F6F Hellcat

[Gman]

I don't really see many of these anymore, not even when CV fights are going on.  It looks like the Seafire, followed by the F4U 1A and the C hog etc are chosen 10x more often.  

Is there any pilots that regularly fly the Hellcat, or consider it their "main" ride, like Mathman did back in the day?  I'd like to hear some opinions about it, as I've been reading a lot of Hellcat books, two by Barrett Tillman lately, and they were incredibly well written accounts of the F6F during the war.  I always used to think of it as an evolutionary follow on of the F4F, but it isn't really.  Max take off weight is TWO TIMES that of the Wildcat, even though the Hellcat doesn't look twice as heavy as the Wildcat sitting side by side.  The K/D ratio vs the Japanese fighters is astounding.  In the Pacific theater, I wonder what pilots who ended up being stationed on Henderson field or any of the other land bases favored - the F6F, the P38's that became available, or the early P47's.  I know the P51's become the primary land based fighter in the last year or so of the war, but I'm interested more in the couple of years that preceded this.

Also, the F6F had crazy range, nearly that of the P51.  I wonder how it would have done in the European theater?  Without that radiator to get damaged, I wonder if it would have had a lot lower loss ratio than the Mustang.  I've got no idea how it would have performed vs the 109 and 190s compared to the P51.  

Also, what are the opinions of the F6F compared to the P47?  They are both very similar in terms of size, engine, and armament (give or take the 2 50's of the P47).  Obviously the P47M/N is faster, but the other models seem close to the Hellcat.  How do they compare in terms of zoom/dive/turn rate/turn radius at typical AH2 engagement altitudes?

I'm thinking of flying it for a couple of weeks straight and see how I do.  It's pretty slow in the deck which is my primary concern.

[MAINER]

I try and use the Hellcat as much as I can. i know an vietnam vet  that restored a Hellcat and he argues that it was better than the P-51. In some aspects I tend to agree. Hellcat Kill/death ratio was 19/1 unlike the mustangs 12/1 and Corsairs 14/1. It was also a very rugged aircraft and had the great R-2800 P&W engine.

[B4Buster]

People are afraid to fly it because they can't compare to Greebo's awesomeness in it.

[Ardy123]

Dodger flies it often.

I don't think it gets flown as much because of how CVs are frequently used...

for example....
f4uC = better plane to vulch with & take town buildings down with

[Tupac]

The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

[EskimoJoe]

The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

This, not mentioning that the majority of Japanese pilots around that time had far, far less experience and worse training than the German pilots.

[Oldman731]

Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

Heh.  I imagine Wildwing will stop by in awhile to address these things.

FWIW, AvA has run a few setups involving Corsairs and Hellcats against 109s and FWs.  While reasonably competitive, I think most of the participants would agree that they'd rather be in a Hellcat than either of the German rides.

- oldman

[Soulyss]

The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

This is a common myth, the F6F prototype flew before the US got it's hands on the A6M that crashed in the Aleutians and was evaluated by the US military.
Over 1000 F6F-3 and -5's were delivered the Fleet Air Arm and involved in anti shipping missions, although there were few chances for air to air combat.

To answer the OP I think the F6F usage took a hit when the 3D shape was updated and the rear view was reduced substantially, but that's just a guess I don't have the stats to back it up.  As is there is little reason from a performance point of view to recommend it over the F4U, however it remains my favorite carrier plane although I don't find myself launching from CV's much these days.

[MAINER]

The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

The Hellcat was not designed just to kill the zero. The first prototype had already flown before we encountered the Zero

[Widewing]

The reason why the hellcat had such a spectacular K/d was that it was designed specifically to counter the zero and it did it very well. Had it been in the ETO I'd imagine its k/d would have been much less.

F6F-5s saw action during the invasion of southern France... 5 or 6 kills (Ju 88s and JU-52s). No losses to the Luftwaffe. German fighters avoided the Hellcats, preferring not to engage. The Hellcats provided considerable air support for ground troops, destroying armored vehicles, trucks and artillery. A few F6Fs were lost to tripleA. Ironically, the Navy elected to use borrowed P-51C fighters as naval gunfire spotters, largely due to their superior loiter time. FM-2s were also in combat during the invasion (Operation Dragoon/Anvil).

[Widewing]

The Hellcat was not designed just to kill the zero. The first prototype had already flown before we encountered the Zero

Not correct... The F6F design was modified once data from combat with Zeros was analyzed. This data resulted in switching from the 1600 hp R-2600 to the 2000 hp R-2800. The XF6F-1 first flew at the end of June, 1942, with the R-2800 powered XF6F-3 flying about a month later. This was 6 months after the Navy encountered the Zero. The first captured Zero wasn't test flown until September, 1942. Nonetheless, the F6F-3 incorporated changes as flight data began to make its way to Gurmman's Engineering department.

[Widewing]

This, not mentioning that the majority of Japanese pilots around that time had far, far less experience and worse training than the German pilots.

Typically aces who first flew in the Pacific, scored better in the ETO. By middle 1944, new Luftwaffe pilots were not nearly as well trained as their Allied counterparts. By 1945, Germany was mostly putting up cannon fodder in terms of new pilots.

[Tank-Ace]

F6F isn't flown that much (IMO) because fights tend to place the primary importance on speed, since if you're fast, you can walk away from anything that can out turn you. And CV fights tend to be low-mid alt, which further exposes the F6F's relativly low speed compared to many late war aircraft, because theres less room too dive away and escape.

If the F6F could crack even 345 at low altitude, I have no doubt that it would be much more popular. The F4U-1A offers the best speed of any perk-free carrier fighter (approaching 375mph at only 5k). The Seafire is lighter, and though its not a whole  lot more manuverable, it doesn't feel nearly so heavy at low speeds, and seems more responsive, as well as packing the Hispanos so many people love, so the seafire offers several positive characteristics over the F6F at the expense of about 25mph. If the A6M5 could take more than a nasty look before it burst into flames, it would probably be more popular than the Seafire.

For some of the more common land-based fighters, the 190A5 can hit almost 375mph at a mere 5k, the 109K4 is approaching 400mph at that altitude. The D9 is at 375mph on the deck, and the Typhoon is also getting close to 375mph. P-51D is at about 360mph, Yak-9U is at about 355, the La-7 is at 380mph, and the Spit 16 is creeping up on 350mph, as is the Ki-84.



To put it simply, many people feel the F6F just doesn't offer enough positive characteristics in other areas to compensate for its lack of speed.

[Widewing]

Also, what are the opinions of the F6F compared to the P47?  They are both very similar in terms of size, engine, and armament (give or take the 2 50's of the P47).  Obviously the P47M/N is faster, but the other models seem close to the Hellcat.  How do they compare in terms of zoom/dive/turn rate/turn radius at typical AH2 engagement altitudes?

I'm thinking of flying it for a couple of weeks straight and see how I do.  It's pretty slow in the deck which is my primary concern.

F6Fs frequently tangled with P-47s over Long Island, since they were built at factories just a few miles apart. As a general rule, below 20k the F6F was competitive, but up higher the P-47 was king. Hellcats could fly circles around the Jug in a low speed turning contest. However, if the P-47s held an altitude advantage, the Hellcat pilots had their hands very full.

[Ack-Ack]

Did any of the Royal Navy Hellcats see action in the Atlantic or Med or just in the Pacific?


ack-ack