Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[parsifal]

Were the Spitfires used at Darwin tropicalised? How good/bad was the radar coverage there?

Not as advanced as the fully integrated systems in the ETO, but more extensive than suggessted here. Not sure of the USAAC coverage, which was there, but came later. For the RAAF 31 radar unit was moved to Dripstone Caves, just north of Darwinn, 5th Feb 1942. Was not ready when the first raids hit 19 Feb, but was operational from the 6th March. First successful detection was 16th March.

I know of at least 5 other stations that were set up in the NT region during the war. There was no shortage of radar, and coverage was okay. Not as extensive as the ETO, but Japanese raids were seldom unnoticed. That wasnt the problem. as wildcat rightly corrects me there were a multitude of problems, thopugh I would poinnt out that Spitfires lack of success was also mirrored by the other main types deployed into this TO. But the Spits carried with them high expectations of defeating the Japanese, which were never realized. One can either surmise that the Spits were a failure or the quality of the opposition was better than expected.....in this part of the war, there had not been the vicious attrition oin Japanese pilots that had occured further east. The Zeke was a formidable opponent when flown by a competent pilot, and the tactics employed by the Spitfires were the wrong ones to use against the japanese.

Wherever the Japanese retained a modicum of experience in their pilots, they flew rings around their opponents. This applied to both US and RAAF equipment and both British and American types. what set the Spits apart is that it had been expected they would wrest air superiority from the Japanese at least over Darwin, and this was not achieved. It was a bitter lesson for the Allies....the Japanese still had some teeth on occasion

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the feedback. My idea is that Spitfires with tropical filters were slower of less RoC than regular ones, such Spitfires having almost no performance advantage vs. Zero, while the Zero can turn much tighter than Spitfire.

Howdy, Greg, lets cross antlers one more time :

....
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.

The single-stage V-1710s were altitude rated, the turbo V-170s were sea level rated.

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.

If USAF wants/needs two stage V-1710, it can use Allison's design. Not that it would make the war shorter by more than a month.

...
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.

Once the Sir Hooker's design is applied, tested and put into production, there is ample time for many US-built engines (Packard Merlin included) to be designed used.

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 ...

Where are the reports? Was there ever the turbo P-40? The war-time P-63 (-A) vs. war-time Merlin P-51 (B-K) would see the P-63 going down in flames. What use could we invision for the P-63 in USAF inventory? Why would they need a fighter that has hard time to make 410 mph in 1944, let aloe for the fighter that is totally unsuitable for the tasks the P-51, P-38 and P-47 were doing on daily basis in the last ~18 moths of the war?

 

[CORSNING]

WOW! Now you did it tomo. The P-63A-8/10 could outclimb, outturn and outroll the P-51B-K. At lower altitudes the speeds were fairly close. I'm not home right now, but I could probably locate proof fairly easy. There, now flame that.

Jeff

 

[CORSNING]

I think I'm in agreement with most that comparing the land based Spitfire to the carrier based Hellcat is like comparing the Firefly to the Mustang.

 

[wuzak]

I think I'm in agreement with most that comparing the land based Spitfire to the carrier based Hellcat is like comparing the Firefly to the Mustang.

It was suggested that the F6F could do a land plane role.

This comparison came about because the observation in another thread that the Hellcat's performance was about on par with the Spitfire V's.

 

[VBF-13]

One can either surmise that the Spits were a failure or the quality of the opposition was better than expected.....in this part of the war, there had not been the vicious attrition oin Japanese pilots that had occured further east. The Zeke was a formidable opponent when flown by a competent pilot, and the tactics employed by the Spitfires were the wrong ones to use against the japanese.

Wherever the Japanese retained a modicum of experience in their pilots, they flew rings around their opponents. This applied to both US and RAAF equipment and both British and American types. [...] ....the Japanese still had some teeth on occasion

I don't think there's any cause to be indirectly campaigning against the successes of the Hellcats, here, Parsifal. Wildcat I think summarized the reasons for the failures of this air wing quite adeptly. Taking all those reasons into account, this could have been 1945, and the same result.

Put a little differently, you're starting to sound like Wikipedia. Namely,

"The U.S. successes were not only attributed to superior aircraft, but also from 1942 onwards, they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators as well as having the advantage of increasing numerical superiority.[N 6]"

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know what that statement cites to? One damn magazine article.

Let's get a grip. These Spitfires were facing a crack outfit, that's true. And your boys fought very audaciously and courageously. But this War would have been over in 1943 had we had those Hellcats in 1942. And if you're still equivocating on that, let's get on with it, directly, in a thread where it's at least relevant. Here, it's marginally-relevant, if it's anything.

 

[CORSNING]

Well then, I'd have to agree that the F6F could do a land plane role. BUT, it would probably not do it as well as a fighter that was designed from the start as a point defence interseptor. The F6F was designed for shipboard operation. That means a lot of extra size and weight compaired to a land based interceptor. If it had been designed as such it would probably have looked more like a F8F.
Compairing the Hellcat to the Spitfire V seems off a little. They are nearly 2 years appart from entering operational service. It is hard to take the large Hellcat and strip it down to point interceptor. So it seems to me the best way to compair is to rig up the Spifire for carrier duty and then compare: Seafire III.
Height in meters / Speed in mph / Climb in fpm.

Height...Seafire III......F6F-5
S.L.......303/2500....318/3500
.1,000...318/2525....322/3440
.2,000...334/2550....333/3380
.3,000...348/2574....345/3180
.4,000...349/2590....358/2955
.5,000...344/2435....373/2605
.6,000...338/1960....376/2225
.7,000...330/1575....390/1835
.8,000...321/1175....383/1435
Maximum velocities: Seafire III 351/10,500ft. F6F-5 392/19,200ft.
Flight weights are: Seafire: 6,750-7,100 lbs. F6F-5: 12,406-12,420 lbs.

NOTE 1: In TAIC REPORT NO. 17 The F6F-5 reached 409 mph/21,600ft.

All performance figures are from wwiiaicraftperformance.org. One odd note: the Seafire speed figures are at +16 lbs. boost and the climb figures are at +9 lbs. boost. I do not know if the Seafire was cleared for +16 lbs. boost with the Merlin 50 engine.

 

[tomo pauk]

WOW! Now you did it tomo. The P-63A-8/10 could outclimb, outturn and outroll the P-51B-K. At lower altitudes the speeds were fairly close. I'm not home right now, but I could probably locate proof fairly easy. There, now flame that.

Jeff

No flame from me, Jeff
You know, I'm sure, that LF fighters were mostly able to "outclimb, outturn and outroll" the Merlin Mustang. And they fared badly vs. the P-51, unless the P-51 pilot got cocky and let his speed altitude went low. Looking at the charts at US Hudred thousands, the achieved (not claimed by the Bell) speeds, even at low altitude the P-51 has some 20 mph advantage, especially the P-51B without fuselage tank (V-1650-3), and the P-51D (V-1650-7). Curiously enough, the tests of the P-51D yield better results than NAA claim/guarantee.
BTW, once the fighters are flying faster than 350 mph (indicated), the P-51 has the best rate of roll (here)

One odd note: the Seafire speed figures are at +16 lbs. boost and the climb figures are at +9 lbs. boost. I do not know if the Seafire was cleared for +16 lbs. boost with the Merlin 50 engine.

This is what I have about some Merlins (M50 included); unfortunatelly, the Seafire is not mentioned:

 

[CORSNING]

Unfortunately you are correct about almost all data for the P-63 coming from Bell. I believe that had a lot to do with the USAAF disentrest in the A/C.
If you look closely at the roll rate graph you will notice that the P-63's ROLL rate does not decrease after 275 mph as fast as it increased up to that speed. If you continue the P-63A-1's line at the declining rate it would still have a slight advantage over the P-51B-1 at 390 mph. The P-63 was fully maneuverable up to its top speed much like the Mustang. If you look in AHT you will notice that it outturned the P-51B. It also says something about outturning the P-38. I don't have my AHT with me but I remember the statement that when the P-63 used its maneuvering flaps there wasn't many A/C it couldn't outturn.
Now about that 20 mph P-51 advantage at low altitudes:

Height.....P-51B 75"Hg..P-51D 72"Hg..P-63A-10 75"Hg
S.L..........388..............377...............383
.1,000.....404...............390...............394
.2,000.....418...............423...............407
.3,000.....421...............415...............415
.4,000.....420...............413...............421
.5,000.....430...............419...............423
.6,000.....442...............431...............422
.7,000.....443...............445...............412
.8,000.....437...............434...............407
.9,000.....430...............422...............394
10,000....421...............401...............376
11,000....411...............380...............N.G.
12,000....393...............N.G...............N.G.
METERS...MILES PER HOUR-----------------
The P-51B is with the V-1650-7 engine. The -3 speeds are very similar at low altitudes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Unfortunately you are correct about almost all data for the P-63 coming from Bell.

The data from your table is also from Bell?

I believe that had a lot to do with the USAAF disentrest in the A/C.

I'm not sure what to make out of that comment? BTW, this flight test, conducted at Wright Field gives only 366 mph at SL, WER + ADI. Other graphs seem either too early for stipulated engines P-63 versions, and/or are calculated values.

If you look closely at the roll rate graph you will notice that the P-63's climb rate does not decrease after 275 mph as fast as it increased up to that speed. If you continue the P-63A-1's line at the declining rate it would still have a slight advantage over the P-51B-1 at 390 mph. The P-63 was fully maneuverable up to its top speed much like the Mustang.

By 'climb rate' I guess you mean 'rate of roll' - a typo?
It is unfortunately that we don't have the roll rate data for the P-63 above 300 mph. The graph at AHT gives 10% lower rate of roll for the P-63 than the NACA comparison, the drop in roll rate is sharp past 300 mph, and there is no other data for that, like the stick force - not sure what to think about that. But the P-63 certainly should be regarded as a better 'roller' than the P-51.

If you look in AHT you will notice that it outturned the P-51B. It also says something about outturning the P-38. I don't have my AHT with me but I remember the statement that when the P-63 used its maneuvering flaps there wasn't many A/C it couldn't outturn.

At the pg. 422 of the AHT it's stated that 'No maneuver position was provided for the flap system'. It was the P-38 that was renown for tight turns, once the flaps received 'maneuver' setting, from P-38F-15 onward.

 

[CORSNING]

tomo,
I was at work earlier and didn't get a chance to thank you for the information in post 128. Thanks man.
Data for the P-63A-10 came from a graph at Mike's sight. It is titled COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF P-63 AIRPLANES. Its marked CONFIDENTIAL at the bottom and top. Down on the lower left it dated 5 JUNE 1944. Three A/C are listed: P-63A-10, P-63C-1 and P-63E-1. Under the date is the following: HDD,JWA.RHR.FWR.
It appears to be a military graph but by the date I would guess the C-1 and E-1 are calculated. This is around the correct period for the A-10 testing, so who knows.
Actually AHT does give the same roll rate at 275 mph as the NACA graph. Look at the graph on page 410. I think the 100 degrees per second on page 416 is a misprint. The graph in AHT takes a nose dive around 320. I think I'll stick with the NACA until more info is published.
Your right about the "no maneuver position" statement. Right before that it states,"A flap position indicator consisting of a paint stripe along the flap near the leading edge was visible to the pilot." I wonder what that (the statements back to back) is all about?
I totally agree with your statement about the P-38 with maneuvering flaps being renown for tight turns. In AHT concerning the P-63's turning ability on page 417 you will find:"It was better than a P-38J if the latter (P-38) did not use a maneuver flap setting, and about the same if the P-38 did." I couldn't locate another quote I recorded from AHT about the P-63 that stated," With flaps down part way it was superior to most anything else in the air." Back to page 417 it continues,"Against the P-51B the P-63 could get on the Mustang's tail in three to four turns and P-63 performance got relatively better with increasing turning speed."

AHT ON ROLLING:
Pages 415-416: "P-63 rolling performance was outstanding. Army tests showed Kingcobra ailerons were excellent; all test pilots agreed. Action was rapid with light but positive forces, and good control feel was present at all times without any dead spot or overbalance. Roll performance was tested against other aircraft; it was much better than a P-38, and also better than a P-51B." " It rolled exactly on its longitudinal axis, and you could maintain perfect altitude." It had rapid response AT ALL SPEEDS.

Jeff

I forgot to thank you again for catching that "RATE OF CLIMB". Should have been ROLL RATE.

 

[CobberKane]

It was suggested that the F6F could do a land plane role.

This comparison came about because the observation in another thread that the Hellcat's performance was about on par with the Spitfire V's.[/

I'm sure that if the spitfire had been used correctly in Darwin it would have done much better, but generally speaking I would say the Hellcat was a significantly better fighter against the zero or oscar. The Spitfire, Zero and Oscar were all light, agile fighters, but the Zero and Oscar were lighter and more agile, to the degree that they almost entirely traded off other considerations such as survivability, dive and high speed handling. Comarative tests between the Spitfire and the Zero showed that it was superior in these departments and if flown accordingly could dictate the fight, if the pilot could overcome his instinct to turn with the Japanese fighter.
The Hellcat was better again, having a similar speed advantage over the zero and considerably greater dive performance and survivability. And of course by the time it appeared it was an article of faith that you NEVER engaged in a turning fight with a zero. Very importantly too the Hellcat had range. Many of the Spitfires lost over Darwin were not shot down, they ditched after running out of gas.
The RAAF Later operated the Spitfire VIII in Burma with more range, ammo and performance. Somewhere previously in this forum an account from a Japanese pilot was posted describing their efforts to even further lighten their Oscars in an attempt to redress their performance deficit against the VIII
The Spitfire V/Seafire could and did come to grips with the Zero and Oscar, but the Hellcat enjoyed the same performance advantages (plus some in the dive) and had longer range. These advantages would have disappeared over Europe, but in the Pacific it was unquestionably the better fighter.

 

[wuzak]

Well then, I'd have to agree that the F6F could do a land plane role. BUT, it would probably not do it as well as a fighter that was designed from the start as a point defence interseptor. The F6F was designed for shipboard operation. That means a lot of extra size and weight compaired to a land based interceptor. If it had been designed as such it would probably have looked more like a F8F.
Compairing the Hellcat to the Spitfire V seems off a little. They are nearly 2 years appart from entering operational service. It is hard to take the large Hellcat and strip it down to point interceptor. So it seems to me the best way to compair is to rig up the Spifire for carrier duty and then compare: Seafire III.
Height in meters / Speed in mph / Climb in fpm.

Height...Seafire III......F6F-5
S.L.......303/2500....318/3500
.1,000...318/2525....322/3440
.2,000...334/2550....333/3380
.3,000...348/2574....345/3180
.4,000...349/2590....358/2955
.5,000...344/2435....373/2605
.6,000...338/1960....376/2225
.7,000...330/1575....390/1835
.8,000...321/1175....383/1435
Maximum velocities: Seafire III 351/10,500ft. F6F-5 392/19,200ft.
Flight weights are: Seafire: 6,750-7,100 lbs. F6F-5: 12,406-12,420 lbs.

NOTE 1: In TAIC REPORT NO. 17 The F6F-5 reached 409 mph/21,600ft.

All performance figures are from wwiiaicraftperformance.org. One odd note: the Seafire speed figures are at +16 lbs. boost and the climb figures are at +9 lbs. boost. I do not know if the Seafire was cleared for +16 lbs. boost with the Merlin 50 engine.

How about comparing the Seafire XV?

 

[parsifal]

I don't think there's any cause to be indirectly campaigning against the successes of the Hellcats, here, Parsifal.

No-ne is. Whats happening though is a subtle campaign to sing the invincibility of the Hellcat, which it was not.

Wildcat I think summarized the reasons for the failures of this air wing quite adeptly. Taking all those reasons into account, this could have been 1945, and the same result.

Im not disagreeing with Wildcat. He isnt saying that the wrong tactics were used, he is also not saying that the zero was not a formidable enemy. He is saying there were other factors, which i agree with. Dont try to create dissension when ther isnt any.

Put a little differently, you're starting to sound like Wikipedia. Namely,

"The U.S. successes were not only attributed to superior aircraft, but also from 1942 onwards, they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators as well as having the advantage of increasing numerical superiority.[N 6]"

Do you know what that statement cites to? One damn magazine article.

I dont think there is any doubt that the quality of US a/c improved as the war progressed. Im certainly not claiming that they werent. but quality of aircraft is a relatively minor factor in determing how air wars are won. The US could have won the war flying wildcats till the end. there was no need to spend the time and trouble going to the hellcat. i see it as a largely wasted effort. They could have built a "stretched" Wildcat and achieved much the same result. Thats different to what wiki is saying.

If quality is relatively secondary, why do people spend so much time developing new types, and if Im right,, what were the main determinants of success in the air?

Answering the first question, because every advantage, even if relatively minor, is worth pusuing when mens lives are at stake. And little things can add up to big things, if you have enough of those little things.

In answer to the second question, the very things you are attempting to shout down out of the equation....numbers and pilot quality (in which i would include superior tactics) are the very determiniants that rank by far the highest in importyance in winning an air war. Even higher is superior logistics....the ability to replace losses, and the USN held all these aces by the end of 1942.

Let's get a grip. These Spitfires were facing a crack outfit, that's true.

They were facing the 202nd Kokutai, and to some degree the JAAF 5th Air Div. These were good units, but not "crack units". They just were not subjected to the same elevels of attrition facedf by 25th Flotilla and 6Ad in Eastern NG and Solomons. Once the Japanese lost their edge in quality, the one ace they had was gone and their lightweight a/c became a liability

And your boys fought very audaciously and courageously.

Thanks for the patronising comments, we Australians really appreciate that sort of talk.

But this War would have been over in 1943 had we had those Hellcats in 1942.

There is zero (no pun intended) to support that. In fact until tactics were changed (about October 1942), the hellcat would have been just another flying targert for th4e Japanese. Until the pilots had learned new techniques, the logisitc situation improved and the numbers game licked, ther is no evidence from any campaign to say that quality will beat quantity. The Germans found this on the eastern front and over France 1942. Intorucing a new type too early, like the Hellcat, would probably, if anything have slowed down the US march to superiority in 1942, and may have allowed the japanese to recover.

Dont make claims that are obviously spurious and baseless

And if you're still equivocating on that, let's get on with it, directly, in a thread where it's at least relevant. Here, it's marginally-relevant, if it's anything

It is relevant here, because spurious claims about the invincibility of the Hellcat are being made. Half this thread is about the hellcat, and how it compares to the Spit. Both had their strengths, and both had their weqaknesses. You cannot get more relavant than that.

 

[tomo pauk]

[snip]

Hi, Jeff, I'm starting the new thread about the P-63, so we don't drive this one off-topic.

 

[GregP]

Tomo, Regarding post#122, you are wrong in almost everything you said.

The turbo V-1710's were altitude rated. The P-38's with turbochargers were rated at 24,900 to 27,000 fet at Military power. The XP-38 was rated at 25,000 feet (-11/-15 engines). The P-38K was rated at 27,000 feet (-75/-77 engines). The P-38J was rated at 24,900 feet (-89/-91 engines). Otherwise, why have a turbo? Get real. P-38's had a problem at altitude, but it was mostly the cockpit heater after the intake and fuel issues were solved.

We might have liked the 2-stage supercharger, but we already HAD a turbo system for altitude ... that the USAAF deleted from the P-39 and P-40. I mentioned the 2-stage supercharger because maybe it would have been used instead of hoarded for the high-altitude bombers that were used to great effect to help win the war in Europe since it turned much slower and didn't require exotic metals in short supply (like Tungsten).

There was NEVER ample time in WWII after the phony war was done. It was a fight all the way and if we had the Hooker supercharger, we would not have needed to produce Merlins except for British export, which we could have done and did.

At the musuem where I volunteer, we have had former Curtiss employees come in and tell that they worked on the turbo P-40 and that it flew, but was not proceeded with. I don't have the reports ... they are word of mouth reports (but strangely, all mention the same numbers ...), only their recollections of the events at the time. The fate of the turbo prototype is unknown to me, as are the fates of the last Bell fighters packed into trailers and supposedly hauled away to a farm. I tried to find them and buy them, but the trailers are quite good at escape and evasion so far.

If you think these guys (with NO reason to make anything up) are liars, then by all means don't believe them, macht nichts to me and we don't have to agree. Either way, it's OK. There are LOT of things posted in here I KNOW are false because I work on the planes we have including Axis aircraft, occasionally fly in them, and talk with the pilots.

The Allisons we built when I worked for Joe Yancey were strong and reliable. Only 1 real failure to date since I met Joe, and it was due to incorrect hookup of the oil and coolant lines ... and did NOT result in a forced landing. They were able to fly it down normally and call Joe for help. They were embarassed when they saw they had connected things wrong but were happy with later performance. From my experience, if it had been fitted with an integral 2-stage supercharger like the later Merlins, it would have been a good thing. As it was, the Aux stage external supercharger in the P-63 was a good performer (we have two ready for overhaul) but the package was bigger than an integral unit and the maintenance of piston aircraft when jets were becomming the darlings of the sky was quite marginal in a LOT of cases ... NOT what you need for a WWII-era high-power V-12 aircraft engine. I think they were just letting the piston aircraft break so they could buy jets, and have heard that on more than one occasion from former maintenance people in the military at the time.

 

[wuzak]

The turbo V-1710's were altitude rated. The P-38's with turbochargers were rated at 24,900 to 27,000 fet at Military power. The XP-38 was rated at 25,000 feet (-11/-15 engines). The P-38K was rated at 27,000 feet (-75/-77 engines). The P-38J was rated at 24,900 feet (-89/-91 engines). Otherwise, why have a turbo? Get real. P-38's had a problem at altitude, but it was mostly the cockpit heater after the intake and fuel issues were solved.

Greg, the engines were sea level rated.

The job of the turbocharger was to supply sea level air pressure to the carburettor deck. The rated altitudes you list are for the turbocharger.

The term sea level rated means that at full throttle the full throttle height was 0ft. For an altitude rated engine the throttle plate can only be fully open at the rated height. Below that height the engine has to be throttled to prevent overboosting of the engine.

The V-1710-25 (F1R) was rated at 1150hp @ 12,000ft, for example. The V-1710-27 (F2R) and V-1710-29 (F2L) were rated at 1150hp @ 25,000ft with turbocharger.

The supercharger gear ratio for the -25/F1R was 8.80:1. The ratio for the -27/F2R and -29/F2L was 6.44:1. Thus the supercharger in the -25F1R was spinning faster than in the -27/F2R and -29/F2L, and thus made more boost. More boost than could be used by the engine below 12,000ft.

We might have liked the 2-stage supercharger, but we already HAD a turbo system for altitude ... that the USAAF deleted from the P-39 and P-40.

The turbo on the XP-39 was installed poorly. Well, more to the point, the intercooler was poorly installed and caused excessive drag.

The P-40 was a quick development of the P-36 to use the V-1710, and was never intended to use a turbocharger.

I mentioned the 2-stage supercharger because maybe it would have been used instead of hoarded for the high-altitude bombers that were used to great effect to help win the war in Europe since it turned much slower and didn't require exotic metals in short supply (like Tungsten).

Maybe if each of the 10,000 P-38s only required one turbo more types could have used them?

Or perhaps the 15,000+ P-47s soaked up a lot of those exotic materials in its, very much larger, turbocharger?

It was a fight all the way and if we had the Hooker supercharger, we would not have needed to produce Merlins except for British export, which we could have done and did.

Maybe, if Allison was able to supply sufficient quantities. The US was clever when it cleared Packard to manufacture Merlins for Britain to specify that a third of production was to be used in US aircraft.

Maybe if Allison pushed their 2 stage design harder?

At the musuem where I volunteer, we have had former Curtiss employees come in and tell that they worked on the turbo P-40 and that it flew, but was not proceeded with. I don't have the reports ... they are word of mouth reports (but strangely, all mention the same numbers ...), only their recollections of the events at the time. The fate of the turbo prototype is unknown to me

As far as I am aware there was never a turbo P-40, nor was there amy intention to design or build a turbo P-40.

There were the XP-37 and YP-37s which may have persuaded the USAAC to order the P-40 with the single stage altitude rated engine.

Neither the XP-46 or XP-53 were designed for, or featured, a turbocharger. The XP-53 became the XP-60 when fitted with a Merlin 28 (V-1650-1). The XP-60 looked pretty slick.

An order for XP-60As was given in late 1941 (before Pearl Harbor). The XP-60A featured a V-1710 with B-series turbo. This aircraft did fly. In late 1942 it flew without the turbo, as the installation was considered a fire hazard. The prototype flew with the turbo later and achieved a top speed of 420mph @ 29,000ft and climb to 25,000ft in 12.4 minutes (data from Vees for Victory). Considering that the turbo version first flew after the XP-51B its performance would not have been considered sufficient for production orders.

Cinsidering the family likeness of the P-60 to the P-40 (at least before they tried out an R-2800) I would think it likely that the ex-Curtiss employees are remembering this aircraft.

as are the fates of the last Bell fighters packed into trailers and supposedly hauled away to a farm. I tried to find them and buy them, but the trailers are quite good at escape and evasion so far.

Which are the "last Bell fighters"? P-63s?

That sounds a lot like the stories of Spitfires buried in the Northern Territory, or spirited away in a disused mine in Queensland, or buried in their packing cases in Burma!

If you think these guys (with NO reason to make anything up) are liars, then by all means don't believe them, macht nichts to me and we don't have to agree.

Liars, no. They may have misremembered or been misinformed back in the day. Or it may be that Curtiss referred to the P-60 as a variant of the P-40. Who knows?

 

[Aozora]

Greg, the engines were sea level rated.

The job of the turbocharger was to supply sea level air pressure to the carburettor deck. The rated altitudes you list are for the turbocharger.

The term sea level rated means that at full throttle the full throttle height was 0ft. For an altitude rated engine the throttle plate can only be fully open at the rated height. Below that height the engine has to be throttled to prevent overboosting of the engine.

From the Allison V-1710 Service School Handbook:

F-2, -5, -10, -15, -17, -21, all Sea Level Rated, were used on the P-38.

The manuals can be found Here: Allison V-1710 Documents Manuals

 

[CORSNING]

How about comparing the Seafire XV?

wuzak,


As far as I know the Seafire XV just missed WW2. So you have to change Cats to a Bear. I don't think you want to go there.


Jeff

 

[VBF-13]

I dont think there is any doubt that the quality of US a/c improved as the war progressed. Im certainly not claiming that they werent. but quality of aircraft is a relatively minor factor in determing how air wars are won. The US could have won the war flying wildcats till the end. there was no need to spend the time and trouble going to the hellcat. i see it as a largely wasted effort. They could have built a "stretched" Wildcat and achieved much the same result. Thats different to what wiki is saying.

Parsifal, the only part of that Wikipedia quote I referenced you're not agreeing with is this part: "The U.S. successes were not only attributed to superior aircraft." You're agreeing with this part: "ut also from 1942 onwards, they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators." As a matter of fact that's your whole rationalization for everything PTO, pilot experience. It's not only your rationalization for the successes of the Hellcats. Here, while ignoring everything Wildcat and others enumerated, it's your lock-stock-and-barrel rationalization for the failures of your own Spitfires. Here's what says that, these excised parts from your former reply:

One can either surmise that the Spits were a failure or the quality of the opposition was better than expected.....in this part of the war, there had not been the vicious attrition oin Japanese pilots that had occured further east. The Zeke was a formidable opponent when flown by a competent pilot, and the tactics employed by the Spitfires were the wrong ones to use against the japanese.

Wherever the Japanese retained a modicum of experience in their pilots, they flew rings around their opponents. This applied to both US and RAAF equipment and both British and American types. [...] ....the Japanese still had some teeth on occasion.

You're on a personal crusade to rationalize everything PTO in terms of pilot experience. That's what you come down to. That's why you isolated that factor and dramatized it as the one-size-fits-all rationalization for the failures of these Spitfires, as well, to the exclusion of everything else said. And I in good faith credit your War heroes for their audacity and courage and you interpret that as a smart-crack. Well, but of course. These were inexperienced pilots. Crediting them for their heroism is but tantamount to patronization. That's in effect how obsessed you are with that pilot experience rationalization.