P-51 vs. Hellcat

[parsifal]

mike williams I think did some work on th relative effectiveness in terms of firepower of various guns. its rather simplistic, but from memory, he rated a typicall 20 cannon at around 2.4, a 50 cal at around 1 and a 0.303 at 0.2 per gun. 30mm cannons were rated at about 6 per gun per unit of time.

Its not that simple of course. a 30mm cannon is an excellent bomber destroyer, but fairly slow projectile and fairly slow rof. As a fighter to fighter weapon it is not as effctive as the 20mm/0.5" combination.

The real battlefield is the debate between the 50 cals favoure by the Americans and the 20mm favoured by everyone else. 50 cal in my opinion is better at range, but far less firepower. given that most air combats of WWII were at 200m or less the 20mm was the better option for most pilots.

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

I would take the Hellcat, simply for ruggedness. I would fight a fast beauty in a slow, tough, and ugly plane then veasa versa.

The bottom line is both were great planes and great in their different situations.

Also, would a army Hellcat have more armor (can be heavier, it has more runway) or less (because it wouldn't need the extra armor for the arresting gear?)

 

[Shortround6]

You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster?

The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets

Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)

 

[USS Enterprise CV-6]

You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster?

The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets

Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)

Thanks, I didn't know that.

 

[wuzak]

mike williams I think did some work on th relative effectiveness in terms of firepower of various guns. its rather simplistic, but from memory, he rated a typicall 20 cannon at around 2.4, a 50 cal at around 1 and a 0.303 at 0.2 per gun. 30mm cannons were rated at about 6 per gun per unit of time.

Its not that simple of course. a 30mm cannon is an excellent bomber destroyer, but fairly slow projectile and fairly slow rof. As a fighter to fighter weapon it is not as effctive as the 20mm/0.5" combination.

The real battlefield is the debate between the 50 cals favoure by the Americans and the 20mm favoured by everyone else. 50 cal in my opinion is better at range, but far less firepower. given that most air combats of WWII were at 200m or less the 20mm was the better option for most pilots.

Not all 30mm cannons are equal, though.

I believe the Mk 108 30mm cannon had low muzzle velocity. This was the 30mm most used by the Germans. The Mk 103 had much higher muzzle velocity, but it was also much longer and a bit heavier. Also, from what I understand, it wasn't reliable by the end of WW2.

 

[tomo pauk]

The MK 101 was a bit more problematic, and the RoF was lacking (240 rpm?). The MK 103 have had improved RoF, 420 rpm, also the reliabilty was improved vs. MK 101. Problem with both of those 30 mm was that fuselage installation was next to impossible both for Fw-190 and Bf-109 alomost until the VE day.
Pople might want to check out the stuff I've posted in the Luftwaffe guns topic (recent post) at the Armament systems subforum, the energy of the shell is also listed.

 

[paladin24]

The Hellcat began kicking butt on day 1 of introduction and was still kicking butt at the end of the war with a design that only incorporated minor changes and only 2 main variants (water injection, spring tabs, bomb and rocket racks being the major additions) and a lot of it was because Grumman had a philosophy of eschewing fancy chrome plated pie in the sky designs in favor of a plane that was simple, rugged, cheap to build, easy to maintain, effective in combat, and to able to be flown in adverse conditions from aircraft carriers by mass-produced rookie pilots.

The Mustang required an engine transplant and an extra fuel tank which adversely affected its stability when full, to be truly effective in the role of long-range fighter escort.

And I find it a little insulting people are trivializing the opposition and difficulties faced by Allied forces in the PTO or the achievements of pilots like McCampbell - who achieved ace in a day twice as well as being the commanding officer of the Essex's air group, which achieved outstanding performance under his leadership. Harris, Vraciu, Voris, and other standout Hellcat aces were I'd wager just as capable as anyone in any other branch. By the end of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe had large amounts of barely-trained kids, same as the Japanese.

Mustang was a fine machine, however.

 

[tomo pauk]

When comparing the Hellcat with Mustang, quirk is that those two machines were excellent in each of their own domains, and would be hard pressed to undertake jobs of the another machine. Hellcat was a fighter that offered docile handling characteristics (crucial for run-on-the-mill aviators, let alone for the carrier duties), ability to shrug off plenty of enemy hits that landed home, perfect weapon layout for it's job and war theaters, an engine that offered plenty of power at all altitudes for the heavy brute. On the other hand, Hellcat was offering less performance and range than Merlin Mustang (even without fuselage tank), or even P-51A (V-1710). Sending droves of Hellcats at 25-30000 ft against Luftwaffe would've meant plenty of dead Allied airmen, due to lack of performance.
Mustang was a fine-land based fighter even with V-1710, let alone with 2-stage Merlin aboard. It went into a contested airspace some 15 months before Hellcat, and was not considered as a pushover by anyone. Despite having no advantage worth speaking of vs. Luftwaffe. Mustang got better with different V-1710 and drop tanks capability (P-51A/Mustang II). On the other hand, the tested P-51D was not that well regarded as the Hellcat as a carrier bird, though we might wonder how good would've been the lighter P-51/51A in that role.

The Mustang required an engine transplant and an extra fuel tank which adversely affected its stability when full, to be truly effective in the role of long-range fighter escort.

Again, P-51A was already longer ranged and better performer than Hellcat. The capability to have a new engine and fuel tank installed is simply that - a capability, not a shortcoming.
We might recall that even the A-36, with a true low-level V-1710 installed, was used as an escort fighter in MTO. That is several moths before the Hellcat 1st fights.

And I find it a little insulting people are trivializing the opposition and difficulties faced by Allied forces in the PTO or the achievements of pilots like McCampbell - who achieved ace in a day twice as well as being the commanding officer of the Essex's air group, which achieved outstanding performance under his leadership. Harris, Vraciu, Voris, and other standout Hellcat aces were I'd wager just as capable as anyone in any other branch.

Don't think that anyone wants to make insults to any of the pilots or crewmen. The fact is that Japanese opposition was flying, in 90% during the 1st Hellcat's war year, the fighters that were making between 330-370 mph (= slower by 20-60 mph). Many of them were ill armed to really harm the Hellcat. Hellcat also engaged plenty of bomber and attack aircraft, unlike the Mustang that mostly engaged fighters. Against the IJN, the USN have had, in time Hellcat was aboard, far more numerous and better led fighter force, backed up by radar assisted command and control network.

By the end of the war in Europe the Luftwaffe had large amounts of barely-trained kids, same as the Japanese.

The Japanese started to scrub the barrel already in late 1942, due to the efforts of Allied forces both on the ground, air and on ships. Japanese can also blame themselves for that, of course.
The LW was in that state maybe at mid, or late 1944?

 

[parsifal]

The LW was in that state maybe at mid, or late 1944?

Tomo, i dont know about that. LW descent was more gradual than the japanese loss of expertise, but standards were already dropping in middle of 1942. hours were on the way down from that time on, as thje allied times were on a corresponding increase. From memory, LW training hours were about 350 at the beginning of 1942, dropping to about 250 by the end of the year, and then 150 a year later. by the beginning of 1944 it was down to about 150 before plumetting to under 50 hours by the end of 1944. these figures come from Murray.

The big problem for the germans was insufficient trainers and fuel , the main problem for the Japanese was this, plus a shortage of instructors. Both attempted to meet these challenges by early conversion to front line types and early deployment to a frontline squadron, where it was hoped they would be able to fight as they learned. In both cases, this policy was, predictably, a disaster. It took longer to bring down the LW, but it was a process weel under way by the latter part of 1942.

Soviets gave the least amount of training of anybody during the war. Before the war it was a different story, but so desperate were the Soviets for pilots, that by the beginning of Kursk, Training times have been estimated to be about 20 hours on operational types. This was found to be grossly wasteful, so that training standards had increased to around 60 hours by the beginnig of 1944, and then about 100 hours by the middle of the year. Still shy of what the LW was receiving, but good enough, so to speak.


http://ww2-weapons.com/Armies/Germany/Luftwaffe/Training.htm

 

[pbehn]

You can't turn a fighter into a flying tank. Steel weighs 40lbs per square foot for a 1 in thickness. you need 1/4in to 3/8s to even be proof against .30 cal fire. How many sq/ft of 10-15lb per sq/ft can you add before performance goes in the dumpster?

The US tried to turn some P-63 Kingcobras into flying targets using special "frangible" 30 cal bullets made of lead dust and plastic and the heavier aluminium skinning and steel armor to protect against such "bullets" reached 2164lbs before an 'acceptable' level of protection was reached. see: Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets

Trying to protect against AP .30 cal bullets or .50 cal is simply not practical. You can keep the pilot alive and guard against "golden BBs" ( a single lucky hit in a vital area) but no plane had the protection needed to allow the enemy to shoot them up as a general tatic while waiting for a good shot themselves ( even IL-2s were shot down with some regularity)

I think the IL 2 was fairly well protected against rifle fire but not much else and it had a reduced payload because of it

 

[Donivanp]

I think a better face off would have been Thunderbolt v Hellcat that being said the mustang is faster (later Merlin engined) and I'm not sure but more maneuverable. Catch is, one hit from the hellcat and the stang bites it. The hellcat can take a licking and keep on ticking.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think the IL 2 was fairly well protected against rifle fire but not much else and it had a reduced payload because of it

Yep, 400 kg normal, and 600 kg max. 400 kg was max if 23 mm cannons were installed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

one hit from the hellcat and the stang bites it.

If you're referring to the 20mm armed F6F, just about any aircraft taking a round (or two) in the right place from a cannon bites it.

 

[parsifal]

If you're referring to the 20mm armed F6F, just about any aircraft taking a round (or two) in the right place from a cannon bites it.

I get the feeliing that he isnt referring to just that model. I think hes one of the "hellcats can do anything" club.

 

[grampi]

As good as the Hellcat was, the Mustang outperforms it in almost every category...while the Hellcat is more durable, it would need every bit of that durability against a Mustang as the P-51 would outmaneuver, outclimb, outdive, or simply speed away form the Hellcat...

 

[snelson]

sorry but i didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but here i go anyway.

while i understand that the P-51 was better than the hellcat at higher altitude and had longer range and better top speed. but i had always thought that the hellcat was better at low altitude turning fight and it dove better. now this could all be wrong, is there anywhere where the hellcat held the edge over the mustang?

 

[CommanderBounds]

I love me a F6F Hellcat but I will agree it's not much of a match for a P-51. It may also depend on the variant of the aircraft at hand.

 

[grampi]

sorry but i didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but here i go anyway.

while i understand that the P-51 was better than the hellcat at higher altitude and had longer range and better top speed. but i had always thought that the hellcat was better at low altitude turning fight and it dove better. now this could all be wrong, is there anywhere where the hellcat held the edge over the mustang?

I highly doubt the Hellcat could outdive a Mustang...I think the only plane that could was the P-47...I also doubt the hellcat could outturn the Mustang at any altitude as it was considerably bigger and heavier than the 'Stang...the only area where it could possibly hang with the P-51 would be in roll rate...

 

[grampi]

I love me a F6F Hellcat but I will agree it's not much of a match for a P-51. It may also depend on the variant of the aircraft at hand.

Late model F6F vs P-51A, yeah, the Hellcat would have the advantage, but against a B or later version of the P-51, forget it...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Late model F6F vs P-51A, yeah, the Hellcat would have the advantage, but against a B or later version of the P-51, forget it...

The P-51A was faster than the F6F-6, but had a higher wing loading, lower rate of climb, lower power to weight ratio, and less armament, but was almost a ton lighter.