PDA

View Full Version : Hellcat



GK.
04-13-2004, 03:45 PM
someone said this plane was the best american fighter of the war because it had the most victories. My question is, how did it compare to p47, p51, p38, and corsair? was it really the best?

GK.
04-13-2004, 03:45 PM
someone said this plane was the best american fighter of the war because it had the most victories. My question is, how did it compare to p47, p51, p38, and corsair? was it really the best?

Chuck_Older
04-13-2004, 03:47 PM
Who said that?

*****************************
Get your car outta that gear ~ Clash

DONB3397
04-13-2004, 03:51 PM
Well, it did better on carrier landings. (Sic) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BClfFfABY1qmLZQo
There is no 'way' of winning;
There is only Winning!

BlitzPig_DDT
04-13-2004, 04:30 PM
The Hellcat rocked. But how can you say "best fighter"? Best in what role? Best in what conditions?

In it's element, it was probably the "best", because it was faster than it's enemies, and turned well enough to hang with them at much slower speeds than any other US fighter (save the Bearcat). It had trademark US fighter dive, trademark brutal killing power of 6 50s (don't beleive Olegs crappy rendition of them). It was tough as nails, had phenomenal vis over the nose, had no bad habits, was great at slow speeds (carrier landings), and was so strong it was dropped by Grumman at their test hangar, from 21 feet......and nothing broke.

It made the most aces, but that is somewhat circumstantial as well.

On the flip side, overall, it was slow and would not have had such an easy time in the ETO (still would have been successfull, like the Jug was, but, just have a harder time at it than it did in the PTO), and it wasn't a strike craft.

That's where the P-51, 47, 38, and F4U all came into play. Each had it's own role that it was best for/at.

Tell ya what though, mid war, even in a mass mixed plane set (with the current FB ones), gimme the F6F-5 any day. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

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

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

BarkhornXX
04-13-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It had ... trademark brutal killing power of 6 50s (don't beleive Olegs crappy rendition of them).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that the 50's are that weak. Even w/a P-51B/C I have no trouble bagging FW's - you just have to aim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Barkhorn.

GK.
04-13-2004, 06:12 PM
thx for the info

FW190fan
04-13-2004, 07:13 PM
RAF test pilot Eric Brown regarded the Hellcat as the best carrier-born a/c to see widespread service in WWII. And that includes the F4U-1.

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

VF-10_Snacky
04-13-2004, 11:41 PM
I always like to say the Corsair made movies, but the Hellcat made history. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

WUAF_Badsight
04-14-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:

My question is, how did it compare to p47, p51, p38, and corsair? was it really the best?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it out-turned all three

wasnt it out-sped by all three tho ?

tigerroach
04-20-2004, 10:52 AM
The Hellcat was easily my favorite to fly in CFS2. Great performance and firepower, and much more forgiving to fly than the Corsair.

How it was in RL or will be in PF, I can't say...

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 11:14 AM
Seems to me the Hellcat was the right plane for the job. Faster than its japanese opponents when it was introduced and more agile than faster US fighters like the P-38, P-47, etc, and with the powerful 6 .50 armament...

Quite a warhorse. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

JG7_Rall
04-20-2004, 12:06 PM
It also came home from missions with "more holes than metal" and "more air going through it than around it"! Can the venerable Jug even match that?

S!

Hutch

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

KIMURA
04-20-2004, 12:49 PM
The Hellcat was the best because it replaced the Wildcat in July 43 and became standard on carriers. So viewed from that angle the Hellcat was the best a/c because it was available in bigger numbers.

Kimura

VFA-195 Snacky
04-20-2004, 12:54 PM
I would say it was the best carrier based Fighter the Navy used during the war, but saying any aircraft is the all around best is subjective. Every pilot believes his own aircraft is the best. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win.
" U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, TOPGUN.
http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/897-P.jpg

MetalG.
04-20-2004, 03:38 PM
Hellcat is one of my favs as well.

Just wondering, with everyone saying it was faster than the Zero, how much faster exactly would that be? And did that go for all altitudes?
Also how did it compare to the JAAF fighters such as the Ki-61? Could it turn with a Ki-84?

Was there any difference in handling and/or speed in different Hellcat versions? Or just different load out options?

VW-IceFire
04-20-2004, 04:50 PM
I have read that the F6F-5 had spring roll tabs on the ailerons boosting the roll rate. So there was a few changes to the plane...

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

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 05:09 PM
This source here, MetalGear, lists the Hellcat's top speed at 386 mph at 17,300 feet... and 335 mph at sea level.

That source is "World War II Aircraft" by Christopher Chant.

It also lists the KI-61 Hien's top speed at 369 mph at 15,945 feet.

Lists the A6M2 Model 21 top speed as 331 mph at 14,928 feet.

Have read in Object viewer of FB that A6M5a version we have top speed was about 352 mph.

I've read that the KI-61 was a good all-around performer but they had trouble getting the engine to work reliably sometimes. (The engine was the Ha-40, the japanese version of the german DB601 engine)

Don't have information about the KI-84, but I have heard the top speed of that aircraft was around 390 mph (in operating conditions in the pacific... There was a US test after the war with an ideally restored airplane using 140-something octane and got it up to 425 mph at medium altitude)

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

GK.
04-20-2004, 05:22 PM
good post gunner, I hope people dont fly the hellcat on the deck and then complain that it is too slow as it was probably never flown like this except after a dive.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately that source did not list sea level speeds for the Zero or Hien.

With the designs and the horsepower provided them, I imagine the Zero would be slower than the Hellcat on the deck but the Hien perhaps equal to or a bit faster in speed. But I can't say for sure, I am just speculating right now.

I prefer to think there are no great planes, only great pilots. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG ... Eagerly awaiting the B-25 Mitchell

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

Giganoni
04-20-2004, 06:10 PM
I'm going to force myself to become an expert flying the Ki-43 II. Since that is what most of the JAAF pilots got stuck with in the Pacific for most of the war. With only two mgs..all that the II has going for it is superb low speed manuverability surprisingly thick pilot armor (13mm) for the back and head, self sealing fuel tanks so it won't blow up as often as a Zero and I think it was overall more durable than the Zero..at least A6m2. But hey..I'll be bagging P-38's, Hellcats, and P-51Bs with ease in no time.

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 06:19 PM
I believe Saburo Sakai considered the Hellcat the most dangerous fighter because it was fast, though, good fire-power and could dog-fight.

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

TAGERT.
04-20-2004, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
someone said this plane was the best american fighter of the war because it had the most victories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then it should be clear to you that person's definition of *best* is based on *victories*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
My question is, how did it compare to p47, p51, p38, and corsair?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With regards to.... what? Victorys?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
was it really the best?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Before that question can be addressed you would have to first provide me with *your* definition of *best*.. Is it limited to victory counts? Or is it more complex? How many variables are you willing to consider?

Once you begin to think about your difinition of what is best you will realise that it depends on the airplane *AND* the task it was employed to do..

If you get that far.. hopefully you will realise that *best* was different for each country and thier aiplanes..

At which point you should realise that a blanket statement of BEST is worthless and silly and means nothing to anyone who has a clue.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

GK.
04-20-2004, 08:06 PM
I was hoping someone with real knowledge (or has done a lot of reading on the aircraft), like skychimp, could enlighten me. I was also hoping people, like tagert for example, would stay out of the thread unless they could provide some useful information.

Specifically, I was interested in how the hellcat compared to other american aircraft (p38, p51, f4u, p47) in terms of turn performance, climb, zoom climb, and dive just in laymens terms(better? worse?), numbers are harder to conceptualize. My understanding is that it handles similar to a p47 and has similar turn performance, is that true? What plane could you compare it to that is already in il2:fb? is it closer to the p47 or the mustang, or a combination of both?

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

WUAF_Badsight
04-20-2004, 08:33 PM
the Hellcat out-turned the Mustang & Thunderbolt(eaisly)

it was well armoured

it was faster than the Japanese planes *at that time*

it was a good turn fighter ...... it was nothing like the P-47 at turning

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 08:51 PM
According to America's Hundred Thousand Francis Dean - In terms of turning radius (without flaps), the FM-2 Wildcat was America's best.
2nd was the P-63 who's turn radius was 124% of that of the FM-2.
3rd was the P-61 who's turn radius was 133% of that of the FM-2.
4th was the F6F who's turn radius was 138% of that of the FM-2.
5th was the P-51 who's turn radius was 179% of that of the FM-2.
6th was the P-38 who turn radius was 205% of that of the FM-2.
7th was the P-47 who's turn radius was 206% of that of the FM-2,
And last was the F4U who's turn radius was 212% of that of the FM-2.

The use of flap will rearrange this order. Using flaps, for instance, the F4U was greatly superior to the P-51 in manueverability according to a side-by-side test. The F4U and F6F were also found to be greatly more manueverable than the Fw-190A in US Navy tests.

====

Roll was not particularly great with either the F6F-3 or F6F-5. The F6F-3 had conventional ailerons and peak roll rate was a little over 70 degrees per second at around 230 mph IAS. The F6F-5 used spring-tab ailerons that were less effective at low speeds, but more effective at high speeds. The peak roll for the -5 was about 68 dps at 250 mph IAS. The F6F-5 roll better than the -3 from speeds of 250 mph on up.

The Hellcats roll rate was slower than the P-51, P-47 and F4U at almost all speeds. It was more competetive at higher speeds.

====

According to Hellcat: The F6F in WWII Barrett Tillman, the F6F-3 had an initial climb rate of 3,650 fpm (7 min to 20,000 feet) and the -5 had an inital climb rate of 3,200 fpm (7 min 30 sec to 20,000 feet). Respectable and comparable to the P-47.

====

The Hellcat was slower in level flight than any of the other three fighters. Sources vary. I've seen top speeds ranging from 380mph in many publications to 409mph (for the -5) in a US Navy test.

====

The Hellcat had a lot of armor protection. In addition to pilot armor, the -5 added a significant amount of armor plate under the engine.

====

In comparison to other American planes, the Hellcat excelled in horizontal manueverability. Except for the FM-2, the Hellcat was probably best if it used some flap. It could easily turn inside any P-51, P-38, P-47 at any speed.

It also excelled at armor protection. The -3 had a lot of armor. The -5 had a helluva lot of armor. This plane was tough, maybe toughter than the P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

It excelled in reliability. The R-2800 was very reliable engine and was easy to work on on-board carriers.

It had excellent deck handling characterisitics. With its wide gear, good forward visbility and stinger tail-hook it was praised even by the hard-to-please British.

While its evident that the Hellcat lacked some performance compared to its land-based contemporaries, I doubt many pilots would have traded it for any of them.

====

Against the A6M5/52 Zeke, I posted a test report here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=670109543&p=1

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

TAGERT.
04-20-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
I was hoping someone with real knowledge (or has done a lot of reading on the aircraft), like skychimp, could enlighten me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is a tall order...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
I was also hoping people, like tagert for example, would stay out of the thread unless they could provide some useful information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because you are ill equipted to grasp the concept of defining terms does not mean the concept is useless

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
Specifically, I was interested in how the hellcat compared to other american aircraft (p38, p51, f4u, p47) in terms of turn performance, climb, zoom climb, and dive just in laymens terms(better? worse?),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is more like it.. Glad I could help you DEFINE what your looking for

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
numbers are harder to conceptualize.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For some...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
My understanding is that it handles similar to a p47 and has similar turn performance, is that true?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell us more about your *understanding* in that without *numbers* similar does not really box it in.. That is one might think 150mph is simular to 100mph.. where as another perosn might say it isnt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
What plane could you compare it to that is already in il2:fb? is it closer to the p47 or the mustang, or a combination of both?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hard to say, in some aspects the answer would be yes and other it would be no.. You need to be more specific

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
04-20-2004, 09:39 PM
GK,

I know it's a lot of money but I bought Americas Hundred Thousand (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764300725/qid=1082518488/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8209673-8108045?v=glance&s=books)

on SkyChimp's recommendation and have not regretted it. It has great data and charts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif on all the U.S. fighters. If you can, get it!

Another expensive book Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087021313X/qid=1082518668/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8209673-8108045?v=glance&s=books) is a good reference (also bought this on a SkyChimp tip).

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

GK.
04-20-2004, 10:11 PM
Thanks chimp that was one of the most informative posts ive read in a long time. I have seen Americas hundred thousand mentioned a lot on these boards, perhaps it is worth the money. Im a poor college student but i may be able to come up with the money. Charts are always nice. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

Someone told me on teamspeak that the p47 and hellcat were similar maybe they just meant toughness.

Target- its really not worth the effort.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

VF-3Thunderboy
04-20-2004, 10:15 PM
The Hellcat was far from the "Best" (potential)fighter during the war. It all depends on what your going up against.For Zeros,Kates,and Vals, it was where it needed to be. But against a KI-84, or Ki-100, or George,it was dead meat if it did not have sufficient altitiude. The P-51 would probably be closer to the "best" all around (potential)fighter. But for carrier ops, George, or Bearcat would fair better.Not enough of em, pilot quality etc effects the outcome... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JR_Greenhorn
04-20-2004, 10:51 PM
As long as the F6F is still being discussed in relative peace in here, can anyone tell me the propellor diameter of this plane? Was the propellor the same size on the -3 and -5?

I haven't yet been able to dig up the ching to get some of the good reference books mentioned, and I have been unable to find this figure on some of the various online sources.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/F2G-1D.jpg

IL2Canuck
04-21-2004, 01:05 PM
I am just starting to learn about the details of the Pacific, it's amazing. I am just reading Across the Dark Islands by Floyd W. Rad**** and even though it the boys on the ground it a scary thought to be out there fighting as they talk about how they loved to watch the dogfighting above. Thinking about the planes, I wondered kinda a stupid question...

- was there a reason the Hellcat has high gloss paint and the Corsair flat paint? (Robert Johnsons book said they would wax the P-47 to a gloss for aerodynamics)?.

I don't want to ask anymore dumb questions...but I love the Hellcat and the Corsair...and the P-47!!!

Thanks for the informative thread, it's great to hear all the opinions and knowledge.

CHEERS.

TAGERT.
04-21-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GK.:
Target- its really not worth the effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know.. your pretty far gone.. and to most it may seem like a lost cause.. But I cant help it.. Im a giver! So in some small way you are worth the effort! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

chris455
04-22-2004, 11:40 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/p47n2.jpg

flyingbullseye
04-22-2004, 04:20 PM
When it came to speed between the F4U-1 and the F6F they were equal to each other. The Navy did a head to head test after the war and found they were the same speed. The difference being was the airspeed sensors were in two different places between the two. Whether the hellcat was as fast as the F4U-1 or the reverse I don't know I will have to get back about it. As far as high altitude performance I work with a former Hellcat pilot now and then at a air museum here in Detroit and he said even though they were supposed to get up to 35,36000 ft he couldn't get the thing above 28k, just stopped climbing.

jpatrick1
04-23-2004, 02:53 PM
The navy actually did tests on a Hellcat, Corsair and a captured FW190. The tests were conducted by the Navy at the Patuxent Naval Station during the war. A link here:

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm

Because of these tests and others conducted in 1944, the Navy chose the corsair (f4u-1D) over the Hellcat and stated it was the superior fighter in just about all respects. Taht was confirmed by the 1944 Fighter Conference where test pilots from all nations chose the Corsair over the Hellcat as the best Naval fighter, even besting the Seafire, much to Grumman's famous test pilot "Corky Meyer's" chagrin.

jpatrick1
04-23-2004, 03:01 PM
It doesn't really matter what historical revisionists or computer pilots think since much of what we get today is simply not accurate or is biased according to the story teller. Here's the truth in 1944: the Navy chose the corsair over the Hellcat after extensive testing - a link here:

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id3.htm

In addition, the Fighter Conference of 1944 bore this out as well. Additinally, tests between F4U-1/-1A and P51B's were conducted at Patuxent as well and they are at the same link.