Wish I knew who the F6f was.

[streakeagle]

In one versus one where both opponents know of each others presence, turning ability might be critical. But rugged high speed energy fighters flown with mutual support tactics stomp lighter turn-n-burn aircraft. F4Fs did not have power-to-weight advantages nor numerical advantages. Yet in 4 vs 4 (or even worse odds) they learned to combine the diving ability of their aircraft with mutual support tactics to hold their own against Zeros. The F6F was built to beat Zeros. The Zero is only slightly different in concept than the Spitfire. The Spitfire is a little cleaner and faster, but they can almost be treated the same in a dogfight.

The US has almost always flown aircraft with inferior maneuverability compared to their opponents. The US has also almost always enjoyed air superiority.

An energy fighter requires more skill to use effectively, but is more effective when used skillfully. An F-4 Phantom can never turn with a MiG-17, but even when matched one on one, the Phantom can and should win. Robin Olds made it clear that what he needed to be more effective was guns, not turning ability. He could and did get behind the MiG-17s with relative ease. He just couldn't fire missiles at that short of a range. If he had flown a Mustang, he wouldn't have even been able to engage the MiG-17. It would be like chasing an Me262 with an A6M.

The F6F used a monster radial engine and was a typical heavy American fighter. It also had a lower wing loading compared to most American fighters. It was clearly an energy fighter compared to the A6M. Energy fighters are boom-n-zoom by nature. They don't have to start with an advantage to end up with one. By definition of being an energy fighter, they have some means of gaining an energy advantage over their opponent, whether it is via dive and/or climbing ability. An F6F flown correctly had no problems with Zeros. The Spitfire would have posed a few problems with its higher speeds, but during WWII, a P-47 pilot was noted for having badly beaten a Spitfire pilot in mock combat using energy tactics. Heavy fighters not only dive well, but zoom climb well.

Spitfires were very effective when well flown and directed by radar in the battle of Britain, but still did not dominate FW190s and Bf109s. After deflating the wartime claims, they traded nearly 1 for 1. But once on the offensive, their usefulness was limited by the short range their small size/light weight imposed. Long range, heavy fighters would be useless if short range light fighters were superior.

All that aside, most kills (80%) are made on targets that were completely unaware. Closing on the target quickly to get that surprise attack requires speed/acceleration not turning ability. The artificial environment of the game (icons, short flight ranges, etc.) makes turnfighters seem way more effective than they ever were in reality.

The US had its own equivalent to the A6M: the AT-6 Texan. But we called it a trainer because we saw no reason to waste valuable pilots by making them fly lightly armed, unarmored aircraft into combat that were 50 to 100 mph slower than their principal opponents. Speed is life and Spitfires were relatively slow. I wonder if their is a documented mock fight between skilled Spitfire and Hellcat pilots written down somewhere. It would be interesting to see the results.

[Steven]

Eagle,

Very good read.  But all that stuff about the Pacific Theater was beyond the point and question I was getting at.  Here's my understanding of the matchup Hellcat vs Spitfire:

Turn Superiority: Spitfire
Sustained Climb Superiority: Spitfire
Acceleration Superiority: Spitfire
Dive Acceleration Superiority: (I hear the Spitfire dives well)  Dunno
E Retention Superiority: Spitfire
Top Speed Superiority: ?  Spitfire?  Hellcat?

Specifically, where is the Hellcat superior?

I have no clue how the Hellcat will gain an E-advantage for boom & zoom tactics against a smartly flown Spitfire.  But then, I'm looking at this from my perspective and experience and I'm not a very good pilot.

As far as the Phantom vs MiG17, that's not a very good comparison to the Hellcat and Spitfire matchup because the Phantom had a thrust superiority that the Hellcat does not have vs the Spitfire and in fact, I suspect the Hellcat is worse.  But delving into this point more, the MiG17s knew the Phantoms had a dead-zone in close and purposely maneuvered to stay in close with the Phantom.  Had the Phantom a gun, the situation would have been different.  What really makes the Vietnam War interesting to me, since there is no gun on the Phantom and the AIM-7 was mostly ineffective in a dogfight (especially until the dogfight variant was introduced which mostly reduced minimum range), is that it's really MORE of a tailchase situation than WW2.  The Phantom could not take snapshots because there are no guns and it is only when proper rear-quarter parameters were reached before the tail chasing Sidewinder could be launched.  The ultimate maneuver and tail-chase fighting I know!  Give me an F-8 Crusader though!  I digress.  

Anyway, the Hellcat is my favorite aircraft of the Pacific Theater and so I really enjoy this discussion and I'm trying to glean any type of tactical benefit I can get.  You bring up the F6F vs. Zeke but in that situation the Zeke suffered from a lousy rate of roll at high speed which the Spitfire wouldn't suffer...at least not to that extent.  I still find it difficult to swallow that some think the Hellcat is the superior airframe when starting from a fight that's equal at the merge.  I think it's pilot skill.  However, like I said above, when I fight, I can't tell the difference between a Spit IX and V due to a really old 13" monitor and so I may be mixing up my experiences between the two.  

I'd love to see the Hellcat squadron which flies in AH pop in and give me their experience vs Spitfires.  

To the point, specifically where is the Hellcat superior?

[214thCavalier]

Lol Fariz, you just took away one advantage namely i could always run away
Steven F6F-5 is faster at sea level and only at sea level.
Climb rate disparity is also at its minimum at sea level. but the spit always has the advantage.
For fun and giggles i will be happy to go the DA and get whupped by Fariz, Oh thats another advantage taken away no Noob at the controls of the spit

[Steven]

Then I stand by my original ascertion that the Spitfire is superior to the Hellcat discounting superior position or pilot skill.  I agree that a Hellcat with some altitude will make life trouble for the Spitfire, but the reverse is true as is (and most importantly) the fact that the Spitfire has an overall greater advantage when the merge is equal everything.  I like the guns on the Spitfire too, but the Hellcat has a whopper of an ammo count.

[streakeagle]

Power to weight alone does not a better fighter make. It is power minus drag divided by weight. Heavy fighters like the P-47 and F6F have lower drag to weight ratios. This is where zoom climb performance comes from. I would expect that the F6F would be superior to the Spitfire in a dive... low  wing loaded aircraft = high drag at high speeds. At cornering speeds the Spitfire has a specific excess power advantage, but it is probably the other way around at higher speeds since drag induced by lift is reduced at high speeds (the F6F's problem), while profile drag increases dramatically at higher speeds (the Spitfire's problem).

The AH charts showing top speed and and climb rates do not really tell the whole story. You have to have specific excess power, instantaneous g, and sustained g envelopes to properly compare aircraft and know for sure where your aircraft's strengths are. The P-47 would not appear to be superior to the Spitfire in any way shape or form, but it is a fact that it can and did beat it one-on-one over a British field using the vertical and its higher roll rate.

The F6F is in many ways similar to the P-47 and I would expect it to perform equally well against the Spitfire. I will see if I can find an online transcript of the P-47 vs Spitfire battle. I originally read it in a Spitfire book in the 12th grade (1985-86:P). It is not in any of the books I presently own

One weakness the Spitfire should have against F6F is roll rate. That turns out to be as important as turn radius. F-86 vs MiG-15: MiG was faster, could turn tighter, and fly higher... but F-86's boosted controls gave it superior transient performance at high speeds and the F-86 (like almost every American fighter) could dive like an SOB.

Perhaps the F6F can use its mongo rudder to some advantage over the Spitfire. I know the AH F4U can do awesome things with its rudder. I haven't flown the AH F6F enough to even know its handling qualities compared to anything. But in HtH I have smoked a few Spitfires and Tempests with it

[fdiron]

F4 Phantoms could and did carry external gun pods.  When the F4 variant with the internal gun came out, they stopped carrying the external 20mm.

[Steven]

Eagle,  try page 184-185 in Shaw's Fighter Combat Tactics And Maneuvering

<<>>  But I'm not talking about what I'd expect but rather how it plays out in AH.  If you are convinced the Hellcat is superior to the Spitfire, I can't really provide data to prove otherwise.  I just know my experience in AH.  As for the F-86, a huge part of those victories was training.  

fdiron,  you are correct and the wings at DaNang and Ubon flew with an externally mounted cannon.  In fact, the USMC did as well but never got to use them air-air.  And when the pod was introduced, it changed the nature of the battel a little bit.  I think the introduction started summer 1967.  The F-4E was introduced 1968 but didn't get a chance for air-air until 1972.  Prior to this, during much of Rolling Thunder, the MiG-17s did take advantage of the Phantom being cannonless.  The Thuds scored a few air-air gun kills though.  

Anyway, no one has specifics of how to fight a Hellcat against a Spit IX?

[AKSWulfe]

There's no set way to fight a Spitfire MkIX in a Hellcat, you gotta fly by the seat of your pants if you expect to win.

Use of flaps, the vertical and keeping it slow while never committing to turning is the way to win a fight verse a SpitIX in a Hellcat.

If you can convince a SpitIX to loop or go vertical, he's toast.
-SW

[streakeagle]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
There's no set way to fight a Spitfire MkIX in a Hellcat, you gotta fly by the seat of your pants if you expect to win.

Use of flaps, the vertical and keeping it slow while never committing to turning is the way to win a fight verse a SpitIX in a Hellcat.

If you can convince a SpitIX to loop or go vertical, he's toast.
-SW

You keep asking the question... listen to history... or listen to the AH aces who fly it... the VERTICAL man! That is the area the F6F can win regardless of any charted advantages the Spit has in climb. Also, as AKSWulfe pointed out, timely use of flaps in any American fighter can make the difference between getting a shot before the Spit outturns you. I know that this is true in the AH P-38, P-47, P-51, and F4U1 (my main rides), but I am sure it applies to the F6F as well.

As for the quote from Shaw's book about F-86s vs MiG-15, if US pilot skill was so superior, why did the kill ratio vary throughout the war, with some time frames hitting 1:1 or worse? They desparately went through various F-86 variants and maneuver tactics to figure out how to beat the "inferior' MiG-15 that could and did kick their butts at times. The maneuver USAF pilots discovered to consistently beat the otherwise more maneuverable MiG-15 was rolling/scissoring while going fast and popping the brakes, which not a matter of superior skills, but a matter of hydraulically boosted controls. But the MiGs eventually adapted and were using co-ordinated boom-n-zoom tactics toward the end of the war to avoid this situation and actually achieved about a 2-1 over Sabres. Once the MiG pilots realized their advantages (i.e. political constraints and F-86 combat patrol flight profiles) they used their safety zone to climb up to their ceiling advantage to dive in on F-86s that were low on fuel from patrolling the border. The war ended before the US figured out a solution to this problem (which was obvious: attack the MiG bases in China instead of giving them a political sanctuary allowing them to choose when and where to fight). US WW2 veterans certainly helped out in Korea, but the Chinese and Russian pilots flying for Korea were no slouches either. The aircraft performance, tactics, and political constraints were just as if not more important than the pilot training issue in this particular case.

[Steven]

I do not refer to any quote by Shaw regarding the F86/MiG15 and I apologize for not being more clear on it.  It was a generalized statement on my part regarding the overall training of the enemy.  (Yes, it's now commonly known that those blonde-haird N Koreans seen in the cockpits were Soviet, but they were a minority.)

I referred you to pages 184-185 in Shaw's book (originally from Johnson's "Thunderbolt" pages 148-49) because it includes a quote from Robert S. Johnson about a friendly duel between his P47C and an RAF pilot's "new" Spitfire MkIX.  I think it may be the story you are referring to.  The last line reads:...
"And that was it- for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit."  

BTW, my personal successes in a Hellcat vs Spitfire included taking the fight vertical as I stated a few msgs above.  However, this ends up being hit-and-miss for me as opposed to a sure thing.

[streakeagle]

If the aircraft are close enough in performance, as I believe the F6F and Spitfire are, Baron von Richtofen's sentiment definitely applies: it's not the crate, but the man flying it. However, the turn fighter is always easier to master over the e-fighter. So that's why the Spit IX does so well in the case of average pilots. Of course, good Spit IX pilots learn to e-fight as well. Those are the Spit IX pilots I fear. If they are flying their Spit IXs at nearly 100% energy efficiency and I am making sloppy mistakes in my P-51 or F4U-1, I die quickly. Given the planes I fly, I live and die by long-range high-deflection shots and head-ons. After 2 circles, I am out of energy and trying to force an overshoot by rolling/flaps/throttle.

It is interesting that the Spit IX has to become an e-fighter to consistently beat the A6M. I haven't had time to fly much for some time. But now that the F6F has been fixed to get rid of its nasty stall problems, I intend to spend more time in it (i.e. as much as I spend in the other American iron).

I didn't even think to check Shaw's book for the P-47 versus Spitfire story... I have that. I just know for sure I read a full account when I wrote a paper on the Spitfire for European history back in high school. The Spitfire reminds me of the F-16: on paper it looks fantastic in terms of power to weight and sustained turn radius. The F-16A/C outclasses the F/A-18A/C in every category. However, the charts do not indicate transient performance. The F/A-18 can snap turn and quickly pull high AOA better than any other US fighter in service. In a sustained dogfight it will bleed energy. But all it needs is one good snapshot and the fight is over. The F-16 has angle of attack limits and does not change pitch nearly as fast. The Spitfire was more limited by roll rate than pitch rate, but it was an inherently stable aircraft with high drag. The P-47 could roll with the best of them and zoom climb better than most if not all fighters. Zoom climbing is transient performance never indicated on any chart. The P-47 beat the Spitfire using transient performance advantages in roll and zooms.

Transient performance is how I try to use the F6F to beat the Spitfire. Of course if the Spitfire refuses to engage you in a vertical looping/rolling scissors, it will either be a draw, pot luck head-on contest, or you can die in a turn fight with him. But even the vertical fight outcome is not certain because it requires you to make very few errors to keep from stalling out or allowing him room to turn for a shot. Best solution is to practice a lot or better yet fight Spitfires the same way we fought Zeros: with wingmen providing mutual support.

[tkor]

Gentlemen,
An interesting, informative, and obviously well-informed thread, without any of the usual sniping that takes place. I learned alot, and was entertained in reading this. My congratulations to all of the participants!
Tkor