PDA

View Full Version : Want to have a real rookie plane : ask for a Grumman one !!!



XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:10 PM
Yes, I heard those could almost fly without pilot.

They were so well adapted for carrier operations that you really had to want it to stall or get into a spin.

And, anyway, the Hellcat and the Wildcat are really good looking (look a Hellcat and a Spit side by side, it's like a Ferrari and a Bulldozer, guess who wins ?).

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:10 PM
Yes, I heard those could almost fly without pilot.

They were so well adapted for carrier operations that you really had to want it to stall or get into a spin.

And, anyway, the Hellcat and the Wildcat are really good looking (look a Hellcat and a Spit side by side, it's like a Ferrari and a Bulldozer, guess who wins ?).

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:13 PM
nicli wrote:
- And, anyway, the Hellcat and the Wildcat are really
- good looking (look a Hellcat and a Spit side by
- side, it's like a Ferrari and a Bulldozer, guess who
- wins ?).


Hmmm, well all things considered I'd probably take the Ferrari as it would easily out maneouver the bulldozer. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>http://www.poprivet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Forums/Sig/ALTERNATE2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 06:44 PM
thing is a hell cat was very manoverable the spit wolndt stand a chance

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:04 PM
I'd have a wildcat over a Zero anyday. The Zero is the true newbie's plane, until you get hit, then you NEED trim on a slider because trim is that important, of course, you could just save yourself the aggrivation and bail out.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
http://interzone.ath.cx/pics/booshsig.jpg

<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 07:35 PM
nicli wrote:
- (look a Hellcat and a Spit side by side, it's like a Ferrari and a Bulldozer, guess who
- wins ?).
-
-

I guess it just depends on what on what you intend to do with them.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:06 PM
I'm afraid the Wildcat was a little less forgiving, at least in landing and takeoff because the of the narrow track landing gear.

As for the comparison between the Spit and the Hellcat, you'd have to specify which Mark of Spitfire, because performance varied quite a bit between the Merlin and Griffon engine types, while their wasn't all that much to choose from between the F6F-3 and -5, in terms of combat performance. Fact is, though, that the Hellcat was pretty maneauverable, and could stay with a Zero or an Oscar through enough of a turn to shred them with a short burst. The Spit was a little more rugged, but the Hellcat would only have to score hits once, while the Spit would either have to score a pilot kill or major engine damage (the R-2800 in the Hellcat was the same beast that powered the P-47, and could take a lickin' and keep on tickin') to decide the issue immediately. The choice is between the boxer and the puncher; if the boxer can keep out of the puncher's reach long enough to break him down over a few rounds, he wins. If the puncher lands a few heavy blows before then, he wins.

With pilots of similar abilities (and US Naval aviators were pretty danged good), the advantage goes to the puncher.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 08:12 PM
Hellcat could outturn the Zero ABOVE 250 mph.
Zero turns handily inside at speeds below 200mph.

It was US Navy doctrine NEVER to turnfight with ANY Japanese fighter in ANY US Aircraft.

S!
Chris

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 09:11 PM
nicli wrote:
- (look a Hellcat and a Spit side by
- side, it's like a Ferrari and a Bulldozer, guess who
- wins ?).

You mean Hellcat = Bulldozer, Spit = Ferrari...
Mmmm, I'm quite sure that a bulldozer newer won a race against a sport car, and that a Ferrari was never able to demolish a building. But I still prefer a Ferrari!
Moreover, Hellcat and Wildcat were as ugly as the Jug (just painted in blue to be more elegant /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ).
F4-U Corsair was much better-looking (and effective) than these 3 fat guys!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.uploadit.org/files/030903-Tempest_MkV_picc.jpg </p>


I have more pistons than you!</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 09:52 PM
Horseback, good summary. To quote from Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky":

F6F-3 Hellcat Versus Seafire III (he doesn't compare the Hellcat to any version of the Spitfire in the book.)
Though it had a slight edge in performance, the Seafire would find the Hellcat a rugged opponent. The latter would not be able to employ the hit-and-run tactics it used so successfully against the Zeke, so there was little to do but commit itself to a dogfight, thereby gaining slim odds.
Verdict: In this confrontation, the Seafire would prove slicker on the draw. If the British aircraft had had the range and deck-landing capability of the Hellcat, it would have ruled the seven seas.

That being said, he rates the Hellcat as the best naval fighter of the war.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 10:33 PM
Cippacometa wrote:
- Moreover, Hellcat and Wildcat were as ugly as the
- Jug

The Grumman test pilots even said the Hellcat just looked like the crate it went from.

But, happily for american pilots, it flew much better.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:06 PM
An US NAvy survey made on 500 planes (fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers) between '44 and '45 find out that only 1/3 from the planes with hits in the engine made it home! Keep in mind that those planes were all radials. It shows clearly that radials were very much vulnerable to hits, since, like any other engine, once hit, a radial leaks oil, soon leaving it without lubricant (which in the end will seize it); it's true that a damaged engine leaks the oil out in a longer time interval that the cooling liquid in case of a liquid cooled engine.
It also means that you cannot expect to be hit in the engine and still fight.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/03/0305:07PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:19 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- An US NAvy survey made on 500 planes (fighters, dive
- bombers and torpedo bombers) between '44 and '45
- find out that only 1/3 from the planes with hits in
- the engine made it home! Keep in mind that those
- planes were all radials. It shows clearly that
- radials were very much vulnerable to hits, since,
- like any other engine, once hit, a radial leaks oil,
- soon leaving it without lubricant (which in the end
- will seize it); it's true that a damaged engine
- leaks the oil out in a longer time interval that the
- cooling liquid in case of a liquid cooled engine.
- It also means that you cannot expect to be hit in
- the engine and still fight


LOL!Does Huck ever stop?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:21 AM
- Though it had a slight edge in performance, the
- Seafire would find the Hellcat a rugged opponent.
- The latter would not be able to employ the
- hit-and-run tactics it used so successfully against
- the Zeke, so there was little to do but commit
- itself to a dogfight, thereby gaining slim odds.

- Verdict: In this confrontation, the Seafire would
- prove slicker on the draw. If the British aircraft
- had had the range and deck-landing capability of the
- Hellcat, it would have ruled the seven seas.

Talk about as stupid a statement as they come and a good reason it is really an ill-advised apples to oranges comparison to match naval and land based fighters in H2H dogfight fantasies!

Had the Seafire the range and the carrier landing ability of the Hellcat, it would have weighed more than it did, from increased fuel cell capacity, beefed up undercarriage, and more complicated folding wing build, thus degrading "its slight perfomance edge" into meaninglessness.

Look Ma, I can be equally stupid as your quoted author! "If the Hellcat had only possessed reduced range, and been stripped of the weight penalties of carrier modifications to its landing gear and wings, it would have ruled the European continent!!! The Corsair with factory modifications would have made all other prop driven fighters obsolete merely by retaining its long range ability and reducing the carrier weight penalty of its construction alone." SHEESH!

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:24 AM
I see your point. But the Seafire COULD land on carriers...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg



Message Edited on 09/03/0307:03PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:58 AM
See that 'Sea' in the name Seafire? That was the naval version of the Spit./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It landed on carriers all the time./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Folding wings were tested in the winter of '39-'40. The Seafire III had double folding wings.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/swinfold.gif


http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/Seafire3a.jpg


Obw, it was the RN that showed the USN that a F4U could be used on carriers.

For someone with the nick NavyFlyer, you do not seem well informed.


NavyFlyer wrote:

-
- Talk about as stupid a statement as they come and a
- good reason it is really an ill-advised apples to
- oranges comparison to match naval and land based
- fighters in H2H dogfight fantasies!
-
- Had the Seafire the range and the carrier landing
- ability of the Hellcat, it would have weighed more
- than it did, from increased fuel cell capacity,
- beefed up undercarriage, and more complicated
- folding wing build, thus degrading "its slight
- perfomance edge" into meaninglessness.
-
-

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 01:08 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- An US NAvy survey made on 500 planes (fighters, dive
- bombers and torpedo bombers) between '44 and '45
- find out that only 1/3 from the planes with hits in
- the engine made it home! Keep in mind that those
- planes were all radials. It shows clearly that
- radials were very much vulnerable to hits, since,
- like any other engine, once hit, a radial leaks oil,
- soon leaving it without lubricant (which in the end
- will seize it); it's true that a damaged engine
- leaks the oil out in a longer time interval that the
- cooling liquid in case of a liquid cooled engine.
- It also means that you cannot expect to be hit in
- the engine and still fight.
-

Just out of curiosity, what was their methodology? I'm very curios as to how they identified the damage that brought down aircraft, and how they rated the damage.

After all, I've flown fights where I've been pummped all over the aircraft by Mk108 rounds, and was successfully shot down, in which I had engine hits, but where the primary cause of aircraft loss was the severing of my wing or aft fuselage caused by the volley of rounds.

In somewhat plainer english, if the engine is hit, and the plane is lost, it does not necessarily mean that the aircraft was lost due to engine damage. And engine can get hit in the same flight, or even the same volley that tears off a wing, kills a pilots, or shatters the fuselage.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:00 AM
My mistake as the Seafire is far from legendary. So WTH was the shortcoming in its "carrier landing ability" vis-a-vis the Hellcat? That is what threw me.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:13 AM
- For someone with the nick NavyFlyer, you do not seem
- well informed.

Uh yeah, British carrier ops after the Swordfish were retired are world-renowned, the subject of endless historical literature and countless movies, as was the massive success of the British in the Pacific in general.

My knowledge of naval aircraft is of only the US and Japanese variants--the only ones that really mattered in WW2 in the only theater in which naval aircraft were central to the outcome of a war rather than isolated actions and raids. After the Bismarck was sunk in the Atlantic, what for the RN flyers, convoy duty and coastal patrols? Yawn.

I guess some guys have all the drive to know about obscure aircraft never flown in any battles anyone cares to recall and others don't. Oh well.

Spitfire? Yea! Great. Seafire? Sleepytime. A short-legged naval fighter is almost useless. Just see how much abuse the F-18 Hornet takes for this one shortcoming even today.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:21 AM
In case you don't know,the RN also operated in the Pacific Theater. The Brits role there really isn't that obscure.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:52 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- An US NAvy survey made on 500 planes (fighters, dive
- bombers and torpedo bombers) between '44 and '45
- find out that only 1/3 from the planes with hits in
- the engine made it home! Keep in mind that those
- planes were all radials. It shows clearly that
- radials were very much vulnerable to hits, since,
- like any other engine, once hit, a radial leaks oil,
- soon leaving it without lubricant (which in the end
- will seize it); it's true that a damaged engine
- leaks the oil out in a longer time interval that the
- cooling liquid in case of a liquid cooled engine.
- It also means that you cannot expect to be hit in
- the engine and still fight.

All engines are vulerable to hits. ALL of them. But radial engined aircraft were less likely to be lost than in-line engined aircraft.

Hit a radial, lose oil. Hit an in-line, lose oil and probably coolant.

A radial can lose a trememdous amount of oil and oil pressure and still fly on the residual lubrication in the engine, at least for a while. An inline will not survive if it losess its coolant and keeps its oil.


As far as fighting, no one here said fight. The key is survivability. And a hundred or more miles from a carrier, the radial was the better choice.

After taking a cannon round in the engine over the Pacific, would you feel better in a F6F, or Seafire?



About survivability:


Eighth Fighter Command
Summary of the causes for damaged aircraft
August 1943 - May 1944

Vulnerability To Enemy Aircraft
A/C lost : A/C hit

P-38 49%
P-51 46%
F4U 46%
P-47 37%
F6F 36%
F4F 25%

Vulnerability to Anti-aircraft Fire
A/C lost : A/C hit

P-38 25%
P-51 29%
F4U 26%
P-47 10%
F6F 25%
F4F 22%



VIII Fighter command also determined the follwoing:

Loss Rate of Fighters Hit By Enemy Fire
June 1, 1944 - August 31, 1944

P-47 -- P-38 -- P-51
Average hours per sortie: 3.7 -- 3.9 -- 4.3
A/C Damaged per 1000 sorties: 28 -- 16 -- 16
A/C lost per 1000 sorties: 7 -- 7 -- 11
% A/C lost/hit: 19% -- 30% -- 41%





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 02:56 AM
uh rgr, i lost what you guys were talking about oh right, hellcats/wildcats have a better rep. than they deserve

well my name was spelled wrong

Message Edited on 09/03/0307:59PM by ST_Spyke

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:00 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- In case you don't know,the RN also operated in the
- Pacific Theater. The Brits role there really isn't
- that obscure.
-

True, what would the swabbie know?

Do you now anything about HMS Victorious(35,500t) in 1943 swabbie? Or from May 1944 where she was? Or where she was in Feb 1945? She was not the only RN carrier there./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/03/0310:08PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:03 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:18 AM
http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/Seafire3a.jpg


Milo,

Did the Seafire wings have to be extended manually? I see that bracket, does that hold up the wings?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 03:26 AM
Yes and yes SC.

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:09 AM
NavyFlyer wrote:
-
- Spitfire? Yea! Great. Seafire? Sleepytime. A
- short-legged naval fighter is almost useless. Just
- see how much abuse the F-18 Hornet takes for this
- one shortcoming even today.
-

The final Seafire variants were some of the final expressions of the concept of the piston engined fighter, however, that was primarily due to piston engined fighters being in service in the RN far longer than they were in any other front line airforce of a major world power.

I would guess that the main problems with landing a Seafire would be poor forward visibility during landing, due to the cockpit layout and engine installation, and probably stiffness (i.e. bounce) in the landing gear with low landing gear robustness due to its land based heritage.

Remember, carrier "landings" are little more than a controlled crash, with the landing gear pointing towards the ground.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:13 AM
"Do you now anything about HMS Victorious(35,500t) in 1943 swabbie? Or from May 1944 where she was? Or where she was in Feb 1945? She was not the only RN carrier there."


The USS Robin?

Yeah so? One of several hundred ships off of Okinawa, dwarfed by the Essex class carriers of the day? I heard it singlehandedly won the war and there were never ever, ever, more Hellcats or Corsairs aboard her than Seafires.



Message Edited on 09/03/0308:16PM by NavyFlyer

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:29 AM
Come on now. Calm down.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 05:50 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Come on now. Calm down.

I agree.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:17 AM
All 6 RN fleet carriers have seen action in the last months of the Pacific War: HMS Illustrious, Victorious, Formidable, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable.

All but the HMS Implacable have been hit by kamikazes and have survived without fatal damages.

But the British carriers were not really suited to large carrier aircraft operations and the accident rate was so high that it was the main cause of the end of the operational life (as a front line carrier) of the HMS Formidable: a Corsair, bouncing over her arresting wires, fell into the after lift well consequently her hangar has been all burned out.

<center>Qui vainc sans risque triomphe sans gloire.</center>
<center>http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/images/tempestv_t.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 06:28 AM
I can say this about British carriers in the Pacific--at least they had the sense to armor their flight decks. When a British flattop was hit by a bomb on the deck, you could still land on it after the mess was cleared up. If a U.S. carrier was hit by a bomb, it would punch through the deck, causing widespread devastation below, fires, crippling or sinking the ship.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:10 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Vulnerability To Enemy Aircraft
- A/C lost : A/C hit
-
- P-38 49%
- P-51 46%
- F4U 46%
- P-47 37%
- F6F 36%
- F4F 25%

I'm surprised the Wildcat is tougher than the P-47, maybe this can be explained by the fact the japanese fighters fought by the Hellcats and Wildcats had a lighter armament than the german ones fought by the others (to take a burst from a Fw-190 isn't exactly like taking a burst from a Ki-43).

For the Seafire, one should remember it was an interceptor (at least for the first versions) not a multirole fighter, and therefore it hadn't the range, toughness, nor AtG capabilities of the Hellcat which could also be used for escort, CAS, or classical bombing.

But as far as the flying qualities were concerned, the american test pilots were unanimous, it had the best flying qualities of all naval fighters they had tested so far by 1944.

BTW, it's noteworthy that the P-38's two engines didn't give it an additional chance to come back when hit compared to one-engined fighters.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 12:51 PM
nicli wrote:

-
- I'm surprised the Wildcat is tougher than the P-47,
- maybe this can be explained by the fact the japanese
- fighters fought by the Hellcats and Wildcats had a
- lighter armament than the german ones fought by the
- others (to take a burst from a Fw-190 isn't exactly
- like taking a burst from a Ki-43).
-
-

The Ki-43 IIIa had 2 20mm(Ho-5) and 2 12.7mm.

The Ki-44 III had 2 20mm and 2 12.7mm.

The Ki-84 Ia had 2 20mm and 2 12.7mm.

The Ki-84 Ib had 4 20mm.

The J2M3a Ib had 4 20mm(Type 99).

The N1K2-J had 4 20mm.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg

"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Hawgdog
09-04-2003, 01:01 PM
priceless

<center></script>The original HawgDog, dont be fooled by fneb imitations
Vulching can be a contact sport
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif