Grummans versus Zeroes

[twoeagles]

My Dad flew Grumman's Cats from 1942 through the war, and a couple of
things he told me: after the AAF lost a couple of P-47's to low level spins,
Hellcats were forbidden to particpate in any more mock combat with them! He still gets a kick out of that.

He was probably an average pilot with just 830 hours when he fought
at Truk, and he will, to this day, tell you that the Hellcat saved his life on
several occasions. He had three of them so shot up they were pushed over
the edge of the flight deck, and yet he never received a scratch. He had
3 confirmed and 5 probables, flying with VF-16 and Paul Buie. As is widely
known, he said that anytime he had a Zero on his 6, he could easily evade
by pushing over into a dive and then rolling - the Zero was not able to stay
with the Cat and it's roll rate was especially reduced as airspeed increased.
Most importantly, Dad says the Hellcat was easy to fly and the controls were
beautifully balanced so that even an average pilot had confidence. He would
take a Hellcat over the F4U any day.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by twoeagles

My Dad flew Grumman's Cats from 1942 through the war, and a couple of
things he told me: after the AAF lost a couple of P-47's to low level spins,
Hellcats were forbidden to particpate in any more mock combat with them! He still gets a kick out of that.

Wow! That's cool to have a dad participate in history like that. What a thrill it must be to listen to his stories. You must have been inspired. Didn't I read where you were a Navy pilot?

As for the comment on the P-47, the P-47 pilot would be crazy to try to turn with an F6F, like an F4F would be crazy to turn with a zero. The P-47 pilot would be better served to use it 40mph+ airspeed advantage to come and go as he pleased, just as the Navy and Army planes did with the Zero. The F6F was a lot tougher bird than the Zero, however.

Most importantly, Dad says the Hellcat was easy to fly and the controls were
beautifully balanced so that even an average pilot had confidence. He would
take a Hellcat over the F4U any day.

I am sure most F6F pilots would agree. But then most F4U pilots would not.

Grumman built great, tough aircraft that protected their pilots and gave them tools to, at first, overcome quantitative and experience disadvantage, and then to overwhelm the enemy and sweep it from the sky.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by saltlakespitfire

AS u said those grumman cats were tough little birds indeed. But I wonder why the Japanese did not upgrade the Zero. Even after Combat lessons they should have realised it needed self-sealing tanks.

Of all the combatants of WW2, the japanese probably had the worst "design" inertia of all.

If you consider how much additional weight the self sealing tanks and cockpit armor would add to the airframe, coupled to an already low powered engine, then some of the design bureau's probably concluded "why bother". Go be a true samurai and fight with what you have"!

[saltlakespitfire]

Well then why not develope higher powered engines?

[twoeagles]

Here's my Dad in his Hellcat F6F-3 in 1944. He is 23 years old here.

[Hunter368]

Nice shot

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by saltlakespitfire

AS u said those grumman cats were tough little birds indeed. But I wonder why the Japanese did not upgrade the Zero. Even after Combat lessons they should have realised it needed self-sealing tanks.

If I recall correctly there were certain factors influencing the decision to not give the A6M2 a major upgrade or replace it outright. It would have caused delays in the production cycle, which the Japanese were not eager to suffer - considering the tremendous capability of American industry. A major overhaul would have required a much more powerful engine than the 925-940hp Sakae 12... even much more than the more powerful 1130hp Sakae 21/31. All the weight packed on the the bird marginalized its strongest advantages, maneuverability and range.

[mkloby]

Eagles I really like the photo - wish I was around back then...

[twoeagles]

Me, too, Matt - spend more time being an aviator and less time monitoring systems!
Short checklist turning base like "Prop forward, boost on, hook down, gear down, flaps down, canopy open"...
I would like the 'canopy open' part best, even in winter...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by saltlakespitfire

Well then why not develope higher powered engines?

The Japanese suffered from a lack of technical and engineering personell.

They were always 2-3 years behind the US, UK and Germans in radial engine technology.

You could sum up their capabilities like this..."build what you have, and suffer new engine development, or develope new engines and suffer in production."

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by twoeagles

Me, too, Matt - spend more time being an aviator and less time monitoring systems!
Short checklist turning base like "Prop forward, boost on, hook down, gear down, flaps down, canopy open"...
I would like the 'canopy open' part best, even in winter...

There's something more primordial about that era... something that current aviation has seemed to let slip away. I just want some Class G airspace and a nice recip prop A/C - then I can at least pretend it's 1936!

[R Leonard]

While certainly acknowledging the superiority of the F6F, my father always maintained that the F4F was the more fun to fly of the two . . . once you cranked up the wheels.

Rich

[saltlakespitfire]

Well , thanks for the photo eagle.
And I share share the same passions as mkloby

[Vassili Zaitzev]

interesting thread.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by mkloby

There's something more primordial about that era... something that current aviation has seemed to let slip away. I just want some Class G airspace and a nice recip prop A/C - then I can at least pretend it's 1936!

Yeah but when a unpredicted fog moves in, it would certainly be nice to have a GPS and an ILS. The Navy lost an entire flight of trainers at Cory Field long time ago when a fog move in.