 or 5 years. Maybe more.

Armaments were shared, to some extent.

The RAF operated may US aircraft, most of which had the 0.50". The Hispano drawings were sent to the US for manufacture. The British gave the US a cavity magnetron in 1940, transforming US research and development in radar technologies. They also revealed the Whittle and (IIRC) handed over plans.
 
One thing that has occured to me with the problems over Darwin is not so much the temperature at 30,000 ft being roughly the same as over Europe but the temperature difference. Taking off in temps hot enough to fry an egg on the wings (sometimes with very high humidity) and then climbing hard to 30,000 must have put tremendous strain on oils and coolants. Not surprising if CSUs failed when the oil in the gearbox went from the consistency of water to treacle in a matter of minutes.
 
The Merlin nose case is a POS for a minor fault. They spray the oil into the gears on the inward-turning side (into the gears as they rotate towards aeach other). All they needed to do was move the oil spray nozzle to the outgoing side, as in the Allison, and oil impact would have been fine. As it is, the main gears wear badly due to the incoming oil when the gears mesh .. NOT a good thing. Also the Merlin requires torqueing the heads every 25 hours and the Allison doesn't require it at all. Maintenance is less with the Alllison.

All were supercharged, but only the P-38 was turbocharged in quantity. Not the P-39 or P-40.

The result was VERY predictable ...

If you aren't an engine rebuilder, the above isn't apparent, but it is if you have to deal with it.

The Allison has 7,000 parts and the Merlin has 11,000 parts. YOU figure it out ... less parts is better and when oriented to perform best are reliable. The Allison nose case does. All it needed was a 2-stage supercharger which Sir Stanley Hooker could have designed and provided but which was NEVER asked for by the USAAF. Allison offered it on at beast 3 occasions and was turned down each time.

If your primary customer declines to pay for the options and development offered, and the wartime competition doesn't help ... and if you ar a SMALL shop, then the USAAF gets what it ORDERS, not what it NEEDS. The turbo was eliminated by the War Materiel Board for the P-39 and P-40, not by the USAAF ... the single turbo P-40 built performed quite well if you believe the reports. The P-63 with Aux-stage blower would fight a P-51 to a draw ... but was given to the Soviet Union ... go figure ...
 
Last edited:

Greg, while that may all be true, the Allison didn't have the same nose case in '41/'42 as it did later in the war. The original nose case was a bit of a disaster. The Merlin's nose case had been in use for several years before Allison changed over.

Torquing of the head bolts, number of components, etc, are side issues.
 

Here are some pages from the Australian technical reports, identifying the problem with the gun heating ducts as "faulty design", leading to the ducts breaking:











 
It never made sense to me that that air wing would be whipped so badly. There had to be more to it. The Spits vs. the Zekes in a dogfight is a wash, in my opinion, at worst. I can see the problems they had, now. Very much appreciate this, Wildcat.

EDIT: They'd have been better off in Wildcats for that kind of broader-coverage defense, seems like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
5K
SaparotRob
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Snautzer01
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Dimlee
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Hellcat Drones
Replies
7
Views
1K
Sabrejet
Menu
Log in
Register