Hellcat vs Zero

FLYBOYJ said:

"Naturally, once the war began, the Imperial Navy started losing pilots faster than they could be replaced. For example, the 29 pilots lost at Pearl Harbor represented more than a quarter of the annual crop. The battles of the next year led to the loss of hundreds of superb pilots."

Based on that I think no matter how good a fighter aircraft the IJN were able to operate, they doomed themselves from the start.

Click to expand...

I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.

An indicator of why the Shokaku and Zuikaku were considered inferior in pilots to the other carriers of Kido Butai:

There was no reserve of skilled pilots to speak of. Indeed, Peattie (2001) has pointed out that, when war broke out, 11 Air Fleet had been drawn on so heavily for cadre for the new Shokakus that its rosters already included significant numbers of incompletely trained pilots.

Click to expand...

Shinpachi wrote:

Good points but, for IJN only, total pilots were 241,463 from 1930 to 1945.
Roughly 16,000 a year. Combined with the army's, it would have been almost double

Click to expand...

Where do these numbers come from? It seems high to be, even counting the swarms of 40 hours training pilots there were at the end of the war.

Do you have these numbers as pilots trained by year?

For comparison

Between Oct 1940 and Mar 1945, the BCATP in Canada trained 49,808 pilots and 131,553 total air crew (includes pilots).

Garyt said:

Where do these numbers come from? It seems high to be, even counting the swarms of 40 hours training pilots there were at the end of the war.

Do you have these numbers as pilots trained by year?

Click to expand...

So, here is the link to the statistics for the fifteen years by the year and the training course.

gjs238 said:

I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.

Click to expand...

Only in hindsight. Depending on your enemy to stuff up the pilot training and development of both new versions of existing fighters and the development of new fighters as badly as the Japanese did is really poor planning.

Shinpachi said:

So, here is the link to the statistics for the fifteen years by the year and the training course.

Click to expand...

Shinpachi,

I cannot read Japanese but is the link you posted a reference to the different Yokaren cycles?

Hi Milosh,

If you read several pieces written by Vladimir Babych about the use of MiG fighter aircraft around the world, you will see he claims the Soviet MiG pilots in Korea shot down 1,106 US-made aircraft, of which he says 650 were F-86 Sabres, all for the loss of 335 MiGs. Soviet MiG serial numbers have never been released for public consumption. And we never sent 650 Sabres to Korea ...

The USA says we lost 78 Sabres with a further 13 being listed as "missing in action." The thing is, the tail numbers of the F-86s missing and brought back are known and accounted for. Many went to National Guard or Reserve units and flew until retired and scrapped or stored at Davis Monthan AFB. Some are still there today.

F-86 claims amounted to 792 MiGs with a further 118 probables. We had gun cameras in Korea, and the proof is largely on film. There were more claims that were not MiGs.

As for the Hellcat, real-world numbers are obvious ... it is the war record of the F6F Hellcat that is available to the public. It was devastating to the IJN and IJA alike wherever it showed up. If that's mediocre, I'll take it any day of the week over planes that LOOK great, but did nothing in the war, like the much-vaunted Ta-152 that had from 7 to 10 victories against 2 - 4 losses ... when flown by experts. The Hellcats kicked butt with average pilots, not hand-picked experts.

Give me a Hellcat every time.

I think he meant mediocre design and not mediocre performance. I agree with him. Its like the Brewster Buffalo. It did very well in Finland but I wouldn't call it a revolutionary design. It was a poor to fair design that did extremely well in a certain environment.

I'd say it was an evolutionary design, too, not revolutionary. In that sense, the very excellent Grumman F8F Bearcat is also an evolutionary design, but I'd probably pick it first or second as the all-time best piston Naval fighter, and maybe first of second as the best all-time piston fighter, period, Naval or otherwise.

So I see where the "mediocre" came from and have to disagree since it produced a first-rate fighter. But that's OK, agreement is nice when you can get it, but it isn't necessary.

And it isn't a source of much argument from me either way. For me it's an opinion, not an argument. We all have our favorites and they got to be that way for a reason. For instance, the Ta 152 did almost nothing in the war to make itself stand out, but it remains a favorite of mine nevertheless. There's no accounting for taste, huh?

Duplicate post for some reason ... why does it DO that every once in awhile?

That;s why I don't want to fly around in the same sky with drones or fly as a passenger on an unpiloted airliner ... to err is human. To REALLY screw up takes a computer, and the computer can't tell when it has decided something that is unreasonable.

gjs238 said:

I was considering starting a thread, "Could the F4F have won the war without the F6F and F4U," but perhaps that question has just been answered.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the US losses would have been higher and the IJN losses lower, so the balance of power re training and the USA would have been reduced.

Totalize said:

Shinpachi,

I cannot read Japanese but is the link you posted a reference to the different Yokaren cycles?

Click to expand...

Hello, David!
All IJN pilots were requested to graduate from Yokaren.
I'm going to summarize the list.

Greg

ive probably givenb you enough stick for obe thread topic. i hope its all good. you must have known you would get a rise out of me with your hellcat spiel.

Anyway, for the record, I think the hellcat did a fantastic job. But I at least hope you can understand the argument i present.

We may disagree on this issue, but I do hope thats okay. I respect your knowledge on this issue.

parsifal said:

Greg

ive probably givenb you enough stick for obe thread topic. i hope its all good. you must have known you would get a rise out of me with your hellcat spiel.

Anyway, for the record, I think the hellcat did a fantastic job. But I at least hope you can understand the argument i present.

We may disagree on this issue, but I do hope thats okay. I respect your knowledge on this issue.

Click to expand...

Too late, he's already en-route to Australia in his Hellcat...

You know, if we want to look at "revolutionary" designs as opposed to evolutionary, we have the Kyushu J7W. A piston planes that hits 469 mph, and has 4 x30mm cannon, and the HO-5 cannon had a far better muzzle velocity than the Mk108 of the Me262. An operational ceiling of about 40,000 feet as well.

It was only a prototype with 2 models produces, but certainly revolutionary as it was a "pusher" design.

Can't read Japanese either Shinpachi. I'd be interested in a summary by year if possible.

I'd guess these would be transport/recon pilots as well? I wonder what the percentages of pilots allocated to each type of aircraft would be, and by "type" I mean fighter, strike aircraft, bobber, etc.

I'm guessing the 100 per year were for IJN carrier qualified graduates

aircraft of WWII that I consider to be revolutionary, and why

1) De Havvilland Mosquito = Unarmed High speed bomber, fighter bomber, naval strike and night fighter
2) JU87 - Highly accurate and successful divebomber
3) IL2 - Heavily armoured, cheap to build, effective attack plane
4) Fairey Swordfish slow, but deadly accurate, able to work in very poor conditions, and off small decks
5) Mitsubishi A6M - First aircraft of Asiann design to outclass European opponents. Forst carrier based aircraft to outperform opponents. First fighter to exceed 800 miles effective combat radius
6) Me 262 and meteor - first operational jet aircrtaft in history
7) P-51. First allied single engined aircraft able to escort bombers all the way to Berlin
8) B-29. First bomber to deliver atomic Bomb

These aircraft in each peculiar way were revoloutionary in what they could do

aircraft of WWII that I consider to be revolutionary, and why

Click to expand...

I look at "revolutionary" as a plane that is ahead of it's times, and possibly incorporating new technology. I don't really consider the P-51 to be "Revolutionary", as drop tanks were hardly revolutionary. And it's range was about the same as the early war Zero. An excellent design, yes - while P-47's, P-38's, Hellcats and the like were pretty well done after WW2, The P-51 was selected for continued service in the jet age, as was the corsair.

The B-29 - Somewhat revolutionary, as far as being ahead of it's time with pressurized cabin, remote controlled defense systems. I don't consider it revolutionary for the A-bomb though - any sufficiently heavy bomber could have done that.

But in all fairness, their is little that is truly "revolutionary". Even the Kyushu "pusher" design was re-dated by WW1 designs using the pusher design, same as the B-2 was pre-dated by the German Horton flying wing. Every design I think draws from prior successes and failures.

Garyt said:

I look at "revolutionary" as a plane that is ahead of it's times, and possibly incorporating new technology. I don't really consider the P-51 to be "Revolutionary", as drop tanks were hardly revolutionary. And it's range was about the same as the early war Zero. An excellent design, yes - while P-47's, P-38's, Hellcats and the like were pretty well done after WW2, The P-51 was selected for continued service in the jet age, as was the corsair.

The B-29 - Somewhat revolutionary, as far as being ahead of it's time with pressurized cabin, remote controlled defense systems. I don't consider it revolutionary for the A-bomb though - any sufficiently heavy bomber could have done that.

But in all fairness, their is little that is truly "revolutionary". Even the Kyushu "pusher" design was re-dated by WW1 designs using the pusher design, same as the B-2 was pre-dated by the German Horton flying wing. Every design I think draws from prior successes and failures.

Click to expand...

Like "the best," there are so many ways to define "revolutionary."
One way may be to equate revolutionary with "game changer."

A6M and P-51 were certainly game changers.

I'd have to agree with some of your list Parsifal, although the term revolutionary is a difficult one to quantify as most designs that came out of the war were evolutionary by nature, including the first jets and the B-29, since the technology in both was a natural step forward from the status quo, although they were certainly game changers (there's a thread about that here somewhere). Once piston power and unpressurised aircraft reached the zenith of their development cycles, the next step was pressurisation, which was being worked on in the 30s and jet engines, again, which were being worked on in the 30s. The majority of the technology embodied in those aircraft was being trialled more or less before WW2 broke out.

Having said that, however, if there was anything that could be considered a revolution in aviation, it is the application of the gas turbine in aircraft proulsion; everything changed once this happened, although both the Meteor and Me 262 airframes were relatively contemporary and offered little that was new. The big change in aircraft design and technology came about once gas turbines had matured slightly and designers could take advantage of all the merits the new powerplant offered once the technology evolved a little more - its still doing so today.

The B-29 was the combination of the old and new, it was extraordinarily advanced for its time and was the epitome of piston engined bomber design; the next step was fitting it was gas turbines and taking advantage of what they offered. The true revolution in the B-29 was its weapon, however; the atom bomb literally changed the face of the world. Nothing would ever be the same again and don't we know it to this very day.

Nevertheless, a few of the aircraft listed certainly were game changers, although I'd argue against the Ju 87; although devastatingly effective, it offered nothing that any other dive bomber of the era couldn't produce; its just the way it was used caught everyone by surprise - the Germans were masters of manipulating a crowd. They did it with flair (perhaps thats why some of us admire them so much, they were badass, and looked good doing it!).

The Zero was the extreme of an existing philosophy and a natural progression from the Mitubishi A5M, therefore was not really revolutionary, as effective as it was. The reality was that before WW2 almost all air forces, naval and land based concentrated on manoeuvrability in a dogfight as the best way to win a fight and the Zero was the ultimate expression of this; a bridge between the old philosophy and new technologies, like its predecessor.

Swordfish, not at all; the secret to its success was its simplicity; it was Olde Worlde technology at its best; the quitessential expression of the term "Keep It Simple, Stoopid". It worked very well in the environment it served in, exactly the attributes you want for a carrier based aircraft, but its lack of advance did let it down at times. Nevertheless, it was and remains a legend. The same could be said of the Il-2, its biggest advantage was that it was built in large numbers and was relatively simple, but offered nothing new in design or technology.

The Mustang was certainly a step ahead because of its advanced aerodynamics and its performance and capability on roughly the same engine as the P-40, and then the Spitfire IX; it was bigger and heavier than both, yet faster and with a far greater range, even without drop tanks on the same engine power output. It proved what modern concepts on aerodynamics and structural design could do for a contemporary fighter. I'd also throw the Fw 190 as an outstanding design; it employed modern technology in its use of electrical systems and engine management, but was also designed with simplicity of maintenance and operation in mind, possibly the ultimate expression of the employment of ergonomics and advance in a single aircraft of the period, bearing in mind it was a pre-war design.

The Mosquito, more of a tangential concept to the accepted norm and one that had been examined and put in place in the past, in actual fact. Its success as a concept meant that it carried forward into the jet age and to a degree still applies today. Its construction method enabled it to possess superb streamlining and clenliness of exterior structure; like the Mustang, it took aerodynamics to a new level, but it was basically the use of past technology, if not the epitome of that technology, unlike the Mustang, which relied on the latest in aerodynamic concepts from the RAE and NACA. There was nothing really new about the Mosquito, just that it was very goooooood.

As for the Hellcat, well, I agree with Parsifal, an evolutionary design borne out of real world experience and a little fore knowledge, it was a nautral progression from the F4F. Typical of its creator's ethos in terms of ruggedness and strength, it satisfied the navy's needs and was exactly the right aircraft for the job, but no more. It was destined to be overtaken by more modern technology and advance, but it fulfilled a vitally important role admirably and with kudos. What more could the US Navy ask for in a fighter against what the Japanese were fielding? You could answer that with the F4U, but it too, was existing technology and a different answer to the same question posed to the builders of the F6F, but it was inherently more versatile a design and lived to fulfil a need in a technologically evolving world where its qualities could be exploited, a bit like the Swordfish - and the AD-1, too.

Anyway, phew, that's enough for now.