PDA

View Full Version : Hellcat vs Zero: Comparison Summary



SkyChimp
04-10-2004, 01:58 PM
Comparative Combat Evaluation Trial between a Hellcat and a Zeke 52

Introduction

1. The following is the summary of a report on comparative performance trials between an F6F-5 and a captured Zeke 52 undertaken by Technical Air Intelligence Centre at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

Brief Description of Aircraft

2. Hellcat F6F-5 with 250 gals. fuel, guns, and ammunition, All-up weight 12,285 lbs.

3. Zeke 52 with Nakajima Sakae 31A engine, not equipped with water injection. Armament consisted of two Mk. II 20-mm MGs and two 7.7-mm MGs. The All-up weight of the aircraft as flown 6,094 lbs.

Results of Trials

4. The Zeke 52 climbed about 600 fpm better than the F6F-5 up to 9,000 feet, after which the advantage fell off gradually until the two aircraft were about equal at 14,000 feet, above which altitude the F6F-5 had the advantage, varying from about 500 fpm better at 22,000 feet to about 250 fpm better at 30,000 feet.

The best climbing speeds of the F6F-5 and Zeke 52 were found to be 130 and 105 knots indicated, respectively (150 mph and 120 mph respectively).

Speeds

5. The F6F-5 was much faster than the Zeke 52 at all altitudes
At sea-level the F6F-5 was 41 mph faster than the Zeke 52.
At 5,000 feet the F6F-5 was 22 mph faster
At 10,000 feet the F6F-5 was 45 mph faster
At 15,000 feet the F6F-5 was 62 mph faster
At 20,000 feet the F6F-5 was 69 mph faster
At 25,000 feet the F6F-5 was 75 mph faster
At 30,000 feet the F6F-5 was 66 mph faster

Top speeds attained were 409 mph at 21,600 feet for the F6F-5 and 335 mph at 18,000 feet for the Zeke 52.

Rolls

6. Rolls of the Zeke 52 were about equal to those of the F6F-5 at speeds under 200 knots (230 mph) and inferior above that speed due to high control forces.

Turns

7. The Zeke 52 was greatly superior to the F6F-5 in slow speed turns at low and medium altitudes, its advantage decreasing to about parity at 30,000 feet. In slow speed turns it could gain on turn in three and one-half at 10,000 feet.

Dives

8. Initial accelerations of the Zeke 52 and F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior. The F6F-5 was slightly superior in zooms after dives.

Vision

9. The Zeke 52 is considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot's head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gun sight did not interfere with forward vision.

Manueverability

10. The manueverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots (200 mph), being far superior to that of the F6F-5. Its superiority, however, diminishes with speed, due to its high control forces, and the F6F-5 has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots (230 mph).

Suggested Tactics

11. The following tactics are suggested for use against the Zeke 52 by the F6F-5:
DO NOT DOG-FIGHT WITH THE ZEKE 52.
Do not try to follow through a loop or half-roll with pull-through.
When attacking, use your superior power and high-speed performance to engage
at the most favorable moment.
To evade a Zeke on your tail, roll and dive away into a high-speed turn.

Naval Staff
Admiralty (A.W.D 742/44)

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

SkyChimp
04-10-2004, 01:58 PM
Comparative Combat Evaluation Trial between a Hellcat and a Zeke 52

Introduction

1. The following is the summary of a report on comparative performance trials between an F6F-5 and a captured Zeke 52 undertaken by Technical Air Intelligence Centre at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

Brief Description of Aircraft

2. Hellcat F6F-5 with 250 gals. fuel, guns, and ammunition, All-up weight 12,285 lbs.

3. Zeke 52 with Nakajima Sakae 31A engine, not equipped with water injection. Armament consisted of two Mk. II 20-mm MGs and two 7.7-mm MGs. The All-up weight of the aircraft as flown 6,094 lbs.

Results of Trials

4. The Zeke 52 climbed about 600 fpm better than the F6F-5 up to 9,000 feet, after which the advantage fell off gradually until the two aircraft were about equal at 14,000 feet, above which altitude the F6F-5 had the advantage, varying from about 500 fpm better at 22,000 feet to about 250 fpm better at 30,000 feet.

The best climbing speeds of the F6F-5 and Zeke 52 were found to be 130 and 105 knots indicated, respectively (150 mph and 120 mph respectively).

Speeds

5. The F6F-5 was much faster than the Zeke 52 at all altitudes
At sea-level the F6F-5 was 41 mph faster than the Zeke 52.
At 5,000 feet the F6F-5 was 22 mph faster
At 10,000 feet the F6F-5 was 45 mph faster
At 15,000 feet the F6F-5 was 62 mph faster
At 20,000 feet the F6F-5 was 69 mph faster
At 25,000 feet the F6F-5 was 75 mph faster
At 30,000 feet the F6F-5 was 66 mph faster

Top speeds attained were 409 mph at 21,600 feet for the F6F-5 and 335 mph at 18,000 feet for the Zeke 52.

Rolls

6. Rolls of the Zeke 52 were about equal to those of the F6F-5 at speeds under 200 knots (230 mph) and inferior above that speed due to high control forces.

Turns

7. The Zeke 52 was greatly superior to the F6F-5 in slow speed turns at low and medium altitudes, its advantage decreasing to about parity at 30,000 feet. In slow speed turns it could gain on turn in three and one-half at 10,000 feet.

Dives

8. Initial accelerations of the Zeke 52 and F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior. The F6F-5 was slightly superior in zooms after dives.

Vision

9. The Zeke 52 is considered to permit better vision in all respects, the rear vision being good due to the use of a bubble canopy and the complete absence of armor behind the pilot's head. There was no rear vision mirror installed in the Zeke 52 tested. The small gun sight did not interfere with forward vision.

Manueverability

10. The manueverability of the Zeke 52 is remarkable at speeds below about 175 knots (200 mph), being far superior to that of the F6F-5. Its superiority, however, diminishes with speed, due to its high control forces, and the F6F-5 has the advantage at speeds above 200 knots (230 mph).

Suggested Tactics

11. The following tactics are suggested for use against the Zeke 52 by the F6F-5:
DO NOT DOG-FIGHT WITH THE ZEKE 52.
Do not try to follow through a loop or half-roll with pull-through.
When attacking, use your superior power and high-speed performance to engage
at the most favorable moment.
To evade a Zeke on your tail, roll and dive away into a high-speed turn.

Naval Staff
Admiralty (A.W.D 742/44)

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Bull_dog_
04-10-2004, 02:07 PM
interesting that you found some data indicating the Hellcat was a 400+mph aircraft... most references have it around 375.

Good find... I wonder how Luthier is going to model it?

mike_espo
04-10-2004, 02:10 PM
Yeah, Chimp, I heard the hellcat could not do more than 375mph also?

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

KIMURA
04-10-2004, 02:51 PM
Skychimp, I got similar comparison between a Seafire IIC and - seems to be the same Model 52. These trials also had taken place at Maryland as the ones U mentioned.

About the Roll: the Zero seems to be equal to the Seafire up to 290kph - and equal to the F6F-5.

But now I'm asking myself what lead sled of Zero Model 52a is currently modelled in FB?

Texas LongHorn
04-10-2004, 03:06 PM
Are you guys sure you're not mixing up the difference between miles per hour and knots? I realize 375knots would be way more than the stated 409mph at 21,600' but this could easily be a source of confusion. All the best, Mike

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

KIMURA
04-10-2004, 03:12 PM
Only the IJN used knots for a/c speeds, all others either mph or kph.

DONB3397
04-10-2004, 03:29 PM
It's interesting that the specs are reasonably close, with tradeoffs that seem to balance out performance. Yet the F6F was said to be designed to beat the Zeke, and by the end of the war had an enormous advantage in kill-ratios over all Japanese aircraft.

Why was that so? Were the tactics (b&z or dive away) more effective? Did pilot training make the difference? Was it the Hellcat's ability to take punishment, vs. the Zero's tendency to explode when hit in the fueltank?

I've read "Zero" and "Samurai" among other books covering the PTO, and I believe Japanese pilots considered the Hellcat a superior plane, but no official IJN evaluations said this. What do you think?

If you were a freelance fighter pilot (without considering nationality or allegiance), which would you pick?

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCMCkdABH1uSLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

RedDeth
04-10-2004, 03:51 PM
hellcat to zero? quack. compare wildcat to zero . hellcat was a demon . it was essentially equal in all stats to corsairs... speed dive climb etc. they ate slow zeroes for lunch

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

RedDeth
04-10-2004, 03:51 PM
hellcat to zero? quack. compare wildcat to zero . hellcat was a demon . it was essentially equal in all stats to corsairs... speed dive climb etc. they ate slow zeroes for lunch

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Aztek_Eagle
04-10-2004, 04:42 PM
well the hellcat was introduced when the japanse pilots werent that well train as before, and sure some zero veterans did turn and bite many hellcats.....

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/robertosgallery/CORSAIR8.JPG

mike_espo
04-10-2004, 04:59 PM
Part of the success of the F6F was that it was built knowing the zero's vulnerabilities.

Probably the major reason for the high kill rate was by the end of 1943, the Japanese could not replace pilot losses. The attrition in the solomons had wiped out the cadre of trained pilots. Americans were getting 400 hours of flight time where the Japanese in 1944 were getting barely 125. In the hands of an experienced pilot, the Zero 52 could be a deadly weapon, however by 1944 there were only a precious few.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

FW190fan
04-10-2004, 05:01 PM
It's going to take an awfully good Zero pilot to survive against a Hellcat.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Bull_dog_
04-10-2004, 05:13 PM
I think the Hellcat was successful because it was fast, dove well, turned reasonably well, was very tough to shoot down, the six .50's were terribly effective on jap planes, and the pilots were well trained....

There is a couple of things that seldom get mentioned...
1) Target rich environment. The Hellcat brought the fight to the enemy (via carriers) above all else...just like the Mustang in the ETO. This, more than anything, gave the plane a chance to kill aircraft. If the Spitfire had the range of the Mustang...we'd be reading how it won the war. If the P-38L had similar exposure, it would have been better, if the corsair had been used in place of the Hellcat, we'd be discussing the Corsair's 19-1 kill ratio.

2) Lots of bombers for targets...in the Marianna's Turkey shoot...many of the targets were MD4Y Judy dive bombers...can't remember the exact number...but lots of poorly defended planes to shoot at... take the opposite (the Jug) had very few bomber targets over Europe. Their kills came while flying close escort missions and free sweeps...

3) Tactics, numbers, and an inferior opponent...by 1944, Japan's aircraft were far far behind the US's in terms of performance..as were many of the pilots... and the US had long ago perfected their tactics.... Tactics were always on the side of the US from the early days of the Wildcat when pilots were learning how to fight off a superior plane that the zero was then. Fighter doctrine was aggressive then... just like what happened in the ETO when Dolittle allowed the Mustang to pursue their quarry instead of stay close the the bombers...Mustangs wrought defeat to the luftwaffe in 3 mos. that way...in a time when there were good pilots and plenty of fuel.

Just a combination of great plane, lots of targets, good pilots/tactics and an enemy that just wasn't ready for the onslaught... I suspect there were other radial engined fighters that could have done a similar thing if they were able to land and take off aircraft carriers...but the couldn't so the Hellcat will go down in History with the best kill ratio of any fighter in WWII

Trivia...any one know the kill ratio of the F-15 Eagle? I can't remember exactly but it is real, real good...not sure if one has ever been shot down.

SkyChimp
04-10-2004, 05:18 PM
I've seen the 400mph top speed for the F6F-5 in other sources as well. I've seen everything from 376 to 388mph as published top speeds for the F6F-3 and F6F-5. I think the 400mph was achieved at combat power with water injection.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Blottogg
04-10-2004, 05:29 PM
The main thing the Hellcat had over the Zero was high speed, and high speed maneuverability. This doesn't lend itself well to fun dogfights for the Hellcat pilot, but it gives him a very important advantage over the Zero. He can accept or decline the fight at will.

In addition, the Hellcat pilot has the luxury of engaging on his terms if he desires. If the Hellcat starts with a position or altitude advantage, he can attack, and the Zero is left with gun jinks as his only defence. If the Hellcat is bounced, he can out dive and out run the Zeke (assuming he survives the initial bounce... something made more likely by the Hellcat's rugged construction.)

With it's slower speed, the Zero is committed to a knife-fight every time it engages... someone's going to die because the Zero can't separate from the Hellcat unless it shoots it down, or the Hellcat leaves.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

BSS_CUDA
04-10-2004, 05:46 PM
the kill ratio for the F15 Eagle is 105 - 0 there has NEVER been an F15 shot down in combat. I was watching Modern marvels on the history channel the other night and they has a show about the Eagle, they even has one instance where an Isreali F15 colided with and Isreali A4 Skyhawk took its port wing clean off to the fuselage and it still made it back to base and landed. if I hadent seen the Pics of it on this show I wouldnt have believed it story of the wingless Eagle (http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html)

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer

That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun

RedDeth
04-10-2004, 06:52 PM
MY GOD. thats the best collision story in the world. flying a jet without a wing. wow

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Bull_dog_
04-10-2004, 06:52 PM
kudo's to Cuda... funny, as I age a little I can remember stuff but every thing is a little fuzzy... I knew that an F-15 had never been shot down, but I just couldn't place when or where I heard it and didn't feel confident enough to say so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Anyways... another factor I though of was shooting down Kamakazi pilots... not much to it if they are located and intercepted... I'm sure many Hellcat victories occurred while defending the fleet from them.

jensenpark
04-10-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
the kill ratio for the F15 Eagle is 105 - 0 there has NEVER been an F15 shot down in combat. I was watching Modern marvels on the history channel the other night and they has a show about the Eagle, they even has one instance where an Isreali F15 colided with and Isreali A4 Skyhawk took its port wing clean off to the fuselage and it still made it back to base and landed. if I hadent seen the Pics of it on this show I wouldnt have believed it http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

*****************************
BSS_CUDA
Co-Founder of my family
Black Sheep Tactical Officer

That was some of the best flying I've seen yet! right up to the part where you got killed.
you NEVER NEVER leave your wingman.

Jester : TopGun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of the 105 kills, any idea what country flying accounted for what?
I know the IAF accounts for a large amount, but who else?

http://www.corsair-web.com/thistler/rtfoxint.jpg
Buzz Beurling flying his last sortie over Malta, Oct.24, 1942

VW-IceFire
04-10-2004, 08:56 PM
I think the sub 400 mph performance is limited to the F5F-3. The F5F-5 was capable of just above 400 mph as its maximum speed which puts it closer to the Corsair...still the Hellcat was fast enough, reliable, well armed, and manuverable enough to combat its opponents. Plus US training and numbers went up as the opposite happened for the Japanese.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Giganoni
04-10-2004, 11:38 PM
Maybe a comparison of the George vs Hellcat should be in order. After all, the shiden was a navy plane too. If I was in a Hellcat I would only make one pass at it and get then the hell away! I wouldn't want to chance 2 30 cal mgs and 4! 20mm cannons on my six, no matter how tough my aircraft is.

04-12-2004, 02:19 AM
Actualy for the first year of the War and the first 2 Carrier Battles ( Coral Sea, and Midway) you need to be looking at the performance comparisons between the Zeros versus the Brewster, Hurricane Mark IIB, P-40E, P39N1,and the F4F Wild Cat.


S!

Ruy Horta
04-12-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I've seen the 400mph top speed for the F6F-5 in other sources as well. I've seen everything from 376 to 388mph as published top speeds for the F6F-3 and F6F-5. I think the 400mph was achieved at combat power with water injection<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Standard aircraft characteristics NAVAER 1335A (REV. 1-49), states 330 kn. as max speed at COMBAT power, quick conversion makes that 380mph.

This document doesn't give clear indication of boosting, other than mentioning the duration of water being available (15mins). However the aircraft specs are given under combat conditions (shackles etc in place)

380mph (USN doc)
400mph (Dean - America's Hundred Thousand)
400mph (Tillman - Hellcat)
410mph (O'Leary - U.S Naval Fighters of WW2)

Dean does mention his figure to be 30mph over the Navy figures. Looks like the numbers differ mainly given the sources, being either Navy or Grumman. Needless to say the factory figures are superior.

Given individual a/c variables it makes the Hellcat a type being almost certainly capable of 380mph under combat conditions and depending on the individual a/c upwards to 400mph plus.

The main advantage of the F6F or any US Naval type would have been ruggedness, the second most important a superior radio.

Combined with tactics based on team work (facilitated by the radio) and high speed BnZ combat would negate the little advantage left to the Zero. Needless to add that by 1943 the average quality of pilots favored the Americans. Attrition having cost most of Japan's pre-war naval aviator elite. This battle of attrition being waged largely before the Hellcat made an appearance, giving even more credit to the venerable Wildcat!

Speed as proven by the F4F and to some extend the F6F was of lesser importance, or at least so it appears. Maneuverability at speed is something else.

Besides, on a personal note...

The F4F is a real challenge, the F4U a true thoroughbred, the F6F however appears rather meek in this line-up - just a workhorse.

Regardless of the "kill ratio"... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
04-12-2004, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Maybe a comparison of the George vs Hellcat should be in order. After all, the shiden was a navy plane too. If I was in a Hellcat I would only make one pass at it and get then the hell away! I wouldn't want to chance 2 30 cal mgs and 4! 20mm cannons on my six, no matter how tough my aircraft is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this view is that you want to compare "equal types" not types that were matched in combat, dictated by circumstance.

The Mod. 52 was an attempt by the Japanese to increase the capabilities of their standard naval fighter in order to being able cope with the latest US types - like the Hellcat.

The Mod. 52 can be seen in a similar light as the late 109 G-6/14 models, upgunned and boosted, but basically a stop gap until better types can enter production.

It was unfortunate that the Mod. 52, although being a better performer and overal a more combat capable fighter, did not close the gap. The relative limitations remained the same.

Are you allowed to compare the Shiden-Kai with the Hellcat, sure in its own right, but just keep in mind that the Shiden never replaced the Zero as the mainstay fighter of the IJN.

If we are comparing the numerically most important adversarial Naval types, we simply end up with Hellcats and Zeroes...and that's it.

As a side comment:

There is no personal bias on this subject, but an equal love for both USN and IJN types. Of course on both sides there are some types that catch more of the imagination than others.

Ruy Horta

[This message was edited by rhorta on Mon April 12 2004 at 05:34 AM.]

hop2002
04-12-2004, 06:16 AM
There's also the USN comparison test between the F6F-3, F4U and Fw190.

That gave speeds of 381 at 20,000ft, 391 at 25,000ft, both after 2 mins of all out level flight, so these are probably lower than maximum speeds.

Ruy Horta
04-12-2004, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
There's also the USN comparison test between the F6F-3, F4U and Fw190.

That gave speeds of 381 at 20,000ft, 391 at 25,000ft, both after 2 mins of all out level flight, so these are probably lower than maximum speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do believe that, but that's probably not under combat conditions as documented in the Naval sheet. Does the test mention if the a/c was fitted with a centerline rack etc?

Believe me, I don't want to start an argument about performance figures, but judging by the Navy's own numbers for an a/c in combat conditions, 380 mph is a conservative max.

Would higher speeds be attainable, for sure, but the 400+ numbers are perhaps more ideal than representative for an a/c in the field - or in this case on carriers.

It would be interesting to know if most Hellcats flew in "combat conditions", and what exactly this meant.

Even the Report of Joint Fighter Conference mentions the Hellcat as having sufficient speed, but probably not enough to cope in the near future (oct. '44).

OTOH its all somewhat hypothetical since operationally it doesn't matter a great deal, we're arguing about 10-20mph (averaging Navy and Grumman figures).

Problem is that sims focus on ideal performance instead of average performance.

I just quoted a couple of numbers and since I do not have a further agenda on this topic I'll just wait and see what interesting extra info pops up. There is no argument from my side.

Ruy Horta

EDIT

I just took the time to compare the test mentioned and the datasheet. The main difference is weight.


Test:
F6F-3 @ 12.406 lbs

Datasheet
F6F-5 @ 12.740 lbs

Since their empty weights do not differ that much, it must be assumed that the MAIN difference lies with the "combat conditions" gear.

Besides looking at page 555 (top right) of Dean's AHT shows a graph that explains a lot. Both the difference in weight are covered and the difference in numbers between the Navy and the manufacturer. But all are under 400mph. The best figure being in the neighborhood of 395 mph TAS (@ 12.483 lbs).

Translating to the sim I'd say that it would be fair to have the F6F-5 modeled to max. around 390 mph TAS, portraying "ideal combat conditions".

[This message was edited by rhorta on Mon April 12 2004 at 05:58 AM.]

sugaki
04-12-2004, 11:38 AM
Couple other factors attributed to Hellcat's advantage over Zero:

1) Armor. Even with the self-sealing fuel tanks on the A6M5, it was still lightly armored, and a few stray bullets can really deteriorate the performance.

2) ZnB tactics. Ideal since F6F had better armor, more ammo to use than the Zero. Plus ZnB can be done even by inexperienced pilots. Even if they can't aim well, all they need is a couple of lucky shots to put the Zero in trouble. To effectively dog-fight in the Zero however, required experience and knowledge of the limits of the aircraft, and a few lucky hits would be less likely to cripple the well-armored Hellcat.

3) Ease of flyability. One of the big reasons why the F6F was favored over others such as the F4U "Ensign Eliminator" Corsair was its forgiving flight characteristics. Although US pilots still had less experience than the IJN pilots in 1942, the ease of flying and just knowing how to avoid Zeroes meant you could survive an encounter ...just dive, or get to altittudes above 15k feet.

Ruy Horta
04-12-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Although US pilots still had less experience than the IJN pilots in 1942<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F6F came into use later, but I'd like to say that pre-war USN pilots were an elite just like the IJN pilots were. Perhaps the IJN had more combat experience, however that would be offset by the high standard of USN training and emphasis on team work.

I'd recommend "The First Team" by Lundstrom to get a good feel of the first year of war in the Pacific.

IMHO the forces were an even match during those first months of the war, any advantage on one side being offset by those of the other. However that makes 1942-43 such an interesting period in the Pacific.

Afterwards is a different matter.

Ruy Horta

GK.
04-13-2004, 11:21 PM
yes please do compare the george with the hellcat. the george is superior in almost all respects. Japanese pilots refered to hellcats as "easy kills" while flying the george.

In december 31, 1943 the N1K2-J Shiden Kai replaced the zero.
"This new aircraft performed brilliantly and was accepted at once by the navy as a standard fighter and fighter-bomber." This is not to say that zeros weren't still flown, but rather, it is to show that a comparison of the george to the hellcat is a valid request.

sorry aspiring hellcat pilots.

Ruy Horta
04-14-2004, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
yes please do compare the george with the hellcat. the george is superior in almost all respects. Japanese pilots refered to hellcats as "easy kills" while flying the george.

In december 31, 1943 the N1K2-J Shiden Kai replaced the zero.
"This new aircraft performed brilliantly and was accepted at once by the navy as a standard fighter and fighter-bomber." This is not to say that zeros weren't still flown, but rather, it is to show that a comparison of the george to the hellcat is a valid request.

sorry aspiring hellcat pilots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The argument is not about the qualities of the Shiden, but if it does deserve to be called the mainstay of the IJNAF as you make it appear to be.

Comparing the production figures for the two types (at the right period of course) shows a predominance of the Zero over the Shiden.

Roughly 1400 Shidens vs 7500 Zeroes from the latter half of '43 to the end of the war. These numbers do not provide evidence in favor of the Shiden as having replaced the Zero.

Don't get me wrong, its fine to look at the Shiden and compare it with the Hellcat, but it is a fallacy to disqualify the Zero in terms of being obsolete by the time the Hellcat made its appearance felt.

The Zero remained the numerically most important IJNAF fighter and its natural enemy the Hellcat. Comparing the two is absolutely fair.

========

Come to think of it, since many Luftwhiners like flying USN, what will the Amiwhiners feel... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Ruy Horta

Ruy Horta
04-14-2004, 04:49 AM
BTW, don't think that my previous writings means that I would not like to see various models of Shiden flyable in PF, especially the earlier types would be new territory (since sims focus mainly on the KAI).

Would be even more interesting to see the J2M modeled, since that is another personal favorite of mine.

Ah...and all those interesting candidates for the IJAAF. Hopefully PF will wonder off the beaten track and give us some workhorses that haven't seen much virtual flying before.

Ruy Horta

GK.
04-14-2004, 10:25 AM
Production numbers can be decieving. The japanese did not have nearly as many pilots as the americans.
World War two fighters volume 2 says 1,435 shidens produced, thats more aircraft produced than me262s, ki-44s, and hawker tempests to give you a ballpark idea.

It was a STANDARD aircraft as of 1943 and it saw plenty of combat.

Ruy Horta
04-14-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
World War two fighters volume 2 says 1,435 shidens produced, thats more aircraft produced than me262s, ki-44s, and hawker tempests to give you a ballpark idea.

It was a STANDARD aircraft as of 1943 and it saw plenty of combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cloud your judgement with emotion. I did not say that the Shiden was an insiginificant type. It never replaced the Zero, and that's a simple fact.

As far as numbers go.

If 1400 Shidens (in two operationally different forms, only a third being the more potent KAI) present a "standard fighter" than 1300 Me 262s present what?

The example of the 262 is a trck question since its total production does not equal its effective operational strength (far lower number).

The Ki-44 according to Francillon had a production run of 1225, but 1167 of those were mod. II and IIIs (though the latter in small numbers).

The Shoki does not compare badly against the Shiden numbers at all...

Now GK, keeping in mind that I am not trying to lessen the quality of the Shiden or Shiden-Kai, could you list the units which actively flew the Shiden?

Air Group 201 (reorganized march 1944)
Air Group 210 (organized sep. 1944)
Air Group 341 (first Shidens late august '44)
Air Group 343 (organized 25th dec. 1944)
Genzan Air Group
Yokosuka Air Group Fighter Squadron

These are the units I could find, but I was greatly handicapped by the fact that most of my sources (*) were Japanese (which I don't read), the only other reliable source being Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II (Hata & Izawa).

If interested I'll scan some tail units for someone with Japanese language skills to translate (but I suspect these identify the Genzan and Yokosuka Air Groups).

Luftwaffe I can handle with my eyes shut, but IJN and IJAAF are a different matter (well the latter has been well covered by Peter Scott's Emblems of the the Rising Sun - Imperial Japanese Army Air Frorce Unit Markings).

* for instance":
Model Art Special #510
Camouflage & Markings of the IJN Fighters

Brilliant, but without reading Japanese a hard nut to crack http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Ruy Horta

GK.
04-14-2004, 12:22 PM
You have to look at the ratios, my friend. Japan was not capable of cranking out aircraft like large industrious countries such as US, Germany, Russia, or Great Britian. Small production numbers do not have the meaning you seem to think they do.

major fighter aircraft of japan production numbers:
A6M Reisen 10,449
Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa 5,919
Ki-84 hayate 3,514
Nakajima Ki-27 3,399
Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien 3,078
Ki-45 toryu 1,701
N1K1-J Shiden 1,435
ki-44 shoki 1,225
A5M 1,094

total that up for a ballpark figure of all available major fighter aircraft you get
31,865 aprox. Around 5% of japans fighters were shiden.

If you look at me262s, a standard fighter in the german airforce you will find that only 2.5%(60k total, 1,430 me262s produced) of germanys fighter aircraft were of this type. So basically shidens were twice as common in the pacific theatre as were me262s in the european theatre.

US aircraft are trickier to analyze because of the two theatres. But production numbers indicate (ballpark):
15k p51
15k p47
14k p40
12k F4U
12k F6F
10k p38
9k p39
8k F4F wildcat
3k p63

Thats around 98 thousand fighters produced by the us, but not all used in the pacific. So say around 78,000 used in the pacific. That means 15% were hellcats, not very much.

You cannot say that because only around 1.5k shidens were produced, that they didnt see as much combat. In fact they probably saw MORE combat than most US fighters and an equal amount of combat as the A6M5.

The reason that you wont find many squadrons that flew it was because it was given priority to the aces but it was mixed in with many squadrons. However the only squadron to fly it exclusively was the 343rd air group "squadron of experts". A squad comprised of basically all aces.

[This message was edited by GK. on Wed April 14 2004 at 11:47 AM.]

Ruy Horta
04-14-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
You have to look at the ratios, my friend. Japan was not capable of cranking out aircraft like large industrious countries such as US<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still insist that you cloud your judgement with emotion.

First I indicated that the Zero was not replaced by the Shiden, regardless of the Japanese production figures compared to the other powers, the former was produced in far greater numbers during the time that the Shiden production lasted. This does not carry any other message than comparative production values.

You then went as far as stating that the Shiden was produced in larger numbers than a number of other types, amongst which the Ki-44 and Me 262.

My answer that the Shoki wasn't produced in much smaller numbers (roughly 1400 vs 1200) was just that, again a comparative figure.

You mention the 262 as being proportionally of lesser significance in the german inventory as compared to the Shiden. You compare its production with some sort of total production number. First without explaining that total (total what, last years, fighters only?), its useless. You'll have to quantify that figure.

Granted, the point that you could make is that the absolute number of a type does not reflect the relative importance in the inventory. As such the less than 400 Me 262s reaching the front line (piecemeal) could present a large percentage of EFFECTIVE a/c at the Luftwaffe's disposal. The same is true for instance with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D-9 (however its production does numbers does not look unfavorable if compared with others german types produced at the same time).

If you were arguing about the Shiden and Shiden-Kai being an important type in the inventory, despite its fewer numbers, I'd be tempted to believe you. But if you are just throwing in that 1400 a/c number, shouting 1943-45 and claiming a super fighter replacing the Zero in the IJN inventory, than the facts do not support you.

Did I ever say that the Shiden didn't see much combat?

Now take 5 and present us with some figures we need. Not the famous 1 vs 12 story, nor again the 1943-45 years, nor the 1400 prod. run.

Try to give us a wider operational insight.

Units, numbers of operational a/c etc etc etc

Damn, you are probably Japanese, give us some info we cannot find easily (or disprove easily).

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ruy Horta

EDIT:

GK

Don't take this personal, since I don't want to start an argument on this topic. Although it does seem that I am being argumentative here, if so you have my apologies.

[This message was edited by rhorta on Wed April 14 2004 at 01:00 PM.]

Zyzbot
04-16-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>*****************************


Of the 105 kills, any idea what country flying accounted for what?
I know the IAF accounts for a large amount, but who else?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

USAF:

"F-15's made nearly all of the air-to-air 'kills' in the Gulf War with F-15C's being credited with 33 of the 38 air-to-air kills."

On the first day of Allied Force 24 March 1999, F-15C's killed four Serbian MiG-29's with AIM-120 AMRAAM's. One pilot Major J.Kwhang from the 493rd FS shot-down two aircraft.



( RSAF ) Saudi Arabia:
"On 5 June 1984, Eagles of No 6 Squadron were involved in an air battle with Iranian piloted F-4 Phantoms witch were threatening Saudi oil fields. Two of the intruders were shot down by AIM-7 Sparrows.


One RSAF F-15 shot down a pair of Iraqi Dassault Mirage F-1's during Desert Storm."

fordfan25
04-16-2004, 11:39 PM
the f 15 did all that. but i thought every thing the U.S built was so inferrer?&lt;sarcasm&gt; http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MiamiEagle
04-16-2004, 11:58 PM
Do not beleive everything you read. Every Official History ever written have exaggerated the acheivement of their forces. I am sure the Hellcat shoot down many Jap planes during the war but not nearly as many as they claim. Beside many of the planes they claim to have shoot down where soft targets.Like tranport planes and lights Bombers ect, ect. So when you read the Offian History of any Nation forces . Read it with a grain of salt.

ImpStarDuece
04-17-2004, 10:22 AM
.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
yes please do compare the george with the hellcat. the george is superior in almost all respects. Japanese pilots refered to hellcats as "easy kills" while flying the george <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My information leads me to the conclusion that the George was not superior in almost all respects to the Hellcat. In vital areas such as range, reliability,pilot amour and engine power the Hellcat equalled or bettered the George. In areas such as rate of climb and bomb load the Hellcat was marginally inferior (on the order of some 2-5%) or equal, mostly depending on sources. The Hellcat could also carry a more varied offensive armanent (rockets, bombs, bomblets and mg pods) as well as being able to lift heavier single weapons , being cleared for a single 2000lb bomb on the centreline while the George was only stressed to 551 lb per bomb.

While i lack exact performance figures, i would be quite sure that while the George would out roll and out turn the Hellcat, primarily due to its automatically operated combat flaps ( a manometer measured AoA and responded accordingly) i would also gamble a large amount of money that a F6F-5 would out dive, outrun and just might out zoom a George due to the extra 200 hp of engine power and the extra 3000lb of weight it lugged around

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In december 31, 1943 the N1K2-J Shiden Kai replaced the zero.
"This new aircraft performed brilliantly and was accepted at once by the navy as a standard fighter and fighter-bomber." This is not to say that zeros weren't still flown, but rather, it is to show that a comparison of the george to the hellcat is a valid request.

sorry aspiring hellcat pilots <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zero was NEVER replaced in Japanese service int he war The final production model (the A67M Kamakazi version) saw service up to the wars end. Much like the fighter it was supposed to supercede the Shinden saw the last days of WW2 as a flying suicide bomb.

Additionally, the N1K1-J didn't fly in prototype form until Dec 31, 1943 with production starting in early 44 and it being first encountered by allied pilots in mid 44.

Lastly, lets not forget that the Shinden NEVER operated from Carriers, and cannot effectively be considered in the same class as the Zero and Hellcat with their weight penalties from the necessary carrier equipment.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

BlitzPig_DDT
04-17-2004, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
My information leads me to the conclusion that the George was not superior in almost all respects to the Hellcat. In vital areas such as range, reliability,pilot amour and engine power the Hellcat equalled or bettered the George. In areas such as rate of climb and bomb load the Hellcat was marginally inferior (on the order of some 2-5%) or equal, mostly depending on sources. The Hellcat could also carry a more varied offensive armanent (rockets, bombs, bomblets and mg pods) as well as being able to lift heavier single weapons , being cleared for a single 2000lb bomb on the centreline while the George was only stressed to 551 lb per bomb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gives the impression that only a small amount of E superiority would be needed to take down a George in a Hellcat. And it also makes it look like the wings on the George are quite weak and it should go down very easy.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While i lack exact performance figures, i would be quite sure that while the George would out roll and out turn the Hellcat, primarily due to its automatically operated combat flaps ( a manometer measured AoA and responded accordingly)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cool tech. The question becomes one of turning at what alts, what speeds, and with various levels of flaps on each plane. (the kind of stuff that IL2 Compare gives us, but only more extensive)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i would also gamble a large amount of money that a F6F-5 would out dive, outrun and just might out zoom a George due to the extra 200 hp of engine power and the extra 3000lb of weight it lugged around<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How fast was the George relative to the F6F-5? How did it perform at higher speeds?

Re: diving - if the dive is initiated well below max level speed, the better power loading of the George would cause it to accelerate more quickly in the initial stages of the dive. Only after they reached max level speed would the Hellcat pull ahead. VNEs are a vital bit of info too though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The zero was NEVER replaced in Japanese service int he war The final production model (the A67M Kamakazi version) saw service up to the wars end. Much like the fighter it was supposed to supercede the Shinden saw the last days of WW2 as a flying suicide bomb.

Additionally, the N1K1-J didn't fly in prototype form until Dec 31, 1943 with production starting in early 44 and it being first encountered by allied pilots in mid 44.

Lastly, lets not forget that the Shinden NEVER operated from Carriers, and cannot effectively be considered in the same class as the Zero and Hellcat with their weight penalties from the necessary carrier equipment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't you just hear it now? Carrier vs Carrier DFs or COOPs, and/or properly configured historical settings will have these IJ plane fans crying bloody murder. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

KIMURA
04-17-2004, 11:25 AM
Take care on Japanese names Shinden mean that a/c
http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/fot/fot255.jpg

and Shiden that one. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/plastic/172warbirdcollection/images/60768.jpg
Kimura

KIMURA
04-17-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
yes please do compare the george with the hellcat. the george is superior in almost all respects. Japanese pilots refered to hellcats as "easy kills" while flying the george <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My information leads me to the conclusion that the George was not superior in almost all respects to the Hellcat. In vital areas such as range, reliability,pilot amour and engine power the Hellcat equalled or bettered the George. In areas such as rate of climb and bomb load the Hellcat was marginally inferior (on the order of some 2-5%) or equal, mostly depending on sources. The Hellcat could also carry a more varied offensive armanent (rockets, bombs, bomblets and mg pods) as well as being able to lift heavier single weapons , being cleared for a single 2000lb bomb on the centreline while the George was only stressed to 551 lb per bomb.

While i lack exact performance figures, i would be quite sure that while the George would out roll and out turn the Hellcat, primarily due to its automatically operated combat flaps ( a manometer measured AoA and responded accordingly) i would also gamble a large amount of money that a F6F-5 would out dive, outrun and just might out zoom a George due to the extra 200 hp of engine power and the extra 3000lb of weight it lugged around

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In december 31, 1943 the N1K2-J Shiden Kai replaced the zero.
"This new aircraft performed brilliantly and was accepted at once by the navy as a standard fighter and fighter-bomber." This is not to say that zeros weren't still flown, but rather, it is to show that a comparison of the george to the hellcat is a valid request.

sorry aspiring hellcat pilots <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zero was NEVER replaced in Japanese service int he war The final production model (the A67M Kamakazi version) saw service up to the wars end. Much like the fighter it was supposed to supercede the Shinden saw the last days of WW2 as a flying suicide bomb.

Additionally, the N1K1-J didn't fly in prototype form until Dec 31, 1943 with production starting in early 44 and it being first encountered by allied pilots in mid 44.

Lastly, lets not forget that the Shinden NEVER operated from Carriers, and cannot effectively be considered in the same class as the Zero and Hellcat with their weight penalties from the necessary carrier equipment.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that arrester hook there in no difference between an land-born Navy a/c and a carrier-born Navy a/c. All other equipment keeps the same.

BTW how much more a Hellcat could carry - better said how hard you can stress a loadout point depends on the location of the loadpoint. The Cat only had the HVAR launchers points attached outside the wheels bay, NO hard point for heavy bombs as you mentioned, but the N2K-2-J did. That's a difference.

Kimura

FA_Maddog
04-17-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
Production numbers can be decieving. The japanese did not have nearly as many pilots as the americans.
World War two fighters volume 2 says 1,435 shidens produced, thats more aircraft produced than me262s, ki-44s, and hawker tempests to give you a ballpark idea.

It was a STANDARD aircraft as of 1943 and it saw plenty of combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong, this plane did not see combat until 1944. Please list sources that say other wise.

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Sat April 17 2004 at 08:56 PM.]

Giganoni
04-17-2004, 04:15 PM
Yeah GK, your pretty wrong with that statement. Shiden didn't see combat until the Phillippines with the 341st. That was in 1944.

Alyssa1127
04-17-2004, 10:24 PM
Hi GK. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifChecked out the specs and have to agree with the rest, sweetie - the Shiden was not quite a superior craft to the Hellcat, although overall, the specs suggest that it could engage one on far more even terms than the Zero. The only thing I saw that the Shiden clearly held the upper hand on was the hitting power of its fixed armament (4 X 20mm cannons vs. 6 X .50 cal mgs); of course, this is balanced out by the lower rate of fire and arcing trajectory due to inferior muzzle velocity, which affects accuracy.

For all (and hi to you too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), I would say it's a crapshoot. Both fighters have advantages and disadvantages. Pure performance-wise, neither held a decisive edge over the other (although maintenance reliability was definitely not in the Shiden's favor), so it falls to pilot's skill.

Going with the notion that two pilots of equal caliber are pitted against one another in these two planes, I would dare speculate that it would be one hell of a dogfight. It is said time and time again that, "In air-to-air combat, experienced Japanese pilots flying Shiden Kais could more than hold their own against most American pilots flying F6F Hellcats." Then again, the combat F6F's record speaks for itself as it is credited with nearly 75% of all Naval aerial kills in WW2, at a kill/loss ratio of 19:1.

Choose you mount gents. Will you be having the steak or the fish? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh... one last note. Considering what I've read so far, I'd better list sources:

Shiden Specs:
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/N1K.htm
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/kawanish_n1k2.htm

Hellcat Specs:
http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/F6F.htm
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/grumman/f6f-5.htm

Hellcat Wartime Performance: http://www.state.sc.us/patpt/f6f.htm

Nite boys. Be good. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Alyssa

Penguin_PFF
04-17-2004, 10:51 PM
I've been researching this thing for three months, and everything I've ever seen says that the Shiden was first encountered over the Philippines, and later Okinawa. I'm tempted to say the first ones the U.S. got its hands on were captured around Manila, but I'm pretty sure that's the Raiden I'm thinking of.

Anybody who thinks the N1K1-J became the "standard" fighter is delusional... There were a thousand of them made, yes, but really that's peanuts even by World War 2 standards. Maybe a lot of people would have LIKED it to become standard at the time, but the Japanese command's hangup on the Zero is just one of a thousand blind spots they had.

Also, from the web page above, regarding the Shiden's powerplant:

Engine: One Rolls-Royce Merlin, liquid-cooled

*flush*

SkyChimp
04-18-2004, 01:40 AM
Kimura

Later F6F-3s and F6F-5s had a hard point for a 1,000lb bomb under the port wing very close to the fuselage. Later F6F-5s were equipped to carry a 1,000lb under each wing. That's in addition to the hardpopints for HVARs.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

KIMURA
04-18-2004, 07:24 AM
I know that SkyChimp, I know those hardpoint already and I'm familiar with the Cat-Series. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Look at my statement above, those hardpoints were between fuselage and undercarriage bay. The hardpoints of the N1K2-2 were outside that bay. So a comparison of both pylons performance to carry loads is no fair - keep in mind that the Hellcat-hardpoints outside the uc-bay were only able to carry HVAR. To carry heavy loads the Grumman team had to place the bomb pylons as close as possible to the fuselage. The more a hardpoint is place out of the lenght axis the less you can load on it. If the N1K2-J hardpoint would be placed (hypothetical) it could carry a heavier load that's for sure. But to state a wing is less strong at hand of a hard point performance is nuts and untrue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Kimura

[This message was edited by KIMURA on Sun April 18 2004 at 06:44 AM.]

ImpStarDuece
04-18-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Except that arrester hook there in no difference between an land-born Navy a/c and a carrier-born Navy a/c. All other equipment keeps the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to arrestor hooks, Hellcats had catapult spools, strengthned landing gear, folding wings and numerous engineering additions in order to make the big Cat suitable for life aboard carriers.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

KIMURA
04-18-2004, 09:18 AM
Yupp, but these are items the A6M2 had also.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kimura

DIRTY-MAC
04-18-2004, 11:47 AM
when they will come in PF
I think you will be just as surprised as
many people have been before, since we started to get aircrafts
in IL2 sturmovik up to AEP

I think they will be great, both of them
the F6F will be a very rugged aircraft,
and the George will be fast down low,
faster than most people think http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
thats my thoughts

DIRTY-MAC
04-18-2004, 11:50 AM
does anybody have info on

HP/Kg of the aircrafts

and wing area

dont have my bibles with me....

Alyssa1127
04-18-2004, 06:47 PM
Cheers to Penguin_PFF for catching the flub. Sorry, dear - was paying attention to performance specs only. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifNow, to satisfy the 'critical-correct':

N1K2-J SPECIFIC (also applies to N1K1-J):
1 x NAKAJIMA HOMARE 21 RADIAL - 1,990 HP

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifAlyssa http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
04-18-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
I know that SkyChimp, I know those hardpoint already and I'm familiar with the Cat-Series. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Look at my statement above, those hardpoints were between fuselage and undercarriage bay. The hardpoints of the N1K2-2 were outside that bay. So a comparison of both pylons performance to carry loads is no fair - keep in mind that the Hellcat-hardpoints outside the uc-bay were only able to carry HVAR. To carry heavy loads the Grumman team had to place the bomb pylons as close as possible to the fuselage. The more a hardpoint is place out of the lenght axis the less you can load on it. If the N1K2-J hardpoint would be placed (hypothetical) it could carry a heavier load that's for sure. But to state a wing is less strong at hand of a hard point performance is nuts and untrue. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Kimura

[This message was edited by KIMURA on Sun April 18 2004 at 06:44 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, anything beyond the wheel bays on the Hellcat would have been under the foldable portion of the wing. Hanging 1,000lb bombs out there would have been ill-advised.

Additionally, the placement of a single bomb under one wing generally causes instability. Placing it as close to the fuselage as possible reduces this.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Alyssa1127
04-18-2004, 07:21 PM
For DIRTY-MAC: Found this info at the following website:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/IJARG/kawanishin1k.html

Following is a little taste of what you'll find there.

(note - and pls don't quote me for accuracy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. i didn't design it, didn't build it, and sure as all #*?# didn't fly it....... although i definitely would've wanted to http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Alyssa


***excerpts***
Powerplant
N1K1-J Prototype:
Model: Nakajima Homare 11
Type: Radial piston
Number: one Horsepower: 1,820 hp

Production N1K1-J & N1K2-J:
Model: Nakajima NK9H Homare 21
Type: Radial piston
Number: one Horsepower: 1,990 hp

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 370 mph (595 km/h) at 18,370 ft.
Initial climb: N/A
Service Ceiling: 35,300 ft. (10,760m)
Range: 1,451 Miles (2335 km)

Dimensions:
Wing span: 39 ft. 4 in. (12m)
Length: 30 ft. 8 in. (9.353m)
Height: 13 ft. 0 in. (3.96m)
Wing Surface Area: 252.96 sq. ft. (23.50m²)

Weights:
Empty: 5,858 lbs. (2657 kg)
Max. Take-Off: 10,714 lbs. (4860 kg)

Armament:
N1K1-J:
Two 7.7mm machine guns
Four 20mm Cannon in wings.

N1K1-Ja:
Four 20mm Cannon in wings.

N1K1-Jb, N1K2-J:
Four 20mm Cannon in wings.
Wing racks for two 551 lb bombs or 6 air-to-ground rockets.

Fliger747
04-18-2004, 10:12 PM
The one big advantage that the F6F and a number of other US aircraft had was the outstanding P&W R 2800. These factors of reliability don't show up in the specs, or get modeled in a sim, but were real players in the effectiveness of the respective aircraft. As the war wore on Japanese metalurgy and production techniques (and abilties) just could not keep up with the demand for reliable high output engines, radial or otherwise.

The submarine and bombing campains were effective!