Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.

GregP said:

Well, Tomo, we'll just have to disagree. But, that's OK, no worries.

Click to expand...

There ain't much fun in that, either

I think the Hellcat DID make the difference. The histories I have read were pretty clear that the Corsair was in real danger of never being deployed on a US carrier, and there were voices who wanted it gone. If fell to the British to embarrass the USN and deploy them on carriers first. After that, it was hard to argue they weren't suitable for carrier deployment. My post above in no way diminishes my liking for the F4U. I think of it as one of the best of the radial fighters. But, it wasn't at the start of its career, and the Hellcat was always a winner, at least after it was fitted with the R-2800, which was VERY early. Second airplane, if I recall.

Click to expand...

Hellcat did make a difference - Allies have received an useful fighter with it. But there is a lot of difference between 'useful fighter' and 'it decided the outcome', that Hellcat did not.
'Very early' for R-2800 was 1940, when Corsair and B-26 flew with it. If we'd go with deployment dates, September of 1943 was not an early date for ww2, even not if we just consider the post-Pearl Harbor era.

GregP said:

I think the Hellcat DID make the difference.

Click to expand...

tomo pauk said:

there is a lot of difference between 'useful fighter' and 'it decided the outcome', that Hellcat did not.

Click to expand...

I think you're both right...to a point. We Airedales are patting ourselves on the back a bit much to think that the outcome of the war was decided entirely on our turf. Even after the loss of the "big four" at Midway, there was still a lot of fight left in the Empire, though victory for them was somewhat less probable than before.
Still a Hellcat-less war would have been a pretty grim proposition for us with the Wildcat bearing the brunt of the over-sea battle until the Brits bailed us out of our bentwing dilemma. The attrition of Japan's "best" and "better" pilots would have taken much longer and cost us much more in pilots, aircraft, and ships.
And let's face it, Japan's shipping losses due to submarines, was more a cause of the demise of the Empire than any single air weapon. (Except maybe Fat Man and Little Boy.)
Cheers,
Wes

GregP said:

In no way could the F6F stay with an A6M. In another thread we were treated to three Air Combat documents from the war. One specifically addressed the Hellcat versus the A6M and it was plainly stated that the F6F would never dogfight with an A6M and in no way matched maneuverability with one.

What it COULD do was out-climb and out-accelerate the A6M, and was also faster. Add to that the ability to stay with the A6M for long enough (90° or less) to get in a deflection shot and then climb away, and the ability to take punishment that would blow an A6M apart, and you have a winner IF the pilot accepts the correct methods of air combat with the more maneuverable but more delicate foe. Most did, as the "Ace maker" made plain by war's end. The "Ensign Eliminator," (F4U) did well, too, but the F6F decided the contest outcome in the Pacific, at least coupled with a lucky Naval engagement or two.

They COULD have done without the Corsair, but the converse is not true. In the end, the Corsair was a great fighter, too, possibly better than the Hellcat. But not so in the beginning. It almost got cancelled, and the Hellcat would have won anyway had that happened. We MIGHT have had the F6F-6 and follow-ons but they decided to develop the F8F instead. So, it was limited to two prototypes. We KNOW they would have fitted a more powerful engine because they did in production aircraft. I suspect they would also have fixed the roll rate and made more improvements, but the war was winding down anyway by then.

Click to expand...

Hello GregP,
I would have to agree with Tomo Pauk that by the time the Hellcat arrived, the war had been decided.
By that time, the F4F had a reasonable exchange rate with A6M even if performance was inferior and Japanese pilot quality was declining as were their numbers. It would have been a harder fight, but even with later models of A6M, there wasn't enough of a performance difference to make any real tactical difference.

As for performance differences, the sustained climb rate of A6M should be pretty close to that of the Hellcat especially at low altitude and the acceleration as I have seen described is actually better at low speeds as is the roll rate.
The roll rate of the Hellcat was "improved" between the F6F-3 and F6F-5 with spring tab ailerons. There was some loss in low speed roll rate but high speed roll was significantly better though still not close to the Corsair.

The F6F-6 and F4U-4 had the same engine but the Hellcat gained much less performance with the engine change which is probably why they did not pursue it.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr said:

VERY interesting. Thinking from a mechanic's perspective, did it have some sort of an "overload shutoff" that would turn off the actuating system when flap extension stalled due to aerodynamic overload? That would make sense to save wear and tear on a critical system that's already subject to hard usage.
Now from the pilot think perspective, this would be the best of both worlds; an infinitely variable "combat flap" that would give you the best boost to your turning ability possible at the ambient speed and G load. As you approach firing range, start rolling left, keeping your gunsight on target with rudder (you know Saburo is not going to roll right, and when he goes left, he'll out-roll you), then when he goes, bang down the flap switch and honk on the Gs. After 90° of turn, if you haven't got a shot and aren't gaining any lead (or if he fooled you and rolled right), it's flaps up and reach for the sky, keeping an eye out for a possible re-attack on him from overhead. Don't forget to check six for his top cover, who are likely trying to close out your account!
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Hello XBe02Drvr,
I was going to look for my electronic copy of the Hellcat Flight Manual, but a quick search found a sufficient description from the same source:

Question re F6F Hellcat's Wing-Flap Operation

This sounds like a pretty sophisticated setup.
What is really amusing is that I found this link early this morning through a Google search using Safari on an iPad, but could not find the same link using Internet Explorer from my PC.

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP said:

This sounds like a pretty sophisticated setup.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it answers the question of whether the F6F had a "combat" flap. It didn't. Any Hellcat dogfighting a Zero at <170 Kts is dog meat already, but this sure points to this bird as an "Ensign Saver" as far as aircraft handling is concerned. Also makes it a poor stepping stone to the Corsair, as it can encourage bad habits.
Thanks, Ivan!
Cheers,
Wes

Ivan1GFP said:

Hello DarrenW,
If I remember correctly, the Flaps on the Hellcats would only extend as far as the aerodynamic loads permitted.
Thus if the pilot were to select "Flaps Down", if the airspeed were high enough, the flaps would not deploy completely and perhaps that might still be useful in combat.

Click to expand...

XBe02Drvr said:

did it have some sort of an "overload shutoff" that would turn off the actuating system when flap extension stalled due to aerodynamic overload?

Click to expand...

Hi guys,

All of this seems plausible to me, according to the pilot's manuals there was an airspeed switch that controlled how far the flaps would stay in a lowered condition, regardless of cockpit control setting. The flaps would automatically "blow up" (or retract) 50 degrees at 90 knots IAS, 15 degrees at 150 knots IAS, and be fully retracted at 170 knot IAS or more. This could definitely be helpful in dogfights I guess where there was a lot of low speed twisting and turning. But we must remember that the flaps COULD NOT be deployed at speeds over 170 knots IAS. They have to already be in the down position before the pilot could possibly take advantage of this built in feature during combat. I believe that most pilots preferred to keep their speed up and use "hit and run" tactics, rather than put themselves at a disadvantage by flying at speeds of less than 200 mph. That seems very risky to me, especially when going toe-to-toe with the more nimble Japanese fighters.

So to make it clear once again, there was no "combat" setting for the flaps as with the Corsair!

LOL looks like you guys already figure things out and I wasted my time posting after the fact!

While I believe that the Japanese would have been eventually defeated, it would have taken far longer and cost the Allies many more lives if the F6F Hellcat never existed. The Battle of the Philippine Sea (aka "Marianna's Turkey Shoot") was a good example. Here the Japanese Navy could have inflicted much heavier losses on the US fleet if the US Navy was still relying totally on the Wildcat as it's fleet defense fighter. It just didn't have the performance to overwhelm the enemy as was demonstrated by the Hellcat, and I believe the outcome wouldn't have been so one-sided.

Just my opinion of course, and most everyone has one on the subject.

Ivan1GFP said:

As for performance differences, the sustained climb rate of A6M should be pretty close to that of the Hellcat especially at low altitude and the acceleration as I have seen described is actually better at low speeds as is the roll rate.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends where you are getting your information. The US Navy conducted tests between the F6F-5 and A6M5 and found that the roll rates were equal at speeds below 200 knots but above that the F6F was superior. This was primarily due to the high stick forces encountered with the Japanese fighter. The report also stated that while there was some disadvantage in climb below 14,000 feet, above that the Hellcat was superior.

And what type of acceleration are we discussing here? In a dive the US Navy found that the initial acceleration of the two were about equal, but after that the F6F-5 was "far superior".

Ivan1GFP said:

the sustained climb rate of A6M should be pretty close to that of the Hellcat especially at low altitude and the acceleration as I have seen described is actually better at low speeds as is the roll rate.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. The F6F was heavier and draggier, so despite its greater power, it's level flight acceleration would likely suffer compared to the lightweight, sleek A6M, especially at lower speeds where the Hellcat would be flying at higher AOA. Downhill with gravity helping is a different story, with advantage going to power and mass.
And in the climb, the Zero's power to weight ratio and lower drag would rule until the Hellcat's superior supercharging began to tell with altitude.
Roll rate, as mentioned earlier, would be entirely speed dependent, with the Zero suffering as speeds advanced beyond the slower speed agility regime it was designed for.
"Boom and zoom", and "speed is life" are the watchwords of this sort of combat.
Cheers,
Wes

Hello DarrenW,
I believe those tests of the F6F-5 against a captured A6M5 are not necessarily representative of what the types were capable of.
The F6F-5 seemed to be performing quite a bit better than a typical example and the A6M5 seemed to no better than the A6M2 tested a couple years before and did not achieve the speeds normally expected.

Regarding Climb Rates, we are in agreement. Remember I did say at low altitudes because the critical altitude of the A6M5 and especially the A6M2 is much lower than the F6F. The A6M2 is hitting its maximum speed at only about 15,000 feet.

Regarding Roll Rates, keep in mind that there was probably a reason why the A6M series had such large ailerons. Videos of currently flying exampleswhen timed with a stopwatch show a very high roll rate that is well beyond that of the Hellcat though the exact airspeed is not known. Video interviews of modern pilots who have flown both types of aircraft confirm this.
Above 200 or 250 knots, the situation is reversed because heavy control forces.
At lower airspeeds, the F6F-3 also rolled faster than the F6F-5 but not at higher airspeeds.

Regarding acceleration, I am discussing level flight at low airspeeds perhaps 100 MPH to 150 or 200 MPH.
The source is a book by Mike Spick that I was reading many years ago. It is supported by the low airspeed at which the A6M achieves its best climb rate. I suspect that the A6M2 is much better than the A6M5 in this respect because of propeller pitch ranges but have no test data to back up that belief.
Note that in tests of US fighters against Koga's A6M2, the tests showing US aircraft being superior were at medium to relatively high speeds.
As for Dive Acceleration, the maximum diving speed of just about every model of the A6M is pretty low and limited by structural strength issues. I believe the range from early to late models goes from about 400 MPH IAS to 460 MPH IAS.

- Ivan.

Well, I do not think the war had been decided when the Hellcat arrived. Perhaps the war in Europe had been, but the Pacific was still underway, despite the Battle of the Coral Sea in the summer of 1942. Without the Hellcat, the war could have dragged on a long time, and despite the relatively great performance of the FM-2 in a cleanup role (great kill ratio when not pitted against much opposition), it was not the fighter to go with for the rest of the war. And the Corsair would not have been pressed into service any sooner than it was. It took the British deployment to carriers to make that one happen.

Let's say that without the Hellcat, the war might have been a LOT worse than it was. I doubt seriously the Hellcat's not being produced would have impacted the A-bomb, so it may have ended at the same place and time anyway, but I think not. We would not have been in anywhere near the same position in 1945 had the Hellcat not come along, as good as it was, and when it did.

Of course, we MAY have simply developed an alternative fighter that was as good or better than the Hellcat, but I think that alternate program was not there. That is, there was no alternative in the works other than the F4U, and it did what it did, when it did it. There was no fallback fighter developed as with the B-29 / B-32. The alternate outcome is a "what if," and I really don't want to argue that because there is no real answer since only the way it really happened actually did happen ... everything else is supposition.

In a pinch, some might suggest we produce one of the Skyraider alternates, such as the Fleetwings XBTK. But it wasn't flying until 1945, so I don't think so. And I doubt it would have been developed earlier, either.

Tomo has very good points, as usual, but the Hellcat was the main producer in the Pacific from the time it deployed in numbers, as far as combat goes. The Wildcat was not the plane the Hellcat was in any way. So, I'll stick to my guns here. No doubt a few alternate history buffs can suggest an outcome that is just as feasible without the Hellcat. Who knows? Maybe any alternative is possible given the correct change to what really happened. Cheers.

Combat reports from none other than Saburo Sakai say otherwise about the F6F's acceleration. In his talk, he was astounded at the F6F's acceleration and speed relative to his own A6M. In his words, the Hellcats "closed at will." I heard that talk in person in the 1980s at the old Champlin Fighter Museum in Mesa, Arizona, U.S.A., and Saburo Sakai was a gentleman throughout, and went for a ride in a P-51 later. I bought a print and he signed it (still have it). He praised the F6F and said the only reason he survived was the U.S. pilots all flew like they were trained. He snap-rolled away from every attack and they carried through as trained and never tried to anticipate his snap-roll, which would have ended his day and maybe life had they done so. What impressed him the most was the F6Fs acceleration and speed relative to the A6M.

He did not say it was particularly maneuverable, only that it was fast and accelerated quickly in combat.

Not saying anyone is wrong here, but I believed and still believe Japan's 3rd-ranking ace over anyone else. At the time, the Planes of Fame Zero had not yet been restored.

GregP said:

.....The alternate outcome is a "what if," and I really don't want to argue that because there is no real answer since only the way it really happened actually did happen ... everything else is supposition.

Click to expand...

Hello GregP,
I agree with you completely on this one point, but you do realise that everything we have been discussing is really supposition.
Most of your post is supposition.
WHAT IF the Hellcat had not been produced is the premise and apparently we are not all coming to the same conclusion as to what the alternative history would have been.

Some of us are sticking closer to the idea that the same paths must be followed and some of us are not.
It is much like the idea of wonder what would happen if a right-handed man were to lose his right arm.
Some of us would assume that the need to eat and function the best he could would mean he would learn to use his left hand to do the same things even if he were more clumsy and less successful. Others might stick to the idea that he would starve to death because he never learned to eat with his left hand. I believe people and organisations will adapt as much as they can.

The Navy's refusal to use the Corsair from carriers was not because the Navy did not believe the Corsair was a good fighter. Land based units used it and it was used by the Marines. If given a choice of sticking to the Wildcat as the primary shipboard fighter and the Corsair as an alternative without the Hellcat already in service, I believe the Corsair would have reached the US carriers much sooner even without the British example.

As for whether the war's outcome was determined, one should look at the replacement pilot quality and numbers for both sides. The USN pilot quality didn't seem to drop but the Japanese quality did as can be seen by the number of aces that finished their training during the war as compared to those who were trained before the war. Even with Japanese pilot quality at its highest at the Battle of Midway, US pilots in Wildcats had a pretty fair exchange rate and things were not getting better than that for the Japanese.
Another good measure is the number of flight decks on each side at various stages of the war and ship construction is not something that would be affected by the presence of the Hellcat or not.
Besides carriers, the sheer number of other ships that were completed was not something the Japanese had any hope of matching and so far this is only a discussion of the match up of some of the naval forces.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr said:

The F6F was heavier and draggier

Click to expand...

What data supports the notion that the Hellcat was "draggier" than the Zeke? Was it really a "sleeker" aircraft as you say?

Ivan1GFP said:

I believe those tests of the F6F-5 against a captured A6M5 are not necessarily representative of what the types were capable of.
The F6F-5 seemed to be performing quite a bit better than a typical example and the A6M5 seemed to no better than the A6M2 tested a couple years before and did not achieve the speeds normally expected.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on you interpretation of what was a "typical" example of these two aircraft. Knowing that the Japanese were having severe difficulties with maintaining their aircraft as the war progressed, I feel it was quite representative of an average in-service A6M5 at the time of the tests (latter half of 1944) and IMHO indicative of what was being encountered in combat at this stage of the war. And while I'm in agreement that Hellcat under test may have been a very well-maintained example of the type, no one can argue that the US Navy wasn't vastly superior to the Japanese army or navy at keeping the performance of their aircraft as close as possible to factory numbers. If we add in the little improvements made by Grumman to the F6F along the way I am quite certain that the Hellcat was a true 400 mph airplane by the time that these tests were conducted.

I am in agreement though with the majority of the other points you make in post #431.

DarrenW said:

While I believe that the Japanese would have been eventually defeated, it would have taken far longer and cost the Allies many more lives if the F6F Hellcat never existed. The Battle of the Philippine Sea (aka "Marianna's Turkey Shoot") was a good example. Here the Japanese Navy could have inflicted much heavier losses on the US fleet if the US Navy was still relying totally on the Wildcat as it's fleet defense fighter. It just didn't have the performance to overwhelm the enemy as was demonstrated by the Hellcat, and I believe the outcome wouldn't have been so one-sided.

Click to expand...

The fact that it has been labelled the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" suggests that the battle was not won with the quality of the equipment, but rather the quality of the pilots, tactics, etc.

If it was the F4F instead of the F6F it may not have been so one-sided, but it would still have been one-sided nonetheless.

wuzak said:

The fact that it has been labelled the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" suggests that the battle was not won with the quality of the equipment, but rather the quality of the pilots, tactics, etc....

Click to expand...

Not totally in disagreement here but why couldn't the "quality of the equipment" be a factor in the lop-sided US victory too?

With a 13-1 Claimed kill ratio over the Zero, I would pick the Hellcat.

DarrenW said:

Not disagreeing here but why couldn't the "quality of the equipment" be a factor in the lop-sided US victory too?

Click to expand...

I worded it poorly.

I should have said it was not the determining factor. And probably not a major factor.

Hi Ivan1GFP. Yah, I realize it is a supposition. I mostly avoid "what ifs," but jumped in for this one case.

Perhaps I should not have, but the Hellcat fared so much better than other fighters in the Pacific that it had something over the rest. It's kill ratio was the best of the war since I count FM-2s right in there with F4Fs. The basic difference between then was just the engine dash number, and they were flying "mop up" missions after the fleet had bypassed some Japanese holdings. You donlt see anyone breaking out P-51B kills from P-51D kills, but they try to say the FM-2 was a different airplane from the F4F.

Bunk. They take largely the same parts. Ergo, some series of fighters.

The Navy's refusal to put Corsairs on carriers was a direct result of U.S. carrier trials. They did not believe it was a bad fighter, but they believed it was a bad carrier fighter. It's fairly well documented. They didn't call it "hose nose" for nothing. Having sat in several including an F4U1a, I can tell you visibility over the nose is nonexistent when the tail is low. It had other issues, such as carb icing around the ship in colder weather due to ram air, which the F6F didn't have as the F6F didn't use ram air. But the Corsair DID prove to be a good carrier fighter once it got there, albeit with a few losses in the process. My take is the Corsair would have gotten to carriers regardless of the F6F, but it would NOT have gotten there any sooner than it did. The Corsair's carrier qualification was independent of F6F history and stands on it's own timeline.