P-51 vs. Hellcat (1 Viewer)

P-51 vs. Hellcat


  • Total voters
    133

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

I agree with what your saying about performance but have to seriously question your logic concerning Honduras's choice in a/c being an F4U and not the F6F. That may be true but other factors may have been taken into consideration.
Hi Amsel
my last post was in response to your post concerning poorer countries on the look-out for an instant airforce, who didn't necessarily have a carrier, I merely presented as a case in point two such countries who, well, chose what they chose for whatever reason; I don't think it's conclusively damning of the F6F that it wasn't selected here but it is noteworthy. :)

On the subject of factors, I'm not sure if availability could be considered, both the F6F and the F4U made their way to South America where they served with the Argentine and Uruguayan Navies. On completion of their second service life, these would then be sold off to poorer economies within South America who would presumably have had the choice of F6F and/or F4U.
Of course, without knowing the eventual fate of both types whilst in Argentine and Uruguayan service (eg maybe most of the F6Fs were written off accident/damaged/lack of maintenance spares/military action) it remains speculation as to why it was the F4U that showed up on the inventories of the poorer economies' airforces, rather than the F6F.

Both the F6F and the F4U were still active in various airforces until at least the early to mid-60s.
 
Of course, without knowing the eventual fate of both types whilst in Argentine and Uruguayan service (eg maybe most of the F6Fs were written off accident/damaged/lack of maintenance spares/military action) it remains speculation as to why it was the F4U that showed up on the inventories of the poorer economies' airforces, rather than the F6F.

Both the F6F and the F4U were still active in various airforces until at least the early to mid-60s.
It would be interesting to find out about the fate of those Hellcats.
 
I've really enjoyed reading all these posts. It's funny that my two fav birds are the B-Stang and the hellcat. Both are absolutely drop dead beauts.That being said, even with only 4 50's , give me the Merlin any day.
 
You're right Bill. I wasn't sure if all of McCampbell's kills were in the Hellcat. While I do love the Hellcat and it's record, against a P-51, I still think the P-51 would have the advantage, except off of a carrier deck, of course. ;) The Hellcat is big and brutish while the Mustang is more sleek.

McCampbell got all of his scores between June 11, 1944 and Nov 14, 1944 - in Hellcats.

He got 28 of his 34 in separate 10 days in three months - getting 5 Zekes and 5 Judys on two separate days.

MoH and Navy Cross pretty impressive
 
I've really enjoyed reading all these posts. It's funny that my two fav birds are the B-Stang and the hellcat. Both are absolutely drop dead beauts.That being said, even with only 4 50's , give me the Merlin any day.

You seem to imply that the P-51 only has four 50cals. This is only true with the P-51B. The P-51D had six, like the F6F.
 
I think I would choose Mustang for High-alttitude, like 25,000+ and Hellcat for low, like 25,000-. Wasn't the Mustang originally supposed to be a bomber escort, and that's why it was better at higher altitude? I am not to proud to admit that my precious Hellcat wasn't as good at high altitude.
 
The Mustang was originally conceived as a 'better P-40'. In the time the Mustang was designed, the USAF's doctrine was that bomber is to fend for itself. Once realities of the war proved that doctrine as faulty, the USAF started escorting it's bombers. Combination of low drag, ample fuel capacity and a very suitable engine (both power and consumption were well suited) made the Merlin Mustang an excellent choice for long range work. We may also note that Allison Mustangs were sometimes used for long range work, even the dedicated low-level A-36 sometimes escorted B-25s in the MTO.
Both the Merlin Mustang were using two-stage engines, that gave good high-alt power. A small detail, namely the layout of ram air intake, was Mustang's strong point, not so strong for the Hellcat. The Mustang was a far less draggier aircraft, and far lighter, hence the speed differential of 50 mph, give or take. The speed differential was pronounced at all altitudes, the Mustang also climbed better.
 
I don't like the P-51 either

No wonder he's been banned :) Two very different aeroplanes used in different contexts. I'd choose the Hellcat if I wanted a carrier based fighter and the P-51 if I wanted a land based long range fighter.
 
ive not read all the posts of this thread guys, but I do think the supposed fragility of the Mustang is being way overplayed here. Mustangs were used in both TOs and in both cases was found to be a tough aircraft to match, moreover it continued in front line service until Korea, whereas the F6F ended production November 1945, and rapidly disappeared from USN front line service.

In terms of the up front comparison, Mustang has one distinct advantage, its straight line speed is far superior to that of the hellcat. p-51H had a top speed more than 100mph greater than the hellcat. In terms of horizontal manouver, i dont think there is anything in it, and I am unsure about issues like dive and climb and roll rate. I would hazard a guess however and say that the Hellcat does not hold any decisive advantage in any of these areas. Happy to stand corrected if someone has contrary information.

Both aircraft were exceptional, so its hard to be definitive. but it is hard not to look at that speed difference and not lean in favour of the P-51....

one question, what was the repective ammo supply carried in each aircraft. anyone know?
 
Last edited:
Ammo supply was better for the Hellcat, with about 400 rounds per gun.
4 gun P-51B&C carried 250rpg for inboard gun and 350rpg for outboard gun (?) and 6 gun P-51Ds carried 500rpg (later 400) for the inboard guns and 270rpg for center and outboard guns. Center guns could be removed and outboard gun ammo increased to 500rpg.

The 6 gun P-51 had enough ammo for all six guns to fire about 20 seconds so how much of an advantage the extra 10 seconds of firing time the F6F has I don't know. In some cases very handy but how often?
 
The 6 gun P-51 had enough ammo for all six guns to fire about 20 seconds so how much of an advantage the extra 10 seconds of firing time the F6F has I don't know. In some cases very handy but how often?

Jimmy Thach is quoted as saying, "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will miss with eight." ;)
 
Jimmy Thach also starting flying in 1929 or 30 and served for quite sometime as a gunnery instructor I believe. Not trying to take anything away from him but the context of the quote may be as interesting as the quote itself.

Several F6F pilots did make "ace in day" or in one flight which speaks to both good shooting and high ammo capacity. But the number of times a single pilot could actually get 4 or more targets in his sight in one flight out of the tens of thousands of combats is pretty small.
 
Jimmy Thach is quoted as saying, "A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will miss with eight." ;)

Surely you could say the same for two or even one gun. The more guns you have firing a deflection shot the more chance of strikes on target. With a standard mg fitted to a US fighter what is the separation between each bullet? Mind you I think for example in the BoB the Spits and Hirricanes may have been better suited with 6 MGs and more ammunition.
 
Surely you could say the same for two or even one gun. The more guns you have firing a deflection shot the more chance of strikes on target. With a standard mg fitted to a US fighter what is the separation between each bullet? Mind you I think for example in the BoB the Spits and Hirricanes may have been better suited with 6 MGs and more ammunition.
His point was more guns don't always make aerial combat more effective, before we could start talking about armament effectivness (in a day were the trend was to add more and more guns to fighters), the pilot has to be able to hit the target to begin with.
 
His point was more guns don't always make aerial combat more effective, before we could start talking about armament effectivness (in a day were the trend was to add more and more guns to fighters), the pilot has to be able to hit the target to begin with.

Agreed...it depends on the destructive power of the gun.

I have read here that 2or 3 hits from a 30mm cannon could take down a B17 but in the BoB bombers were examined showing over 100 hits with .303 calibre
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back