Hellcat vs Zero

[CORSNING]

The following roll rates are for the early F6F-3 without spring tab ailerons and using 30 lbs. of force. Figures are from an NACA graph. Figures for the A6M3 model 32 are from an R.A.A.F. graph using 50 lbs. of stick force. Figures given are for left/right rolls at degrees per second.

Speed:...100.....125.......150.........175......,200....225.....250.....275.....300....325.....350.....375
F6F-3:..26/34...40/43....50/52......59/61....66/69..70/76..72/77..69/73..63/61..53/47..42/36..36/29
A6M3:...80/80...99/94...111/104..120/111..81/95..60/77..51/65..44/53..39/45..36/39..33/35..30/31
F6F-3:..26/34...39/42....46/49......53/55....59/59..64/63..68/66..69/68..68/67..64/64..61/61..57/57*

*F6F-3 with spring tab ailerons.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not true, I'm not sure where you are getting this from.

The A6M5 was the most produced variant - over half of Zeroes produced were this version -and was "up engined", as well as armored, though not quite as heavily as the Hellcat. Up engining was done by modifying the exhaust of the A6M3.

Up-engined, as with Kinsei on board. Modifying exhausts is not up-engining, not by a long shot. No service Zero was flying with self-sealing tanks.

Depends on altitude. At about 4000 meters and under, the Zero and Hellcat are about 15-25 mph different. But the Zero was not designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor - That was left to the various army fighters. And there's not a WW2 bomber that cruises at 300+ - One of the fastest, the B29, cruised at 220 mph.

I did not suggest that a bomber will be cruising at 300 mph, but will be flying at that speed. You can bet the bomber will be trying to pepper the fighter with MG fire - the fighter should have some protection to shrug off handful of bullets that struck home. Having the speed advantage of 50 mph is a better asset than 25 mph advantage. The Hellcat comes as 1st in those two comparisons. We can recall how the Zeros were unable to catch the B-26s at Midway, and how the DB-7 was a tough game for Bf-109E in 1940.
BTW, the Mosquito was well able to cruise above 300 mph.

The Hellcat is indeed more durable - But as far as being attacked from behind and above, too my knowledge no fighters in WW2 had bullet proof canopies, so all pilots would be in Jeapordy.

Pilots get downed also in case their fuel tanks are set on fire, or explode. Again, Hellcat is in advantage here, this time a major advantage.

 

[Garyt]

Those roll rates are not as bad as I anticipated, Jeff. Zero is a 2:1 or better at 175 and under, Maybe 1.25 or 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Hellcat at 200 and 250-350.

What I find most surprising is they are about equal at 225 and 375, and real close at 350. Does not fit the progressions.

Looks like the best speeds for the Hellcat to be at is in the 275-300 range. Slow sppeds favor the Zero by a wide margin, and by the time you get to 350 mph or better they are getting real similar again.

 

[GregP]

According to the pilots, the F5F-5 significantly out-rolled the Zero at higher speeds, with the Hellcat being at about 60° per second (with the spring tab ailerons of the F6F-5) while the Zero was down to under 40° per second above 300 mph. Most Hellcat pilots who mentioned it praised the acceleration of the F6F in both variants (-3 and -5), saying it made closing on the Zero easy.

Saburo Sakai praised the acceleration of the Hellcat when I heard him talk in the mid-1980's and also in his personal writings of the time when he was wounded.

Maybe it depends on where you get your data.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The following roll rates are for the early F6F-3 without spring tab ailerons and using 30 lbs. of force. Figures are from an NACA graph. Figures for the A6M3 model 32 are from an R.A.A.F. graph using 50 lbs. of stick force. Figures given are for left/right rolls at degrees per second.

Looks like the best speeds for the Hellcat to be at is in the 275-300 range. Slow sppeds favor the Zero by a wide margin, and by the time you get to 350 mph or better they are getting real similar again.

But look at the stick forces - some more food for thought. Think about the size and strength of the men flying these machines during this time period.

I'm a bit of a gym rat and consider my self in great shape for my age - add 20 pounds of weight to anything duirng physical exertion and eventually fatigue will take its toll...

 

[CORSNING]

I added the NACA findings of the F6F-3 with spring tab ailerons in my post #41. Hi tomo, thanks for the Like.

Keep in mind that the A6M3 model 32 was the best roller of the breed with its clipped wings. The Armor and heavier armament took its toll on climb rate in the A6M5.

While power to weight of an aircraft has much to do with acceleration so does propeller size and design. Now take that 13.1 foot prop and swing it around with 2,000 or more horses.

I am really enjoying reading all that you guys have been posting but I am running out of time now. If I get time later tonight I will post the F6F-5's and A6M5's potential performances.

 

[Garyt]

I did not suggest that a bomber will be cruising at 300 mph, but will be flying at that speed. You can bet the bomber will be trying to pepper the fighter with MG fire - the fighter should have some protection to shrug off handful of bullets that struck home. Having the speed advantage of 50 mph is a better asset than 25 mph advantage. The Hellcat comes as 1st in those two comparisons. We can recall how the Zeros were unable to catch the B-26s at Midway, and how the DB-7 was a tough game for Bf-109E in 1940.

Again, the most important point was that the Zero was not designed to be a Bomber interceptor, CAP above it's task force is about as close as you get. And IIRC 4 B-26's attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, 2 were shot down, 2 were so badly damaged that they were written off after the mission. One Zeke was downed in return, and 0 torpedo hits. Does not sound like an overwhelming success for the B-26's vs. the CAP to me.

Before we go one again about the Zeroes capabilities as a bomber interceptor, why don't we discuss the Spitfire's role as a long range escort, or perhaps the Me109's ability as a ground attack plane. These are not missions that the planes were designed for, as the Zero was not designed as a bomber interceptor.

No service Zero was flying with self-sealing tanks.

Very true. Of course I never stated they did have self sealing fuel tanks. I stated they had fire extinguishers, and this was not a hand extinguisher on the cockpit, but one designed to stop fuel tank fores. Apparently it was not as effective than self sealing tanks, but certainly better than not having an extinguisher.

Pilots get downed also in case their fuel tanks are set on fire, or explode. Again, Hellcat is in advantage here, this time a major advantage.

No question the Hellcat is more durable. To counter this, the Zero had definitely better visibility. The US command and control was better, which would have the US plane in the right place at the right time more often, but that was hardly a strength or weakness of the individual aircraft.

1. The following is the summary of a report on comparative performance trials between an F6F-5 and a captured Zeke 52 undertaken by Technical Air Intelligence Centre at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

The Zeke 52 is considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot's head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gun sight did not interfere with forward vision.

The one thing I will agree with wholeheartedly though Tomo - is the survivability of pilots in the two planes. The Zero is going to be downed more often by bomber fire, yes.

I think given the same level of command and control for CAP for instance, the Zeke (A6M3) will well out perform the Wildcat. The Hellcat will perform similar to the Zeke in this role IMO, given similar levels of command and control as well as similar levels of pilot skill.

However, the Zero will take less punishment, and even though it may accomplish it's mission well, at will result in the loss of more pilots. I think this shows with the Zeke vs the Wildcat. Air losses were often very similar in early war carrier battles such as Coral Sea and Santa Cruz, despite the Zero being a better vehicle to establish air superiority. And this was the wrong thing for the Japanese. Combine high pilot loses with a poor pilot replacement program, and you have the Marianas Turkey shoot. The Marianas battle was lost in the air over Guadacanal just as much as it was lost in the actual Marianas battle.

 

[GregP]

Hi GaryT,

I can't discuss too much about tanks, I have enough keeping up with planes.

But I have attended several discussions at the Museum at which the T-34 was touted as the single most influential tank ever produced, and it was touted as being largely responsible for many Soviet victories.

Perhaps you are correct and it wasn't so revolutionary after all. If I get some time to look at it, I'll get back to you on the subject. Meanwhile, you seem to have read more on it than I have.

 

[tomo pauk]

Again, the most important point was that the Zero was not designed to be a Bomber interceptor, CAP above it's task force is about as close as you get. And IIRC 4 B-26's attacked the Japanese fleet at Midway, 2 were shot down, 2 were so badly damaged that they were written off after the mission. One Zeke was downed in return, and 0 torpedo hits. Does not sound like an overwhelming success for the B-26's vs. the CAP to me.

CAP should be able kill enemy bombers. Hence the 2 cannons aboard from the get go. Out of 6 Avengers and 4 B-26s making the joint attack early in the battle, only one of the B-26s (along with perhaps all 6 Avengers?) was downed by the CAP that consisted of 'over 30 Zeros', per SS, pg. 151. The B-26 killed one Zero, BTW; second B-26 was hit by Akagi's AAA and barely missed that CV, crashing in the sea instead.
Think we can conclude that Zero was ill capable to prevent a decent attack by reasonably fast bombers, even when piloted by creme de la creme.

Before we go one again about the Zeroes capabilities as a bomber interceptor, why don't we discuss the Spitfire's role as a long range escort, or perhaps the Me109's ability as a ground attack plane. These are not missions that the planes were designed for, as the Zero was not designed as a bomber interceptor.

Covered above re. what a fleet fighter is to be doing. Unlike the Zero, the Spitfire was very good in it's initial task.

Very true. Of course I never stated they did have self sealing fuel tanks. I stated they had fire extinguishers, and this was not a hand extinguisher on the cockpit, but one designed to stop fuel tank fores. Apparently it was not as effective than self sealing tanks, but certainly better than not having an extinguisher.

Agreed that having something is far better than having nothing. The fire extinguisher cannot prevent the ignition of the fuel that is spilled from a ruptured tank.

No question the Hellcat is more durable. To counter this, the Zero had definitely better visibility. The US command and control was better, which would have the US plane in the right place at the right time more often, but that was hardly a strength or weakness of the individual aircraft.

No quarrels that Zero have had better visibility; other airforces played catch-up with the Japanese in that regard. Zero's good visibility in upper hemisphere will not help it against the attacks from below, however. The C&C is crucially important when close to friendly C&C installations, but it is beyond reach under radio horizon, ie. well away from those installations.

 

[Garyt]

But I have attended several discussions at the Museum at which the T-34 was touted as the single most influential tank ever produced, and it was touted as being largely responsible for many Soviet victories.

Well, that is indeed true. But in the early war, with bad tactics, no radios, and 2 man turrets the T-34 was by no means indestructible. It's gun was OK for the times, a fairly low velocity 75mm. Armor was very good again for the times.

And even later in the war, the T-34/85, even with a 3 man turret, radio, and 85mm gun was no match for the panther in head to head, it was not as accurate at range and really had to close pretty close to the panther to have a chance, the whole time while the panther could take it out with a hit. Sad to say however, the T-34/85 was definitely superior to the US Sherman in having a chance vs the Panther.

But it was easy to produce and fairly competent with it's gun and armor. Was rather fast as well, and while the Panther was about as fast, it did not have the teething problems the early panther's engines had.

I'd definitely take a Panther over a T34/85 - But I'd take 100 T34/85's vs 25 Panthers.

 

[Garyt]

The C&C is crucially important when close to friendly C&C installations, but it is beyond reach under radio horizon, ie. well away from those installations.

Which is why escort missions were more react than anything else. I would say though as a carrier fighter is going to be close to it's installations when defending the fleet.

Think we can conclude that Zero was ill capable to prevent a decent attack by reasonably fast bombers, even when piloted by creme de la creme.

I'd definitely not draw this conclusion.

Let's take the Bomber force that attacked the Japanese carriers at Midway, minus the Dive Bombers that struck last. In other words, the attack force from Midway, minus the B-17's, and the carrier based torpedo planes. Of these planes, 52 out of 72 attacking planes were shot down for a loss of a couple CAP planes. It was not 30 Japanese fighter vs. 4 B-26's - lets put it into proper context. 72 attacking planes, not 4.

Four attacking planes is far too small a sample base of draw any conclusions from, I think you would concur. Let me know if you think otherwise. And these were thee earlier version Zero's, not the later A6M5's.

And what did these 72 attacking planes achieve vs the CAP - nothing. Nada. No hits. I think the Zero did it's job extremely well, if we think shooting down 72% of the attacking planes and preventing any hits on your carriers is a definition of success. I certainly think it is. Would Hellcats, even if available this early, done any better? I doubt it, other than they would probably cut down on their own fighter losses.

The defeat at Midway was not caused by the Zero as a plane's ability or inability to defend it's fleet. It had Everything to do with poor command and control, caused largely due to a lack of radar. Had the Japanese vectored a substantial amount of CAP to the attacking carrier based Dauntlesses, the result would be different. As shown by the attacks by Zeros on the Midway Dauntlesses, the Zeros were able to shoot these down very effectively.

I've heard some comment that Dive Bombers were almost always going to get through at that the Japanese had no chance of stopping them. I'd say this is inaccurate, as again shown by the attacks upon the Midway Dauntlesses. Torpedo bombers must expose themselves with a low-level straight run at an opposing task force - and because of this are more vulnerable to CAP and AA. But if Dive Bombers are intercepted prior to attempting their attacks, they go down as any other bomber. But of course that puts proper command and control, radios and radar at a premium.

 

[CORSNING]

Information for the F6F-5 is taken from the Hellcat II Data Sheet dated April 19, 1945. Performance figures from this sheet were put on a graph and the performance line of the F6F-5 from the NAVAER 1333A sheet of the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Dept. used to complete.
Information for the A6M5 comes from T.A.I.C. report 102D.

MATCHUP NO.2: F6F-5 and (A6M5).

Altitude/Speed/Climb
Meters...mph/fpm
S.L......335/3500 (295/3140)
1,000..339/3440 (309/3140)
2,000..348/3380 (323/3225)
3,000..360/3180 (335/3090)
4,000..373/2955 (332/2620)
5,000..379/2605 (337/2620)
6,000..392/2225 (350/2620)
7,000..391/1835 (355/2225)
8,000..383/1435 (340/1625)
9,000..374/1070 (328/1075)
10,000.N.G./ 685 (302/ 500)

Maximums: 392 mph.@ 19,500 ft. and 3,500 fpm.@ S.L. (358 mph.@ 22,000 ft. and 3,340 fpm.@ 8,000 ft.)

Out of time. Good night guys, Jeff

 

[davebender]

Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU
Not sure how anyone could reach this conclusion after reading historical 1942 Aberdeen Proving Grounds evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks.

 

[Garyt]

Not sure how anyone could reach this conclusion after reading historical 1942 Aberdeen Proving Grounds evaluation of T-34 and KV tanks.

Well, the majority of the early Panthers did not make it to the battlefield, breaking down en route. Many of these that broke down caught fire due to engine issues. Operational losses far exceded battlefield losses.

 

[buffnut453]

Hellcat, Zero....Panther? Nope, still not seeing the connection.

 

[GregP]

It's simple.

When they retrofitted the Hellcat with treads for off-airport landings, they also fitted a 75 mm cannon, making the Hellcat the ONLY fighter in the world capable of both taking out an armored vehicle AND performing formation aerobatics at the same time. If one guy got too fast in formation, he could just fire the gun and would slow down and stay in formation ... unless he was the slot pilot.

Then the leader would chew his butt out for suffering friendly fire damage. The rear-mounted diesel engine helped protect the pilot in that case.

 

[Garyt]

Sigh....merely wanted to point out through an analogy that command/control, communication, tactics can have more to do with the combat effectiveness of a particular piece of machinery than the quality of the machine itself.....

If one guy got too fast in formation, he could just fire the gun and would slow down and stay in formation ... unless he was the slot pilot.

Can we do an exercise in quantum physics to determine the exact amount it would slow him down by???

 

[nuuumannn]

Saburo Sakai in a Zero vs a tyro in a Hellcat? You could put Saburo in a Gloster Gladiator, and if he had the height advantage and spotted the Hellcat first he would probably still win the duel.

Read my post again.

 

[parsifal]

I didn't forget.

Then why didnt you mention it

They made 5,706 A6M5's but there is no breakout for A6M5a "Kou", b "Otsu", or c "Hai" numbers built. Mitsubishi built 2,130 A6M5s and Nakajima built 3,573 A6M5s. The A6M5c "Hai"didn't have self-sealing tanks ... it had more armor plate on the windscreen and pilot's seat, and the armament was three 13.2 mm MG + two 20 mm cannons and thicker wing skin to increase the dive speed a bit.

The A6M6c DID have self-sealing tanks ... all one of them that was built. The A6M7 was never built and they built all of two A6M8s with Kinsei 62 engines (1,560 HP!) in place of the Sakae 31. So we are talking a whopping three aircraft of the Zero family that had self-sealing tanks, none of which ever saw combat.

If we are talking getting the numbers out early , the Grumman is one hell of a success story. if we are talking cutting edge technology and performance to boot. then the hellcat is just another garden variety late war aircraft.....a bit slow, very tough, good at what it was designed for. This was a thread about Hellcat and A6M performance last time I looked.

If we are talking or comparing competitiveness on the basis of which one was ready in time, the Zeke wins hands down. hellcat first went into Combat in August 1943, and was not really heavily engaged until November. Work had begun on a replacement for the f4f in 1940 and the f6F began design studies from early '41. It was a bit late for its party, but it got there eventually I guess. better late than never. It had largely been retired by 1946, an effective combat career of just over two years.

The Mitsubishi began design is interesting to recount. The 12 shi program began October 1937. Horikoshi from the start set down a three year development; 1 complete year to design concepts, 6 months for prototype construction. and a full year for trials and evaluation.

This program was attenuated by the war demands, but the first combat rials were from October 1940. So we are clear, we are therefor comparing a design dating from 1937-39, to a design of 1941-2, and service deliveries from 1940-41, to an aircraft 1943 (oh yes, i know, it was first flown in June 1942, but we didnt see a wimper out of the Grumman until January 1943 and no growls or bites until October, in other words after all the hard lifting against the Japanese had been pretty much completed. . Until then, it really wasnt deserving the name "Hellcat", more "pussycat" or "tabbycat" . the Zeke entered combat 3 years before the hellcat, and flew its last combat mission in September 1945, a career spanning 5 years. if we start talking minor air forces, I couldnt tell you how long the hellcat was flying, but the last combat mission by a Zeke was in 1950, under the Viet minh. Not bad for an aircraft made out of tinfoil and held together by sticky tape.

Never claimed the 5b subvariiant had SS tanks, but they did have CO2 fire extinguishers in the wings

 

[GregP]

Been a long day, just wanted to inject a little humor. Didn't want to step on anyone's toes ...

Time for a beer. Cheers. Maybe a Spitfire Ale ...