FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?
P-51 vs. Hellcat
- Thread starter nimrod.michaeli
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Flyboyj,
>Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?
Lowest speed for Clmax, which is specific to exact conditions. This works out as about 260 km/h for the A6M3 at sea level, and 10 - 15 km/h more than that for the F6F-5.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Henning, your last graph - "sustained turn rate," at what speed?
Lowest speed for Clmax, which is specific to exact conditions. This works out as about 260 km/h for the A6M3 at sea level, and 10 - 15 km/h more than that for the F6F-5.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hi Flyboyj,
>Now I wonder what the same data would be at say 515 KPH?
Considering 6 G the maximum a WW2 pilot without G suit could pull without blacking out, the A6M3 would reach that figure at sea level at 350 km/h, a speed at which the F6F-5 would only be able to pull 4 G. This would be far beyond what the engine could sustain, so both aircraft would slow down rather quickly to the speeds quoted in my above post, with the F6F-5 being unable "to follow the Zero" at speeds below 420 km/h if we adhere to the 6 G pilot-induced maximum.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Now I wonder what the same data would be at say 515 KPH?
Considering 6 G the maximum a WW2 pilot without G suit could pull without blacking out, the A6M3 would reach that figure at sea level at 350 km/h, a speed at which the F6F-5 would only be able to pull 4 G. This would be far beyond what the engine could sustain, so both aircraft would slow down rather quickly to the speeds quoted in my above post, with the F6F-5 being unable "to follow the Zero" at speeds below 420 km/h if we adhere to the 6 G pilot-induced maximum.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The Hellcat was on the drawing board before the outbreak of war between Japan and the US. Still, the designers had access to the Aleutian Zero and the Zero was a dogfighter and principle US Navy aerial enemy at the time. You'd think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray. Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?
OH well, can't argue with those graphs I guess. Could you expand the size, I need some new wallpaper for my grandkids bedroom.
The A6M was a beautiful plane and a marvel to handle in a dogfight. It was also a "flambe in waiting" and all it took was one incendiary round. The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.
The A6M was a beautiful plane and a marvel to handle in a dogfight. It was also a "flambe in waiting" and all it took was one incendiary round. The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.
ONE_HELLCAT
Airman 1st Class
Well Grumman looked at what they drew up and what was out in the field and decided to increase the horsepower of the Hellcat and better protect it. With the tactics at hand, maneuverability was becoming less important compared to speed and numbers. If a Zero was on your tail, you could run away, or have your buddies pick him off of ya.
It's also hard to build a plane with the armor to keep inexperienced pilots alive, and the turning ability to combat the Zero. But you could build one that keeps inexperienced pilots alive, and goes really fast in a dive with guns blazing.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The Hellcat was originally designed for a smaller engine but, finding the performance goals were not met, Grumman went to the R2800. A Zero like AC could have been designed but an equivalent to the A6M was not desired. The Navy wanted something superior.
Hi Barney,
>You'd think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray.
They could have substantially reduced the weight (difficult without major redesign, which would have taken a lot of time), or increased the wing area, which would have been difficult to fit on a carrier and reduced speed performance. Or they could have increased the power - which they did, by replacing the R-2600 of the XF6F-1 with the R-2800 of the XF6F-3.
>Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?
Speed alone was the most important characteristic of a WW2 fighter. You can't really use extreme manoeuvrability without threatening unit cohesion, and on the other hand manoeuvrability can be defeated by coordinated attacks.
Additionaly, superior speed at the beginning of an engagement is equivalent to excess energy that can be traded for a position advantage - this can get you into a shooting position quickly even though you might not have a chance in a longer dogfight.
The F6F really had the decisive qualities it needed to be successful against the Japanese fighters it faced, even though its speed might appear a bit low compared to contemporary Western fighter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>You'd think that this would have precipitated a little more work in the maneuver area than what these charts portray.
They could have substantially reduced the weight (difficult without major redesign, which would have taken a lot of time), or increased the wing area, which would have been difficult to fit on a carrier and reduced speed performance. Or they could have increased the power - which they did, by replacing the R-2600 of the XF6F-1 with the R-2800 of the XF6F-3.
>Was speed alone, with the engine upgrade, able to carry the day or are we missing something here?
Speed alone was the most important characteristic of a WW2 fighter. You can't really use extreme manoeuvrability without threatening unit cohesion, and on the other hand manoeuvrability can be defeated by coordinated attacks.
Additionaly, superior speed at the beginning of an engagement is equivalent to excess energy that can be traded for a position advantage - this can get you into a shooting position quickly even though you might not have a chance in a longer dogfight.
The F6F really had the decisive qualities it needed to be successful against the Japanese fighters it faced, even though its speed might appear a bit low compared to contemporary Western fighter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Tpikdave,
>The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.
Grumman actually built such a plane, the F8F Bearcat
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>The US came out with the F6F with self sealing tanks and armor (ergo the increased weight) I wonder what it could have done without this weight as per a turn and fight doggy style.
Grumman actually built such a plane, the F8F Bearcat
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Hello Henning,
Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944. At these boost levels, the P-51s are faster at sealevel by 25 to 35 mph and roughly continues at this level as altitude increases (at 20k the P-51D has a 21 mph advantage and the P-51B has about a 30 mph advantage), and the P-51B/D outclimbs the F6F-5 at all altitudes, and it will also out dive the F6F-5.
I would take the P-51 any day due to its much better command of energy management, it has too many more tools to use.
Hi Davparlr,
>Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944.
Good point - do you have a complete data set with weight, top speed at specified altitude, and boost level used?
Then I might be able to add a P-51D contemporary to the F6f-5 to the chart
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944.
Good point - do you have a complete data set with weight, top speed at specified altitude, and boost level used?
Then I might be able to add a P-51D contemporary to the F6f-5 to the chart
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
drgondog
Major
actual flight test data with specified takeoff weights by loading, as well as a range of averages for speeds and boosts are well documented in Mike's site
P-51 Mustang Performance
In most cases full internal fuel is always used, sometimes ballast for ammo and sometimes a full fuselage tank but the report will so state as well as the calculated gross weight for the resulting test.
And, for what it is worth G-suits were available to all 8th AF FC pilots starting in September and completed by November, 1944 so the average Mustang pilot by then was better equipped for high G manuevers than their counterparts not so equipped.
P-51 Mustang Performance
In most cases full internal fuel is always used, sometimes ballast for ammo and sometimes a full fuselage tank but the report will so state as well as the calculated gross weight for the resulting test.
And, for what it is worth G-suits were available to all 8th AF FC pilots starting in September and completed by November, 1944 so the average Mustang pilot by then was better equipped for high G manuevers than their counterparts not so equipped.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Oh but their counterparts seats were reclined back, so there was no advantage there!
drgondog
Major
Oh but their counterparts seats were reclined back, so there was no advantage there!
I DO remember that argument! Where is he anyway?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Hi Davparlr,
>Since the F6F-5 did not begin production until April, '44, a more accurate comparison would be with the P-51B/D using 72" or 75" inches of boost (19 or 20 lbs), which was approved in May, 1944.
Good point - do you have a complete data set with weight, top speed at specified altitude, and boost level used?
Then I might be able to add a P-51D contemporary to the F6f-5 to the chart
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Here is some data on the P-51B using 44-1 fuel from Spitfireperformance. Data on the P-51D using this fuel and boost seems to be lacking. Performance of the P-51D with 44-1 fuel should be similar to the P-51B accounting for slightly greater weight, P-51D, fighter weight is 9611 lbs., and is probably slightly less clean. I hope this helps.
Airspeed
P-51B w/44-1 fuel
A/C 43-24777
Tested Wt. 9339 lbs
Reference Fighter wt. 9263 lbs
Tested boost 75 inches
Source
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-level.jpg
Altitude (ft), Airspeed (mph) with/racks, Airspeed without/racks
SL, 376, 386
5k, 400, 410
10k, 411, 420
15k, 414, 427
20k, 429, 442
25k, 424, 440
30k, 436, 430 (extrapolated)
Climb
P-51B w/44-1 fuel
A/C 43-24777
Tested Wt. 9335 lbs
Reference Ftr.Wt. 9236 lbs
Tested boost 75 inches
With racks
Source
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-44-1-climb.jpg
Altitude (ft), Climb Rate (ft/min)
SL, 4380
5k, 4000
10k, 3820
15k, 3660
20k, 2940
25k, 2600
30k, 1600
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Don't know, I was wondering the same!
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I suspect he never pushed his private Mustang the way the way he pushed the government F6F.
True, that veteran aviator is crazy for loving the piece of crap Hellcat.I suspect he never pushed his private Mustang the way the way he pushed the government F6F.
Hi Dav,
>Performance of the P-51D with 44-1 fuel should be similar to the P-51B accounting for slightly greater weight, P-51D, fighter weight is 9611 lbs., and is probably slightly less clean.
To correctly portray the P-51D with bubble canopy, I decided to use the Mustang IV data from the flight test here:
Mustang IV Flight Trials
It seemed to be the best-documented P-51D test, showing compressibility corrections etc.
The weight given there is 9480 lbs with an empty fuselage tank. As 67" Hg is given as power rating for 5 min duration in the report, and also as maximum in my reprint of the 1945 P-51 Mustang manual, I decided to use this rating (first).
Here is the comparison to the Hellcat. The engine data I used for the calculation is slightly different than that for the earlier Mustang III calculation due to the data listed on P-51 Mustang Performance
Note that the figures listed by the British are for a weight of 9000 lbs while mine are for the take-off weight of 9480 lbs. With a full fuselage tank, the weight would be 9990 lbs. You listed a fighter weight of 9611 lbs, which is probably with empty fuselage tank but a bit more equipment and stuff
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Performance of the P-51D with 44-1 fuel should be similar to the P-51B accounting for slightly greater weight, P-51D, fighter weight is 9611 lbs., and is probably slightly less clean.
To correctly portray the P-51D with bubble canopy, I decided to use the Mustang IV data from the flight test here:
Mustang IV Flight Trials
It seemed to be the best-documented P-51D test, showing compressibility corrections etc.
The weight given there is 9480 lbs with an empty fuselage tank. As 67" Hg is given as power rating for 5 min duration in the report, and also as maximum in my reprint of the 1945 P-51 Mustang manual, I decided to use this rating (first).
Here is the comparison to the Hellcat. The engine data I used for the calculation is slightly different than that for the earlier Mustang III calculation due to the data listed on P-51 Mustang Performance
Note that the figures listed by the British are for a weight of 9000 lbs while mine are for the take-off weight of 9480 lbs. With a full fuselage tank, the weight would be 9990 lbs. You listed a fighter weight of 9611 lbs, which is probably with empty fuselage tank but a bit more equipment and stuff
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
