In a way, I agree, the Whirlwind went into service in late 1940 the Spitfire in 1938, but Hawkers were still messing about with their old type design after that, the FW 190 started appearing in late 1941 which also had a bubble type canopy. There must be some speed penalty even with a Malcolm hood because PR spitfires didn't use them and optical distortion was an issue.
Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
IMO, the timing was everything.
If one has plenty of, say, fighters that can do 250 mph, and climb at so many fpm, and have just two LMGs abroad, they are a far better thing than the enemy fighters that are supposed to do 300 mph, climb very fast, and have 4 MGs of any calibre, but whose are alo just to roll out from factory(ies). Here we can also facto-in the ability of the design to be mass produced.
Other things that make a good fighter (apart from ability to change it's postion fast, while ranging far, wide & high) were, in no particular order:
visibility, layout of cockpit - 'human interface' (gauges, handles, switches - yes, I'm looking at you, P-38), size (big size = enemy will spot you easier), ability to sustain light damage, wepon set-up, how much there is stretch in a design (so more powerful & heavier engine(s) can be installed, more fuel, weponry, protection, electronics), how easy for novice pilot is to adopt to the type, ability to be easily serviceable, stall warning & behavoiur.
For the bombers, some of the above apply, but here we also look whether the co-pilot is next to the pilot (applicable for 2/3/4-engined types mostly), how easy is to ababndon the bomber need be, size of the bomb bay so there is less need to carry anything outboard, defensive weponry fo the most of the types.
For all carrier-borne A/C, one might want docile handling during low-speed flight, plus what applies from above mentioned.
If one has plenty of, say, fighters that can do 250 mph, and climb at so many fpm, and have just two LMGs abroad, they are a far better thing than the enemy fighters that are supposed to do 300 mph, climb very fast, and have 4 MGs of any calibre, but whose are alo just to roll out from factory(ies). Here we can also facto-in the ability of the design to be mass produced.
Other things that make a good fighter (apart from ability to change it's postion fast, while ranging far, wide & high) were, in no particular order:
visibility, layout of cockpit - 'human interface' (gauges, handles, switches - yes, I'm looking at you, P-38), size (big size = enemy will spot you easier), ability to sustain light damage, wepon set-up, how much there is stretch in a design (so more powerful & heavier engine(s) can be installed, more fuel, weponry, protection, electronics), how easy for novice pilot is to adopt to the type, ability to be easily serviceable, stall warning & behavoiur.
For the bombers, some of the above apply, but here we also look whether the co-pilot is next to the pilot (applicable for 2/3/4-engined types mostly), how easy is to ababndon the bomber need be, size of the bomb bay so there is less need to carry anything outboard, defensive weponry fo the most of the types.
For all carrier-borne A/C, one might want docile handling during low-speed flight, plus what applies from above mentioned.
In being, easy to build, easy to fly. Has any country actually had a such a critter at the beginning of a war? The Hawker Hurricane is the closest thing I can think of. (I would also add easy to fix!)
GregP
Major
As far as handling characteristics go, we can make comments about:
1) Handling around stall (F6F and Bf 109 excelled at this, ailerons remained effective through the stall)
2) Linearity of control forces (twice the pull or push gives twice the pitch or roll)
3) Changes in control effectiveness with speed changes
4) Sensitivity in trim to speed changes (most WWII fighters were VERY speed sensitive, not the Fw 190)
5) Ergonomics of cockpit (how easy is it to get to and use the various gauges and switches)
6) Ease of handling the powerplant (easy to set for good power without much thought or time)
7) Gunsight (+ or -)
8) Convergent or nonconvergent armament (guns in nose or wings)
9) Selectable or non-selectable armament (cannons, MG, or both)
10) Cockpit comfort (heater at high altitudes, fresh air inlets, seat ergonomics)
11) Landing gear issues (tippy or rolley on ground … see Bf 109: very rolley, will NOT nose over, and Spitfire, not very rolley, but noses over easily ... Griffon unit)
12) Flap and gear speeds (can you deploy them almost anytime, or have to slow way down)
13) Ram air or not (Hellcat did not have it, Corsair did. MANY Corsairs went in around carrier from carb ice in cooler weather, no Hellcats did)
14) Reliable powerplant or not
There are more, to be sure, but the various placings in here can make a plane a joy to fly or something to be avoided. I have spoken to NOBODY who flies warbirds that doesn't LOVE the Hellcat and Wildcat (except landing on pavement in wind). Seems Grumman had a thing for "handling around the carrier" and their planes fly exceptionally well at pattern speeds and when slow, and it doesn't affect their handling when fast.
Everyone likes a P-51, too … unless you stall it. Then, they'd ALL rather be in a Hellcat. The P-51 stall can be mild or wild, and you can't tell which is about to happen. POH says don't stall it below 10,000 feet AGL! Now THAT's a stall warning!
As far as I can tell, it's in the pilot's corner as to what he (or she) is comfortable with. Delmar Benjamin was comfortable with a Gee Bee R-2 after many hours in it! NOBODY else was.
1) Handling around stall (F6F and Bf 109 excelled at this, ailerons remained effective through the stall)
2) Linearity of control forces (twice the pull or push gives twice the pitch or roll)
3) Changes in control effectiveness with speed changes
4) Sensitivity in trim to speed changes (most WWII fighters were VERY speed sensitive, not the Fw 190)
5) Ergonomics of cockpit (how easy is it to get to and use the various gauges and switches)
6) Ease of handling the powerplant (easy to set for good power without much thought or time)
7) Gunsight (+ or -)
8) Convergent or nonconvergent armament (guns in nose or wings)
9) Selectable or non-selectable armament (cannons, MG, or both)
10) Cockpit comfort (heater at high altitudes, fresh air inlets, seat ergonomics)
11) Landing gear issues (tippy or rolley on ground … see Bf 109: very rolley, will NOT nose over, and Spitfire, not very rolley, but noses over easily ... Griffon unit)
12) Flap and gear speeds (can you deploy them almost anytime, or have to slow way down)
13) Ram air or not (Hellcat did not have it, Corsair did. MANY Corsairs went in around carrier from carb ice in cooler weather, no Hellcats did)
14) Reliable powerplant or not
There are more, to be sure, but the various placings in here can make a plane a joy to fly or something to be avoided. I have spoken to NOBODY who flies warbirds that doesn't LOVE the Hellcat and Wildcat (except landing on pavement in wind). Seems Grumman had a thing for "handling around the carrier" and their planes fly exceptionally well at pattern speeds and when slow, and it doesn't affect their handling when fast.
Everyone likes a P-51, too … unless you stall it. Then, they'd ALL rather be in a Hellcat. The P-51 stall can be mild or wild, and you can't tell which is about to happen. POH says don't stall it below 10,000 feet AGL! Now THAT's a stall warning!
As far as I can tell, it's in the pilot's corner as to what he (or she) is comfortable with. Delmar Benjamin was comfortable with a Gee Bee R-2 after many hours in it! NOBODY else was.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #25
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I really enjoyed reading your post. Just the kind of thing I was hoping this thread would generate. Wanted to rate it informative but my rating bar has been absent all day( don't no if everyone else is having the same issue right now or if it's something with my phone).
I've read the same things about the handling of the F6F and p51. Putting 2 and 2 together I'm guessing when I read pilots say "the trick to flying the p51 was to keep it moving" they are saying it's great as long as you don't stall it? Or just that its handling didn't deteriorate at higher speeds as much as other planes so this gave it an advantage at said higher speeds? Or perhaps a little of both.
GregP
Major
Hi Michael Rauls,
I volunteer at the planes of Fame and see and talk with many warbird pilots. My "take" on it, if you will, is that time in the cockpit breeds familiarity with the beast.
A new P-51 pilot is a bit scared of it most of the time. Seasoned P-51 pilots known what it will do and avoid the areas where it may bite, so they don't even THINK about it biting anymore because they KNOW what to do in it in a given situation. For the low-time warbird pilot, the F6F is VERY forgiving, as is an A6M Zero and a few others. Other warbirds are not necessarily unforgiving, but you needs to know what to avoid in order to not get into trouble.
One universal piece of advice is to not fly it at all unless you KNOW your emergency procedures by heart, blindfolded. One local warbird pilot declared an emergency for a rough engine in a Tigercat where another one took it in stride when a major flight control emergency happened and landed basically with trim tabs, without fanfare. Experience tends to breed competency, if only through exposure.
That said, the most experienced warbird pilot I know, Steve Hinton, hasn't met a military airplane he didn't like, from WWI through Korean War jets. I think it comes with experience and familiarity with warbirds in general. Think about it, most of the WWII warbirds have similar performance numbers with 1,000 to 2,500 HP and greatly-varying weights and wing loading. Flying them regularly tends to cement your competence at doing it. Flying one weekend a month will make you a bit apprehensive of warbirds forever through lack of cockpit time and enough time for your meager skills to get rusty between flights.
Cheers.
I volunteer at the planes of Fame and see and talk with many warbird pilots. My "take" on it, if you will, is that time in the cockpit breeds familiarity with the beast.
A new P-51 pilot is a bit scared of it most of the time. Seasoned P-51 pilots known what it will do and avoid the areas where it may bite, so they don't even THINK about it biting anymore because they KNOW what to do in it in a given situation. For the low-time warbird pilot, the F6F is VERY forgiving, as is an A6M Zero and a few others. Other warbirds are not necessarily unforgiving, but you needs to know what to avoid in order to not get into trouble.
One universal piece of advice is to not fly it at all unless you KNOW your emergency procedures by heart, blindfolded. One local warbird pilot declared an emergency for a rough engine in a Tigercat where another one took it in stride when a major flight control emergency happened and landed basically with trim tabs, without fanfare. Experience tends to breed competency, if only through exposure.
That said, the most experienced warbird pilot I know, Steve Hinton, hasn't met a military airplane he didn't like, from WWI through Korean War jets. I think it comes with experience and familiarity with warbirds in general. Think about it, most of the WWII warbirds have similar performance numbers with 1,000 to 2,500 HP and greatly-varying weights and wing loading. Flying them regularly tends to cement your competence at doing it. Flying one weekend a month will make you a bit apprehensive of warbirds forever through lack of cockpit time and enough time for your meager skills to get rusty between flights.
Cheers.
- Thread starter
- #27
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Thanks for the reply. I have been out to Planes of fame in Chino quite a few times( although the last time was about 2 years ago). It's only about 30 minutes from my house.
Always take the opportunity to talk to all the guys there so I'm thinking we may have met at some point. Got to get out there again soon. Been thinking about it lately.
Hopefully I'll bump into you next time I'm out there.
Kevin J
Banned
The attributes that I always think are missing are:-
1. Dive speed. The ability to disengage at will.
2. Roll rate. The ability to change direction quickly in a dog fight.
3. Turning circle. Useful when engaging in a dogfight with an opponent much faster than yourself, but a defensive measure only.
Maximum speed is useful to know, but the Russian experience in WW2 was that a 20 to 25 mph speed difference was no big deal so long as you are fast enough to engage your enemies bombers and ground attack aircraft.They were using the Hurricane successfully in the VVS in 1942 and PVO in 1943. Their naval aviation were using Warhawks until the end of the war, likewise the Australians in the East Indies, their Kittyhawks scoring more victories than their higher performing Spitfires in the last two years of the war there.
So range, the ability to take the war to your enemy. In the East Indies both the RAAF's Beaufighters and Kittyhawks scored more aerial victories than their Spitfires in the last two years of the war there. Meanwhile the RNZAF having converted from the Kittyhawk to the Corsair scored no more aerial victories.
A Friend of mine, Ten. Alberto Scano, was among the Pilots to fly in the last Operational Training Unit on piston fighters in the early '60.
Here his memories.
Memorie di un pilota: le immagini e i ricordi del Tenente Alberto Scano - Aviation Report
Alberto told me several times that while G-59s had a wonderful stall behaviour, that of P-51 as awful.
He also told me that in the last flight of his Course, that was a special demonstration and in wich many aerial aerobatics were planned, his P-51 stalled, and he was unable to restore the proper flight pattern, so he undid his seat belts and prepared to throw himself outside, just realizing that the plane was too low. Fortunately for him, the airplane returned by itself to its proper position only a few tens of meters from the ground, so he was able to return inside the cabin and he managed to land the airplane normally.
He told me that the terror ( and the fortune he had…) in that occasion were remarkable.
- Thread starter
- #30
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Fascinating stuff. That's one of the things thats always attracted me to planes like the F6F and p38 and made me apprehensive about planes like the p51 and 39.
One of the important qualities of combat aircraft that I think often gets overlooked is how dangerous they are to there own pilots. With the F6F and p38 seems it was verry hard to make those things fall out of the sky( unless you dive one of the early models(pre dive flap) of the latter from high altitude too fast).
With the p51 and 39 by contrast seems like even experienced pilots sometimes got into trouble like in the example you gave, sometimes with fatal consequences.
This is the impression I have got from what I've read over the years. Not an expert on this so I'm certainly receptive to corection if my impressions are wrong.
View: https://youtu.be/d_0E5XB2-io
Here some impressions about P-51 from Italian Pilots.
"Mustang, if it went in reverse flight, had the nasty habit of spitting oil eveywhere" one of those Pilots says "so, when I once amused myself a little bit, after landing I was asked by the Commanding Officer if I did perform some unauthorized aerobatics."
"No, Sir!" was my reply.
"Well, this evening you will pay to drink to all the Officers in the Mess..." was his.
GregP
Major
The F6F had only 270 losses to enemy aircraft in air combat, and many people tout that. But they forget the 553 losses to AA and the 340 operational losses in combat ... and the nearly identical numbers for losses on non-combat flights. In total, it had a 1.75% loss rate per sortie. The F4U Corsair had a 1.20% loss rate per sortie overall, and the FM Wildcat had a 1.18% loss rate per sortie overall. Let's recall that Navy fighters don't generally have a place to land if something happens, they land in the water and sink. Also, the Corsair wasn't deployed to carriers until much later. It flew from land for half or more of it's career.
So why did the F4F Wildcat have a 9.55% loss rate per sortie overall? I don't know, but I suspect the F4F was there at the start, when we were figuring out carrier air combat. My guess is many guys simply ran out of fuel. They only flew 1/6 of the sorties the FM did and 1/30 the sorties of the F6F, and did it very early in the US WWII timeframe.
The highest loss rate per sortie in the USAAF was the P-38 at 1.35%. The P-51 was at 1.18%, just under the P-38. The P-39 Airacobra, contrary to what you might believe, had a loss rate per sortie of only 0.35%! The P-47 Thunderbolt was the most complex fighter in the USAAF and flew more than twice as many sorties as any other fighter. It's loss rate per sorties was 0.73%, making flying one almost twice as safe as flying a P-51. The safest fighter in the USAAF was the P-39!
Many people look at the kill-to-loss rate in air-to-air combat as a good metric, and I somewhat agree. The F6F was the best, hands down at 19 : 1. But a better metric is kill-to-all-losses ratio, including operational and non-combat losses. The P-51 is at 3.6. The P-47 is at 2.0. All Wildcats together are at 3.3. The F4U is at 2.8. And the winnrer, hands down, is the F6F at 4.4 kill for every loss of any kind. So, by kill-to-combat-loss or kill-to-any-loss, the F6F is a hands-down winner.
The P-51, overall, had more kills at 9,081 including air and ground than the F6F at 5,163 that were mostly in the air, but it had to fly 3.2 times the number of sorties (213,873 versus 66,530) in a comparatively target-rich environment to do it. By comparatively target-rich, I mean there were far more German fighters around to be found than there were Japanese fighters around and, in the ETO, there was ground-based radar to help you find them. Not so in the PTO, except for comparatively local flights around the carriers.
Just some numbers to look at from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes and the 1946 Naval Combat Statistics of WWII.
The numbers very clearly point out the F6F as a great aircraft in air-to-air combat, and that does not take anything from the P-51, which did a great job, too.
So why did the F4F Wildcat have a 9.55% loss rate per sortie overall? I don't know, but I suspect the F4F was there at the start, when we were figuring out carrier air combat. My guess is many guys simply ran out of fuel. They only flew 1/6 of the sorties the FM did and 1/30 the sorties of the F6F, and did it very early in the US WWII timeframe.
The highest loss rate per sortie in the USAAF was the P-38 at 1.35%. The P-51 was at 1.18%, just under the P-38. The P-39 Airacobra, contrary to what you might believe, had a loss rate per sortie of only 0.35%! The P-47 Thunderbolt was the most complex fighter in the USAAF and flew more than twice as many sorties as any other fighter. It's loss rate per sorties was 0.73%, making flying one almost twice as safe as flying a P-51. The safest fighter in the USAAF was the P-39!
Many people look at the kill-to-loss rate in air-to-air combat as a good metric, and I somewhat agree. The F6F was the best, hands down at 19 : 1. But a better metric is kill-to-all-losses ratio, including operational and non-combat losses. The P-51 is at 3.6. The P-47 is at 2.0. All Wildcats together are at 3.3. The F4U is at 2.8. And the winnrer, hands down, is the F6F at 4.4 kill for every loss of any kind. So, by kill-to-combat-loss or kill-to-any-loss, the F6F is a hands-down winner.
The P-51, overall, had more kills at 9,081 including air and ground than the F6F at 5,163 that were mostly in the air, but it had to fly 3.2 times the number of sorties (213,873 versus 66,530) in a comparatively target-rich environment to do it. By comparatively target-rich, I mean there were far more German fighters around to be found than there were Japanese fighters around and, in the ETO, there was ground-based radar to help you find them. Not so in the PTO, except for comparatively local flights around the carriers.
Just some numbers to look at from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes and the 1946 Naval Combat Statistics of WWII.
The numbers very clearly point out the F6F as a great aircraft in air-to-air combat, and that does not take anything from the P-51, which did a great job, too.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #34
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Great post with some really surprising information. I like your idea about a kill to losses of all causes ratio as it takes into account how safe an aircraft was for its own pilots. Only thing is it seems like that ratio would skew against planes that did alot of ground attack work like the p47. Alot of extra losses there with little oportunity for kills. Maybe kills to all losses ratio on missions not ground attack? Although that may be impossible to sort out at this point.
parsifal
Colonel
The length of time between scheduled maintenance periods is a biggie. Me 262 needed new engine overhauls every 10 hours, which effectively makes it an operational non-starter. Somewhere ive read the F6F could fly for up to 100 hours before major over haul was needed, maybe more
The F4F3 was a pretty primitive machine with hand crank landing gear and hand pump flaps, and was flown into combat by green pilots with inappropriate training for the opposition they encountered: combat experienced veterans flying possibly the best fighter of its time. The -3s and -4s served mostly when America was on the defensive and the quality of the opposition was at its greatest. And as Greg mentioned, a lot of them went in the drink for want of a deck to set down on. The FMs, on the other hand, had many improvements incorporated, were more mechanically reliable, and were used to a great extent in anti-submarine warfare off jeep carriers, a generally less risky proposition. Their pilots were trained by combat-experienced instructors, and any aerial opposition they came up against tended to be second string.
The F6F sat in the sweet spot: the right airplane at the right place, at the right time, and in the right circumstances. Rugged, reliable, honest and forgiving, and an impressive performer to boot, it showed up with superbly trained pilots just as the quality of Japanese replacement pilots was deteriorating. No wonder its combat statistics were spectacular.
Cheers,
Wes
- Thread starter
- #37
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Yes the availability percentage( I believe that's the right term). Another very important factor that doesn't show up in performance stats.
I once read a quote by a pilot that had flown both the corsair and the F6F.
The quote was " the coursair was a better plane two days a week" which I took to mean, yes the corsair had better performance sats but it's availability was so much lower that collectively they were better off with the Hellcat.
I've read the availability of the F4u was about 60% and the Hellcat was in the 90%s. Don't know if those figures are acurate or not. It was one of those things I read in one artical one time so not sure. If true that would make quite a difference though.
A6M2
How about my 77" frame into the back seat of a TA-4F and trying to fit my helmet under the face curtain handles? Pulling G's with my spine scrunched over gave me a backache for a whole week.
Cheers,
Wes
I thought about the A6M as well. But, the combined construction of the fuselage/wing center section took it out of the running for ease of production.
