What about the Mustang? Youd have to be crazy not to include it.
What about the Corsair and Hellcat?
United We Stand.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
This debate rages on and on... The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but it was too limited in it's range and payload to really take the war to the enemy. It was intended and designed as a defensive aicraft and at that it was great. But as an offensive aircraft in bomber escort or close support it tended to leave much to be desired. The same could pretty well be said of the -109 series as well. Many attempts were made to evolve both into something more potent, but the basic limitations of the airframe prevented that for the most part. The P-51 possessed the air-to-air qualities of the Spit', but had the ability to do it over deep enemy territory which in my estimation puts it ahead of the Spitfire. The FW-190 was an impressive aircraft, but can it really be "the best" considering what fate it met..? As for close air support, it comes down to the IL-2 or the Stuka. The IL-2 was the tougher and more prolific of the two and an outstanding platform from which to support friendly forces. The Stuka was more refined and had a longer history. In my mind, a toss up here. Medium bomber? Well, not to sound too American, but can anything really match the numbers, success, and performance of the B-25? I'm not sure anything other than the Mosquito can come close, but it is a not too distant second. Two items regarding the heavy bombers though, you included the B-17 but left out the B-24. The B-17 was not a "heavy" bomber in the normal sense. It had four engines and a bevy of defensive firepower, but it was for all intents and purposes a medium bomber with two extra engines. In the late thirties as it was being designed and tested, the idea was to create a medium bomber class aircraft with heavy bomber speed, range and firepower. It was also intended to be used primarily against sea forces from land bases-the idea still being at that time that we would not be involved in another European land war and that the biggest threat to the U.S. was seaborne invasion of the country or it's territories. So, what had been designed as a four engined maritime attack airplane was forced into the role of "heavy" bomber over land targets in Europe and the Pacific. But, the best heavy bomber of the war was the B-29-nothing could fly as far, as fast, with as much payload, at such altitude as the Superfortress. The Lancaters and Halifaxes were excellent aircraft and they should have their own category-maybe light heavy bomber..? Whatever it might be, they would win it hands down...
Ooops...forgot a couple. Best night fighter would go to the He-219. It was the most purposely designed, refined, and advanced of the candidates. As for the "almost were" aircraft, the Sea Fury wins the prize. It's often debated as to what was the ultimate expression of piston engine fighter design, be it the Sea Fury or the Bearcat. The Bearcat was a great performer, but it was a limited design being intended almost purely as a point defense carrier interceptor. The Sea Fury was much more rounded and multi-capable while retaining outstanding performance...and better looks..
>>The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but it was too limited in it's range and payload to really take the war to the enemy.<<
Payload? Surely lack of Payload was only a minor grievance for the 'Spit' or any Fighter that intended to stick to its job.Im sure the ability to carry two Thousand pounders under its wings would have been nice but nessacery, given the Spits intended role?
Range was a problem but only when compared to American or Japanese aircraft which required great range due to the distances involved in the Pacific theatre.
>>The P-51 possessed the air-to-air qualities of the Spit', but had the ability to do it over deep enemy territory which in my estimation puts it ahead of the Spitfire.<<
Which Spit? The Spit I or V fair enough, but the P51D whilst an excellent aircraft was outclassed by both the Spit IX and XIV marks.In terms of Speed,Armament,Rate of Roll and Handling the P51 could not compete with a Spit XIV the only thing it had against the Spit which youve already pointed out was its Range but how much Range would have played a part in a Dogfight is dubious.
>> The FW-190 was an impressive aircraft, but can it really be "the best" considering what fate it met..?<<
The FW190 got better as the war went on ,the quality of German pilots flying them did not...
>>As for close air support, it comes down to the IL-2 or the Stuka. The IL-2 was the tougher and more prolific of the two and an outstanding platform from which to support friendly forces. The Stuka was more refined and had a longer history.<<
The Il-2 i agree but im suprised you didnt include the Typhoon.An aircraft capable of putting up much more of a fight than either the Il-2 or the Stuka and was much faster than both aircraft.Where the Il-2 and Stuka cemented their places in Aviation history during the Eastern and early Western campaigns the Tyhpoon earned its Legendary status during DDay and the following battles.
>>In my mind, a toss up here. Medium bomber? Well, not to sound too American, but can anything really match the numbers, success, and performance of the B-25? I'm not sure anything other than the Mosquito can come close, but it is a not too distant second.<<
If it were Medium Bombers then i would actually say the Mosquito by some margin followed then by the B25. The Mosquito was the most succesful Allied bomber of the war with the lowest loss rate of any Allied bomber despite the fact it travelled deep into the heart of Germany,unarmed and with no escort.
>>But, the best heavy bomber of the war was the B-29-nothing could fly as far, as fast, with as much payload, at such altitude as the Superfortress. The Lancaters and Halifaxes were excellent aircraft and they should have their own category-maybe light heavy bomber..? Whatever it might be, they would win it hands down...<<
No doubt the B-29 was the best Heavy Bomber of the war and well ahead of its time but i think your being a little harsh on the Lanc considering it was the only Bomber the Allies had that could carry the 22,000 lb "Grand Slam" bomb.
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Francia, seo mæs idel folclond god æfre gescieppan.
You can say what you want about German Planes, but the Pilots were the best of the world. Nobody had such great Pilots who were more expierenced than the German ones.
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
@ChongLi: Your list is wrong. The Vampire never saw action or even service before the wars end the same with the P-80. The Mosquito was a multirole aircraft. Not Just a light bomber. Etc.Etc.
@Schlawa: The pilots you count are few among thousends who died in their firsts missions. Sad but true.
Now, see, this is where the definition of "best" comes into question. "Best" defined as purely technically best-regardless of actual impact on the war. "Best" based on impact on the conflict-regardless of whether it actually was the most effective purely at it's role. I believe it's a combination of capability, numbers, impact, and service life that defines the "best".... As for the Spit/P-51 issue, if the two were marginally different but the P-51 was performing it's mission over Berlin and the Spit only over southern England or Northern France, don't you think that the P-51 actually had the biggest impact on the outcome of the conflict???? If wish to say that the later mark Spitfires were somewhat better than the P-51 in pure air-to-air, well okay fine I guess, I'm not completely sure of that. But, if you wish to say that the Spitfire presented a bigger threat to the warmaking capability of Germany, then you'd be wrong. As for the Typhoon, it was a fine ground attack airplane. But, the Stukas and Sturmoviks killed multitudes more tanks, dropped far more ordnance, sank far more ships, and did this all in larger numbers for more years than the Hawkers. Therefore, I consider these purpose built airplanes to be better. The Mosquito was impressive, but again, the B-25 did far more in larger numbers in more places than the Mossy. I'm not slighting the Lancaster at all-I said there should be a seperate category for the Lanc' and Halifax, a category which they would dominate. But, there's no comparison between the overall capability and technological advancement of the B-29 versus these two....
At the end of the day joe
the hurricane and spitfire won the battle of britain.
Had that been lost... invasion?..no. But a peace treaty
with germany on their terms ..probably as with the air war
lost we would have had even less chance of getting food to
the country
So i think for "impac" its hard to view more important aircraft
Oh, I haven't forgotten about the Battle of Britain. Now, do you wish to debate the fact that the Hurricane was actually deployed in larger numbers and shot down more aircraft during the battle than the Spitfire? Would you say that if there were no Spitfire, the fight would have been lost? If the RAF had been an all Hurricane force, would the history of the Battle of Britain be written in German? See, here we go again.... The Sptifire was a defensive aircraft and at that it excelled. But, it was never able to really take the fight to the enemy with the same capability as the P-51. I know you English guys love the Spitfire, and you should because it has a very dear spot in your country's history. But, don't let that cloud the fact that it was not the airplane that the RAF could take on the offensive. Thus, you had the development of the Typhooon and Tempest to actually take up where the Spit could go no further...
>>ChongLi: Your list is wrong. The Vampire never saw action or even service before the wars end the same with the P-80. The Mosquito was a multirole aircraft. Not Just a light bomber. Etc.Etc<<
The Vampire just made the war in Europe,ill take your word for the P-80 and edit it out.
Im fully aware the Mosquito was a Multirole aircraft and it would have been part of my list if i had a "Most Versatile Aircraft" but i didnt make that category.Instead i put it in the Best Light Bomber(In my opinion,the job that the Mossie did best) and Best Aircraft,which was hinting at the fact it could do many jobs and do them well.
>>Now, see, this is where the definition of "best" comes into question. "Best" defined as purely technically best-regardless of actual impact on the war. "Best" based on impact on the conflict-regardless of whether it actually was the most effective purely at it's role. I believe it's a combination of capability, numbers, impact, and service life that defines the "best"....<<
Well consider that at least three of the four Marks i mentioned of the Spit would almost certainly be considered one of the Best Fighter aircraft of their day and that the Spit survived the whole War,never to be replaced, was built in the Tens of Thousands and with full respect to the Hurricane played an invaluable part in the Battle of Britain.Not many other Fighters were as good as the Spitfire and had such an excellent record.
>>As for the Spit/P-51 issue, if the two were marginally different but the P-51 was performing it's mission over Berlin and the Spit only over southern England or Northern France, don't you think that the P-51 actually had the biggest impact on the outcome of the conflict???? If wish to say that the later mark Spitfires were somewhat better than the P-51 in pure air-to-air, well okay fine I guess, I'm not completely sure of that. But, if you wish to say that the Spitfire presented a bigger threat to the warmaking capability of Germany, then you'd be wrong.<<
Well if you accept(albeit reluctantly) that the latter marks of the Spit were better and then consider both the Spit's and P51's impact on the war at different times were probably equal then overall the Spit has more right to be called the Best.
>> The Mosquito was impressive, but again, the B-25 did far more in larger numbers in more places than the Mossy.<<
With a far Higher loss rate...
>>I'm not slighting the Lancaster at all-I said there should be a seperate category for the Lanc' and Halifax, a category which they would dominate. But, there's no comparison between the overall capability and technological advancement of the B-29 versus these two.... <<
Thats fair enough.
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Francia, seo mæs idel folclond god æfre gescieppan.
Okay, we can look at this another way then. If you want the best, pure close combat airplane of the war, then that would be the A6M Zero. Nothing ever really came close to it in terms of dogfighting maneuaverablility even up to the end of the war. Now, was it the "best" fighter? No. It was lightly built and poorly protected. It's airframe prevented it from growing into anything too much more powerful or higher performing. It too had a tremendous impact on the war-dominating the skies of the Pacific and SE Asia for the first 3 years of the war and forcing western aircraft designers to build new aircraft strictly as a response to it. So, the "best?" Uh-uh... We'll just have to agree to disagree on the P-51 vs. Spitfire issue, Chong Li...even though I'm right;) That's okay though, I'll square off my air force of P-51s against yours of Spitfires anyday. Lucky for you, you'll get to watch all the air action overhead because my Mustangs will spend all their time over your home and your Spitfires will never get close to mine....
>>Lucky for you, you'll get to watch all the air action overhead because my Mustangs will spend all their time over your home and your Spitfires will never get close to mine....<<
Lucky for me indeed, as i would get to see your P51's falling from the sky in the face of my superior fighter aircraft whilst you would have to wait for the badly damaged sole surviving 'Pony' to return home to find out what happened to the rest of them
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Francia, seo mæs idel folclond god æfre gescieppan.
I had the impression (after reading some facts) that the best fighter in WW2 was mustang when it was fitted with the british Merlin engine...anyone agrees?
Polizei is very much correct. Germany had a huge number of pilots with tremendous kill tallies-wasn't it Erich Hartmann with 352...? Dozens others had 100 plus and hundreds had 25 or better. The Luftwaffe didn't follow the the practice of other air forces who rotated their crews on a routine basis after presribed tours or numbers of missions. German pilots remained in combat throughout their careers for the most part, the idea of being rotated back home to serve as a training pilot or a national symbol was somewhat foreign to them. Combine this with the fact that Luftwaffe pilots were able to run up tremendous kill totals early in the war against such opponents as the Polish, Dutch, French, and then the huge number of sitting ducks they found over Russia early in that campaign then one can undestand personal scores of well over one hundred weren't uncommon...
>>Few? We had hundreds of pilots who had better scores than the best the allies had to offer<<
Yeah well the Allied Fighter pilots didnt get the chance to take out half the Red Army Airforce on the ground...
PaxBrit,
Although the Meteor I saw plenty of action, mostly against V1's it wouldnt have stood that much of a chance against a Me262.The Meteor III on the other hand would have but didnt get the chance.
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Francia, seo mæs idel folclond god æfre gescieppan.
I wonder how the luftwaffe would have done in russia if it
hadnt lost so many top pilots in the battle of britain?.
++
General Werner Kreipe, a member of the Luftwaffe wrote about the Battle of Britain after the war.
Though the air battles over England were perhaps a triumph of skill and bravery so far as the German air crews were concerned, from the strategic point of view it was a failure and contributed to our ultimate defeat. The decision to fight it marks a turning point in the history of the Second World War. The German Air Force was bled almost to death, and suffered losses which could never again be made good throughout the course of the war.
______
This message has been edited by may18a on May 18, 2004 11:31 PM
""Yeah well the Allied Fighter pilots didnt get the chance to take out half the Red Army Airforce on the ground...""
Umm just in case you don't know this, shooting a parked aircraft is not a kill in the Luftwaffe, those numbers are air to air, not air to ground kills.
It was also allot harder to get a confirmed kill in the Luftwaffe than it was in the RAF.
Yes... I read recently that in order for a kill to be a "kill" in the Luftwaffe that either it had to be witnessed by two other fellow pilots, or the commanding officer of the flight and one other pilot, or one other pilot and a ground officer who witnessed the crash, right..? Make no mistake, the accomplishments of the Luftwaffe aren't inflated nor made up, they are real. What they were able to accomplish was remarkable. Had the war actually started in 1943, as Hitler had told his generals was the case in mid-1939, there is no telling how different the outcome might be considering the German's advanced technology and outstanding training. Credit where credit is due...
On the european theatre, it has to be a bomber.
WWI was a war of attrition at the human level, but WWII was more about destroying the industrial infrastucture of the enemy. Although at the begining of the war, the Stuka brilliantly performed its role which was to destroy tank formations and other purely military objectives. Later in the war, on the eastern front, the IL2s filled that role.
Short-range bombers won the first phase of the western war and made the difference on the Eastern front.
Then the war evolved into a strategic conflict, at least on the western front. The british and american medium-range and long-range bombers had few german equivalents. The german missiles were a generation ahead of these classical bombers but could not be produced in sufficient numbers. Also, the classical explosives in these missiles denied them any "economical" raison-d'etre. Maybe chemical and bacteriological payloads may have inversed this logic, but Germany decided not to use them.
Overall, I think B17s, B25s, B29s and Lancasters won the war because the germans went a generation too far and too early.
Both sides produced fantastic fighters but in my opinion, their role is secondary. Nonetheless, some of them gave birth to the modern concept of multi-role fighters, performing air-superiority and bombing at the same time. IMHO, the P38 is the ancestor of all modern planes.
Note that the face of the war could have been totally different with the same planes, if refuelling technology had been know at the time of the battle of britain ... scary.
Ay Chong, i would say the ME262 would have beaten a Meteor, but pit a Meteor against any other plane of WW2 and i think i'd know which to wager my money on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Coming to a Theatre of War soon...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Umm just in case you don't know this, shooting a parked aircraft is not a kill in the Luftwaffe, those numbers are air to air, not air to ground kills.<<
Thats fine but i'd still like to check up on how many of the Two Thousand or so Russian aircraft destroyed by the Luftwaffe were counted as "kills"
>>Ay Chong, i would say the ME262 would have beaten a Meteor, but pit a Meteor against any other plane of WW2 and i think i'd know which to wager my money on.<<
Im not being funny but actually the Tempest would have eaten the Meteor for breakfast.Whilst the Meteor was indded a Jet, it was fairly slow jet and only had a Max speed of 415mph when compared with the Tempest(450),pitXIV (440) and Me262(540) it doesnt measure up too good.
Though to be fair the Tempest held a superiority over all German aircraft in the war(including the 262) so its probably not that bad that the Meteor wasnt as good as it
I dont know why i didnt include the Tempest in the "Best" category now :£
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
Francia, seo mæs idel folclond god æfre gescieppan.
@ChongLi: Where the Vampire did saw action? I know it first fly in 1943 but i didn't knew it saw any action.
@Schlawa: I read the books with the history of JG-27 und JG-51 plus some other books of German pilots in WW2. In all the books it was clear that at the last years of the war the German pilots were less trained than in the first years. In the JG-27 and JG-51 books there are sites after sites with names of pilots that died very early even in their first mission!
I am talking about GERMAN books. I also saw interviews with Galland and Rail where they also said that the experten were very few among the thousends died with no score.
The P-51 was designed as the NA-73 in 1940 at Britain's request. The design showed promise and AAF purchases of Allison-powered Mustangs began in 1941 primarily for photo recon and ground support use due to its limited high-altitude performance. But in 1942, tests of P-51s using the British Rolls-Royce "Merlin" engine revealed much improved speed and service ceiling, and in Dec. 1943, Merlin-powered P-51Bs first entered combat over Europe. Providing high-altitude escort to B-17s and B-24s, they scored heavily over German interceptors and by war's end, P-51s had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.
Mustangs served in nearly every combat zone, including the Pacific where they escorted B-29s to Japan from Iwo Jima. Between 1941-5, the AAF ordered 14,855 Mustangs (including A-36A dive bomber and F-6 photo recon versions), of which 7,956 were P-51Ds.
Air-to-Ground combat: P-47 "Thunderbolt"
The P-47 Thunderbolt is often overshadowed by the sleek looking P-51 Mustang. The fact is that most of the top American aces made their kills in the Thunderbolt. The first groups to arrive in England flew the P-47 to fame against the Luftwaffe’s best. The 56th Fighter Group flew P-47’s throughout the war and never converted to the P-51, although most of the 8th AF had converted. The P-51 was a great fighter for aerial combat and escort missions but was not suited for ground attack due to the water cooled engine. One round in the radiator and she was in trouble.
The Thunderbolt was a rugged aircraft that could take a lot of damage and bring her pilot home. The Thunderbolt was the largest and heaviest single engine fighter flown in WW2, yet could fly at 425+ miles per hour straight and level. Only a thunderbolt pilot can tell you how fast she would do in a dive!
A huge Pratt & Whitney R2800 radial engine coupled with a GE supercharger and water injector gave the P-47 pilot 2000+ horsepower to play with.
The Hamilton Standard Hydromatic paddle blade propeller had a 13’ 1 7/8” diameter. Introduction of the paddle blade prop enabled the thunderbolt amazing climbing and turning ability.
The P-47 was armed with eight wing mounted Browning .50 caliber machine guns which could deliver 13 pound of lead per second. Spent cases and links were ejected from the bottom of the wing. When loaded with armor-piercing incendiary (API) rounds the .50 caliber did considerable damage to light armored vehicles, trains, and aircraft.
The P-47 could carry 2500 lbs of external stores. a variety of HE bombs from 100 to 1000 lbs, incendiary bombs, napalm, and rockets gave the thunderbolt a hard punch.
P-47D-25 Specifications:
Dimensions:
Wing Span: 40’ 9 5/16”
Length: 35’ 10”
Height: 14’ 9 1/8”
Wing Area: 300 sq. feet
Weights: Empty: 10,000 lbs
Gross: 14,000 lbs
Max: 17,000 lbs
Speeds:
Max: 429 mph at 30,000’
Landing: 106 mph
Climb: 6.2 min to 15,000’
14 min to 30,000’
Service Ceiling: 42,000’
Bomber: B-29 "Super Fortress"
The B-29 heavy bombardment type aircraft has been designed for long distance, high altitude operation and utilizes the favorable flying conditions afforded by sub-stratosphere flight.
Pressurized cabins, in addition to standard oxygen equipment, and use of two turbosuperchargers on each of its four engines, enable the airplane to fly at a service ceiling in excess of 40,000 feet. The four 18-cylinder Wright Model R-3350-23 engines develop 2200 horsepower each, giving the airplane a total of 8800 horsepower.
The long, narrow wing of the mid-wing bomber is mounted a short distance forward of the center of the fuselage. When the airplane is loaded to its normal gross weight of 105,000 pounds, the wing loading is 61.4 pounds per square foot.
For support on the ground, the B-29 depends upon electrically-retractable, tricycle type alighting gear. The main gears are drawn into the inboard engine nacelles, and the nose gear into a housing beneath the forward pressurized compartment. The airplane rolls entirely on dual wheels equipped with dual brakes. An electrically-operated, fully retractable tail skid also is provided to prevent damage to the rear of the airplane and to absorb shock in tail-down take-offs and landings.
The airplane carries a 10-ton bomb load and has for defensive armament 10 caliber .50 machine guns and one 20 mm cannon. The machine guns are housed in five power turrets, the cannon protruding from the tail turret. All turrets are actuated electrically and are remotely controlled from sighting stations within the pressurized cabins.
Fuel tanks in the wing provide an overall normal capacity of 5608 U.S. gallons (4669 Imperial). However, the capacity may be increased to a maximum of 9501 U.S. gallons (7912 Imperial) by the installation of auxiliary wing and bomb bay tanks.
TYPE
B-29
Number Built/Converted
2,513
Remarks
Initial production version
Notes:
1620 B-29-BW built by Boeing at their Wichita, Kansas plant.
357 B-29-BA built by Bell at their Atlanta, Georgia plant
536 B-29-MO built by Martin at their Omaha, Nebraska plant.
SPECIFICATIONS
B-29 General Dimension Diagram
Span: 141 ft. 2.76 in.
Length: 99 ft. 0 in.
Height: 27 ft. 9 in. (at rest) 27 ft. 6.7 in. (taxi position)
Maximum fuselage diameter: 9 ft. 6 in.
Height to centerline of propeller hub (taxi position)
1. Inboard engines: 9 ft. 5.6 in.
2. Outboard engines: 10 ft. 8 in.
Ground clearance of inboard propeller tips (taxi position): 14.1 in.
WINGS
Airfoil section: Boeing 117
1. Root: 22%
2. Tip: 7%
Chord Root: 17 ft.
Chord tip (70 feet 10 inches from centerline of fuselage): 7 ft. 5 in.
Incidence: 4 degrees
Dihedral: 4 degrees 29 minutes 23 seconds
Sweepback: 7 degrees 1 minute 26 seconds
STABILIZER
Span: 43 ft.
Maximum chord: 11 ft. 2.4 in.
AREAS
Wing (less ailerons): 1609.68 sq. ft.
Wing (flaps extended, plus ailerons): 2070.88 sq. ft.
Alierons (total, including tabs): 129.2 sq. ft.
Flaps (total): 332 sq. ft.
Stabilizer and Elevators (including tabs): 333 sq. ft.
Elevators (total including tabs): 115 sq. ft.
Elevator trim tabs (total): 10.12 sq. ft.
Vertical fin: 131.9 sq. ft.
Dorsal fin: 40.6 sq. ft.
Rudder (including tab): 65.5 sq. ft.
Rudder trim tab: 5.79 sq. ft.
Weight: 133,500 lbs. (max. overload) 105,000 lbs. gross
Armament: Ten .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-21 or -23 "Cyclone" radials each equipped with two type B-11 turbo superchargers. Later B-29 models fitted with -23A, -41 or -57 Cyclone radials.
Engine Gear Ratio: 20:7 (.35)
Take-Off Power: 2200 H.P. at 2600 rpm w/ manifold pressure of 47.5 in.
Military Power: 2200 H.P. at 2600 rpm w/ manifold pressure of 47.5 in at 25,000 ft.
Normal Rated Power: 2000 H.P. at 2400 rpm at sea level
Idling Speed: 600 +/- 50 rpm (propeller at increase rpm)
PROPELLERS.
Manufacturer: Hamilton Standard Propeller division of United Aircraft Corporation
Type: 4-blade, full feathering
Diameter: 16 ft. 7 in.
FUEL TANK CAPACITIES.
Regular Wing (22 cells): 5608 US gals. (4669 Imp.)
Auxiliary Center Wing (four cells): 1333 US gals. (1110 Imp.)
Auxiliary Bomb Bay (four cells): 2560 US gals. (2133 Imp.)
Net Total Capacity: 9501 US gals. (7912 Imp.)
Crew: Normal crew of ten consists of Pilot, Co-Pilot, Flight Engineer, Bombardier, Navigator, Radio Operator, (2) Side Gunners, Top Gunner, and Tail Gunner.
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 357 mph at 25,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 220 mph
Range: 5,600 miles max. ferry range and 3,250 miles with 20,000 lbs. of bombs
Service Ceiling: 33,600 ft.
All round fighter: F6F "Hellcat" (Operating from a carrier in the vast ocean demands a bit more from an aircraft).
In 1942, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation began mass production of the F6F "Hellcat" fighter as replacement for the F4F/FM-2 "Wildcat" which had been carrying the burden of fighter operations in the Pacific. The results obtained from testing a captured Japanese "Zero" restored to flyable condition were utilized in refining design features of the production F6F to enable it to engage the "Zero" on equal terms and thus dictate the rules of combat. At one time during the war, Grumman was delivering a "Hellcat" at the rate of one per hour around the clock for a grand total of 12,275 deliveries from 1942 to 1945.
While the F6Fs capability for carrying bombs and rockets was widely utilized in air support of friendly ground forces as well as the destruction of enemy airfield installations and shipping, it is best known for its role as a fighter. All in all, the "Hellcat" was credited with destroying 5,156 enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat (75% of all Navy aerial kills) with a kill ratio of 19:1.
Combat stories of F6F encounters with enemy aircraft during World War II are legendary and include:
a. A division of four pilots from the first squadron to receive the F6Fs accumulated 50 kills without the loss of a single aircraft.
b. A Marine night fighter squadron shot down twenty-two aircraft over a two month period.
c. David McCampbell (Navy's leading ace with 34 aerial kills and 20 on the ground) accounts for seven aircraft from a flight of 80 in a single encounter; and, later attacked a flight of 60 aircraft with a single wingman, shooting down nine while his wingman accounted for 7 others. McCampbell received the Medal of Honor. A "look-alike" of his aircraft, "Minsi III" (BuNo 94203), received from Aerial Classics is one of two F6Fs in the Museum's collection.
d. A flight of F6Fs feeds into the landing pattern of 49 Japanese aircraft on Guam and shoot down 30 while the balance crash on landing.
BTW, I think the pilot is much more important than the hardware.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK -06-02-2003%5Dnew%20carrier.jpg)
-15-02-2002]T45_v4_print%20A.jpg)
-16-07-2001%5Dastute6_200.jpg)