We have touched on this in prior postings (P47 vs P51, etc.) but this past weekend on the History Channel was an article streesing the NAvy F6F "HellCat" was the best fighter aircraft of WWII based on kill ratios, etc. Certainly it was an impressive aircraft but was only used against the Japanese. Still, it is common record that the Brits flying Spitfires fared very poorly against the Jap Zero so perhaps a moot point?
Here are some specs re the F6F:
Grumman F6F Hellcat



The Hellcat was the main shipboard fighter of the US Navy for the last two years of the Pacific War. During the Gilbert and Marshall Operations, the raid on Truk, in the Battle of the Philippine Sea and at Leyte Gulf, the entire fighter complement of the Fast Carrier Force consisted of F6Fs - at Philippine Sea Task Force 58 fielded some 450 fighters, all of them being F6F-3s, and at Leyte Gulf, as Task Force 38, the Carrier Force was equipped with nearly 550 fighters, all of them Hellcats. This illustrates the astounding degree of standardisation achieved in the American frontline forces, something made possible only by the vast output of US industry (this standardisation in its turn aiding efficiency in production).

The F6F was ordered for the US Navy after the initial shock of Allied contact with superior Japanese fighters, particularly the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, during the first few months of the Pacific War. As a result of this experience of combat against higher-performance machines the Hellcat's specification required the most powerful engine available. The prototype X6F-1, a progression from the F4F Wildcat which was then the standard fighter of the Navy, was provided with a 1700hp Wright R-2600 engine, but a month later - on 26 June1942 - it was re-engined with a 2000hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800 (the birth of the F6F therefore coinciding almost exactly with the great carrier Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942, in which its predecessor - the Grumman F4F Wildcat - played a critical role).

Production F6F-3s made their first combat flights on 31 August and 1 September1943, from the carriers Yorktown (CV10), Essex (CV9) and the light carrier Independence. The Hellcat immediately outclassed its opponents, having higher speed and rate-of-climb, being rugged and well-armoured but at the same time very maneuverable for such a large machine, and carrying a heavy and effective armament of six 0.5-inch Browning machine-guns with a large ammunition supply. The arrival of the F6Fs in late 1943, combined with the deployment of the new Essex and Independence Class carriers, immediately gave the US Pacific Fleet air supremacy wherever the Fast Carrier Force operated.



A total of 2,545 Hellcats were delivered in 1943, in 1944 no fewer than 6,139, and in 1945 a further 3,578 - total production was 12,272 units.

The Hellcat was eventually credited with destroying more than 6,000 Japanese aircraft - 4,947 of these by F6Fs of the USN carrier squadrons (209 of the others by land-based Marine Corps F6Fs, and the remainder by Hellcats of other Allied countries). The F6F's most spectacular exploit was the destruction of more than 160 enemy aircraft in one day - 19 June 1944 - in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, in the aerial massacre usually known as "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot."

The F6F was also used extensively as a search aircraft and fighter-bomber, playing a major and increasing part in strikes on Japanese warships and mercantile shipping in 1944 and 1945. In this role, and for ground attack, it could carry up to 2,000 lb. of bombs, or be armed with six 5-inch rockets on underwing pylons.

Data
OriginGrumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
TypeSingle-seat shipborne fighter - also fighter-bomber and night fighter

Dimensions
Span 42' 10" (13.05 metres) - Length 33' 7" (10.2 metres) - Height 13' 1" (3.99 metres)

Weight (F6F-3)
Empty 9,042 lb (4,101 kg) / Loaded (clean) 12,186 lb (5,528 kg) / Loaded (maximum) 14,250 lb (6,443 kg)

Engine
Early production - one 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-10 Double Wasp two-row radial
From Jan 1944 (final batch of F6F-3s) two-thirds had a 2,200 hp R-2800-10W (water-injection rating)

Armament
6 x 0.5 inch Browning machine-guns with 400 rounds per gun
( Some F6F-5 and F6F-5N Hellcats had 2 x 20 mm cannon plus 4 x 0.5 inch machine-guns)
Underwing attachments for six rockets
Centre-section pylons for up to 2,000 lb of bombs

Performance
Maximum speed (clean) 376 mph
Initial climb (typical) 3,240 feet per minute
Service ceiling 37,500 feet
Range 1,090 miles

My Dad who served as an Air Force Captain in the Pacific Theater during WWII used to tell me he thought the P51 was the best allied fighter, but this wasn't backed up by statistical data. He thought the P38 was the most beautiful.

I thought the F4U Corsair had a 14:1 kill ratio ?

Has anyone evaluated the effect on kill ratios that may, (or may not) be attributed to a deterioration in the quality of the Japanese pilot corps in the last 2 years of the war...coinciding with the introduction of the Hellcat?? I'm NOT trying to start an argument here folks. Just curious.
Cheers,
Don

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
Still, it is common record that the Brits flying Spitfires fared very poorly against the Jap Zero so perhaps a moot point?

Best fighter for what is the question.
I think the Hurricans and Spitfires were handy for shooting down bombers rather than Zeros.
Others went well as ground attack aeroplanes, bomber defence, high and low altitude etc. And sure, don't forget the pilots training.

Like JAL, I think "best" is a rather subjective term.

There are too many variables, including the ones where a plane is made to do things it was not designed for, to determine what constitutes "best" .

Pilots and tactics also play a huge role in what determines success, and that is another thing that can't really be measured.

Be simpler to start a thread about the "worst" acft of WW2!

I have always been partial to the F4U - probably because I watched Blacksheep Squadron while growing up. However, I find the P51 and P38 equally handsome. Lou

Royal Navy F6F’s had one encounter with the Luftwaffe (mix of 109's and 190's) in 1944, and it turned out be pretty much a draw with both sides losing 2 or three planes. Interestingly, Royal Navy FM-2’s (F4F’s) mixed it up with ME 109 G’s in 1945 and shot down four with the loss of no FM-2’s -- S40

First combat for the F4F was not with the U.S. Navy but with Britain's Royal Navy, and its first victim was German. The British had shown great interest in the Wildcat as a replacement for the Gloster Sea Gladiator, and the first were delivered in late 1940. On Christmas Day 1940, one of them intercepted and shot down a Junkers Ju-88 bomber over the big Scapa Flow naval base. The Martlet, as the British also called it, saw further action when 30 originally bound for Greece were diverted to the Royal Navy following the collapse of Greece and were used in a ground attack role in the North African Desert throughout 1941.


more

"It was not as you remember it, Saburo. I don't know how many Wildcats there were, but they seemed to come out of the sun in an endless stream. We never had a chance....Every time we went out we lost more and more planes. Guadalcanal was completely under the enemy's control....Of all the men who returned with me, only Captain Aito, [Lt. Cmdr. Tadashi] Nakajima and less than six of the other pilots who were in our original group of 80 men survived."

Those words of top Japanese ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa, part of a November 1942 conversation that was reported in fighter pilot Saburo Sakai's autobiography, Samurai, might be the best tribute ever paid to the Grumman F4F Wildcat. While the newer Vought F4U Corsairs and F6F Hellcats grabbed the spotlight, it was the Wildcat that served as the U.S. Navy's front-line fighter throughout the early World War II crises of 1942 and early 1943.

The Wildcat is unique among World War II aircraft in that it was originally conceived as a biplane. By 1936, the Navy had drawn up specifications for its next generation of shipboard fighters. Although presented with ample evidence that the era of the biplane was over, a strong traditionalist faction within the Navy still felt the monoplane was unsuitable for aircraft carrier use. Wildcat Info

I have read more than a few fighter accounts and don't think this is an easy question to answer.
The different planes had different capabilities at different speeds and altitudes. Some of the planes perfromed well in one threater and not so well in others due to the nature of the combat and the enemy. Some planes started out dogs and were improved, others saw little change during the war. Some were effective in the ground attack role and others got the pilots home.

Saburo Sakai in his book "Samurai" mentioned that he knew of only two Japanese pilots that survived dogfights with both a P-51 and a F6F.

The best analysis of all of this that I have read declared the F4U was the best.

I don't get into the fray of what was the best allied fighter of WW 2.. because there were a lot of different types that performed their intended jobs well... a lot of them had style and grace, or just plain muscle for the job...

But if you gentlemen are basing " what was the best' based on the number of enemy aircraft that were shot down by what type of fighter... that honor goes to the Hawker Hurricane... which shot down more enemy aircraft than any other type...

Also take a look at what the Finns did, with the lowly rejected Brewster Buffalos and the P 36s that they managed to get their hands on...against being highly outnumbered by the Russians...even scoring successes against Russians flying Hurricanes, Warhawks, Spitfires, P 39s... all of which were supposedly superior to the Buffalos and P 36s...

Even the lowly P39s, look what the Russians were able to do with those!

There were just a heck of a lot of good tools for the job....and I love em all!

No mention of the P47 Thunderbolt...why?

Having made my living for almost fifteen years flying fighter/attack aircraft (F-4, F-16), I would choose the P-47 if sent back in time to WWII (and given a choice of aircraft to fly - HA!). The Jug was a lot harder to learn to fly than the Mustang, but it held up to the rigors of combat much better. The "jabos", as my relatives called them, were integral to our rapid advances across Western Europe when the nut cutting started in earnest after D-Day. The Jug did CAS, BAI, Road Recce, Deep Interdiction, escort, and fighter sweep missions with equal aplomb. My balls have never been big enough to look forward to going after trains, convoys or other ground targets in a water cooled 'stang. No way, Jose! With a pair of Jugs you each drop your bombs at either end of the convoy, and then shoot the shit out of everything in between. The Jugs were the equivalent of having an Apache, A-10 and F-16 all rolled up into one airframe.

I am not qualified to speak to carrier ops in the Pacific. I do believe our biggest asset there was our large and continuing stream of well trained pilots and replacement aircraft. Speaking of big balls, I got to shoot some practice approaches on a carrier once. That is not a job for anyone whose concentration wanders. The sucky part is that in navy ops you spend so much time droning around at a reduced power setting so the recovery exercise goes smoothly. there is only one place to land. That fact towers over every other facet of naval aviation.

LD

"there is only one place to land. That fact towers over every other facet of naval aviation."

New Navy pilot:
"So, where is our alternate if we have problems?"
Old Navy pilot:
"How well can you swim????"

I have a long departed friend that was a WWII fighter pilot. He flew quite a few planes. Some of his comments were: He worried his ass off about his dangling shoelaces around the propeller shaft running between his legs on the P39, can't count the number of treetops he clipped trying to pull the P38 out of a dive, said it was plenty fast, said the P51 was a baby doll. He also added that unlike the movies, you went up on your mission, fired you ammo if you had the chance (which he said didn't last very long) and back to base. Said the planes sucked up a lot of gas, especially on take off. Was on a mission over territory in a P51 when the war war officially called "over" and as he was just about out of fuel he was told to land at a German airport. Said that was the second most scared he'd ever been in his flying. The Germans running towards his plane after landing really shook him up, but it turned out well.

Max

The differences in opposition between the two main theaters was like two different air wars. Several aircraft in the S/P that did well like the P-38 didn't fair too well in Europe.

The A6M though a terrific aerobatic airplane at the start of the war, actually made a miserable combat aircraft when you look at it. Above 250 mph it was virtually uncontrollable while most Allied A/C had no controlability problems to 400 mph and higher speeds.

Many of these statistics of kills are off too. What are they counting? Air to air only, or a combination of air to air and air to mud? That will squew the results to whatever the "historian" wants to think.

Other things to consider. When the F6F came out the Oscar was already about 10 years old with virtually no improvements. Also, prior to the war the Japanese were brutal in their training and only the very top pilots were accepted. Nothing less than the best would do. The trouble is that it didn't take very long for these best to get killed off. Then they had no real gene pool to pick from and all they had left were the worst trained pilots.

Like others have said, to pick the one best is about impossable because of the vast amount of variables and they all had some problem areas.

Air to Air I think of bomber escort and for that there was only one that could take the fight to where it needed to go. The P-51. The only one that could climb to altitude efficiently and if spotting an enemy at 30,000 to 35,000 ft could chase the enemy to ground level at 500mph with no problems. It was also the least expensive modern fighter of that era to build and maintain and not so fragile as some think.

The P-47 would be my pick for air to mud. 8 50's and a lot of bombs. But it didn't climb with a hoot and when it did get to altitude all it could do was go down hill very rapidly. Also it's turbo/supercharging system was just as vulnerable as a P-51's coolant system. One hit in the exhaust system and it could start a dandy fire.

The Hellcat had problems in dives and they didn't get that fixed until it didn't really matter.

In B's and C's P-51's early on had gun jamming problems until they installed belt chargers and heaters. D's had a dive problem until they figured that some gear doors were miss-rigged and would partially open in a very high speed dive.

I'm not aware of any vices the Corsair had except it was very expensive to build and it took the Brits to show the Americans how to land one on a deck.

The P-38. It did fine in the S/P where it spent it's time at the lower altitudes but was considered meat on the table in the ETO where it had to go high. One other interesting little item. Folks here may have heard about the 38 having counter-rotating props. This was to reduce what is called torque and "P" factor on the critical engine during single engine operations. The trouble is they got it wrong and the props turn backwards to what they should so both engines were made critical should either one fail.

My pick is the P-51. Not only was it the most cost effecient fighter at the time but from what I can see is the only one that could take the fight to any enemy anywhere on the globe at any altitude and if the pilot did his pilot thing the P-51 would do it's thing and make it home. And it did it's thing very well.

Sorry for the babbling, just an old fart pilot talking.

Don

quote:

The P-38. It did fine in the S/P where it spent it's time at the lower altitudes but was considered meat on the table in the ETO where it had to go high. One other interesting little item. Folks here may have heard about the 38 having counter-rotating props. This was to reduce what is called torque and "P" factor on the critical engine during single engine operations. The trouble is they got it wrong and the props turn backwards to what they should so both engines were made critical should either one fail.

Well I'll be damned, I never knew that!

http://ails.arc.nasa.gov/Images/Aeronautics/jpegs/A-7520_a.jpeg
for a pic that shows the props.

Just found this too:

TrapperP:

Thanks for the article. My Dad thanks you from the seat of a Douglas SBD Dauntless somewhere off the deck of the USS Hornet but now flying with the angles.

My pic for the allies is the P47 in Europe & the Bearcat in the pacific. Yes the Bearcat did fly combat missions in the pacific. One of my friends dad flew them at the end of the war.

The bearcat did not fly in ww2. It did fly in Korea.

quote:

The trouble is they got it wrong and the props turn backwards to what they should so both engines were made critical should either one fail.

Explain this please. I have seen a P-38 looped on one engine.

Read all three chapters. Last chapter states that the P38 shot down more Jap planes then any other Allied plane and that it was never publicized which hurt it's credibility. Very interesting read and by actual pilots. Also said that nothing could out climb it. Go here:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

Some good info here. I'd add that the actual cost of a P-38 was 2.5 times the cost of a P-51 but in fact, the last WW II variant P-38 would out climb and and out roll the P-51, plus it had automated engine controls that prevented the problems below.

The worst issue for the P-38 was three critical controls that, if operated out of order would spell disaster. During escort the plane was run lean at low manifold pressure to conserve fuel. If you got bounced, you had to enrich the mixture before boosting manifold pressure or you'd burn out pistons. Lots of young pilots paniced the first time and crapped out an engine before they got a chance to fight.

The other problem was an inconvenient switch down low between the legs to drop external tanks for combat. In other words, too many procedures to worry about if they saw you first. If you saw them and were up to military power when the crap started, they had a real fight on their hands. Lockheed had a fix for this by 1942 but the Army didn't authorize it until late '44 and the last planes with it (I think the J model but could be wrong...) were only available for the last few months of the ETO, none made it to the SP in time.

I have my dad's squadron history of P-38s that lists all members and their status. By far the largest number of deaths was flying accidents, mostly from flying on one engine. Second was KIA during ground attack and air-to-air KIA was last. Like others said, that is in gross numbers without and statistical equalization like per 1000 flying hours of each mission type, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by MaxPayne:
Read all three chapters. Last chapter states that the P38 shot down more Jap planes then any other Allied plane and that it was never publicized which hurt it's credibility. Very interesting read and by actual pilots. Also said that nothing could out climb it. Go here:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

Max,
Thanks for the great read...
I know way more about the P-38 now.
Sounds like politics got involved somewhere.
It did mention that some of the tricks learned in the Pacific were not widely practiced in the ETO...Like differential throttles to aid manuvers.

quote:

I'd add that the actual cost of a P-38 was 2.5 times the cost of a P-51

I am sure that it was better to have an expensive P-38 early on compared to making do with P-40s or nothing.

This has been a great post and I have enjoyed the replies. I live in a neighborhood with an old RAF pilot that flew and lived through the Battle of Britain, flying mostly Beaufighters although he flew both the Hurricane and the Spitfire as well. I am certainly not as qualified as he to speak to the subject of 'best' but I do enjoy civilized debate on the matter. I'll throw out a bit more here, mostly from his viewpoint. The Spitfire was a great little airplane, you just couldn't go anywhere or do anything with it. Grabreski said exactly the same thing. It was woefully under armed with only .303 guns and 300 rds per gun. Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain and being probably one of the most beautiful aircraft to ever fly. And one further point seldom mentioned: If a pilot was shot down during the battle of Britain he was out of the war if he was a German, if he was a Brit – no matter what country he came from – he simply strapped up in another aircraft and had another go. Someone, I can’t recall his name, was shot down three times!
As to the ‘Best Fighter of WWII,’ I suspect we will never get any agreement here. Each of the various aircraft mentioned have things that stand out, some that add and some that detract from its characteristics. The Bf109 had an enviable record as a fighter but was a terrible aircraft to fly, especially to land. As many as 30% of the losses of this A/C were due to landing accidents or so I have been told. No less an authority than Adolf Galland stated that he had to fly the Bf109 100% of the time or it would take itself away from you.
The P38 had a problem that I have not seen mentioned here in print but was told about by an old pilot friend of mine years ago that actually flew them, this being a tendency to freeze the pilot to death. It had electric heaters for the cabin in the center cockpit and if they didn’t work as they very often did not you ended up flying in sub-zero temps.
In short, a lot of good and some great A/C have been mentioned. Some were no better than the men that flew them, and some were simply the best we had at the time and were again as good only as the men that flew them. I think no better example of this could be found that the P40 and the men that flew it – the Japanese certainly had a ‘better’ airplane and yet, by choosing where and how they would fight the pilots were able to use the P40 effectively.
Perhaps the P47 was better than the P51, this could be and has been argued for years. But think about this: One P47 cost just about as much to manufacture as two P51’s – A P51 cost $54,000 average for the life of the planes production against a cost of some $83,000 for a P47, all in 1945 dollars! - does the equation now change when you can have two P51’s or one P47? That just might change your mind!
And again, I enjoyed the thread. Everyone voiced an opinion but remained civil in doing so. Let us hoist a toast to the great A/C and especially to the gallant men that flew them, no matter which A/C they sat in. We owe them all so very much.

Exactly so. It's the men that made the machines. The men are to be honored not the machines. It has been my honor to have been raised around and trained by these heros and they are all a different breed of cat.

For stats., The 357th. F.G. of which I have a deep personal involvement with holds to this day the record number of E/A confirmed destroyed on one mission. 52. And my Uncle flew Hellcats and had some trade during the Mariannas Turkey Shoot. His squadron had the most confirmed E/A destroyed in one day for the Navy.

If you are interested in Air Combat Maneuvering you might look up Col. John Boyd, the godfather of energy management and modern air warfare. He more or less designed the F-16 and is the reason the USAF got it and the Navy got saddled with the F-18.

Regards, Don
ps The P-38 also suffered from mach tuck and needed speed brakes to keep the tail on in a dive. Also, Lindberg taught the military in the S/P to fly the P-38's over square. Meaning run the engines at high manifold pressure and low RPM to get the highest mile per pound of fuel burned.

Very informative and interesting thread. Too bad so many others can't be the same. Thanks gentlemen!

F4U Corsair + Lindberg

Begin Quote

By the spring of 1944, Marine pilots were beginning to exploit the type's considerable capabilities in the close-support role, supporting amphibious landings with 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bombs. The famed pilot Charles Lindbergh flew Corsairs with the Marines as a civilian technical advisor in order to determine how best to increase the Corsair's warload and effectiveness in the attack role. Lindbergh managed to get the F4U into the air with 1,800 kilograms (4,000 pounds) of bombs, with a 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) bomb on the centerline and a 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bomb under each wing. In the course of such experiments, he performed strikes on Japanese positions during the battle for the Marshall Islands.

End Quote

My only connection to the Corsair was my Dad.
It was his favorite plane.
What did he know about them?
Not much, only what what he saw looking up from the mud on Guadalcanal.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

quote:

The trouble is they got it wrong and the props turn backwards to what they should so both engines were made critical should either one fail.

Explain this please. I have seen a P-38 looped on one engine.

No one? I've forgot more than I knew, but it has nothing to do with high speed flight. I believe it would only matter at low speed, ie take-off, loaded and heavy. In a normal twin with both props turning the same way, one of them would perform better than the other, probably something to do with torque or propwash over the wings or something.

So then we got contra-rotating props so the plane could perform at it's best which ever side failed. But, if they were both going the "wrong" way you'd have an equal but more of a problem.

Sorry I don't know the tech. aspects .

Sorry, On a propeller driven airplane in a posotive angle of attack the decending blade has a higher angle of attack producing more thrust than the acecnding blade on the same engine. This will provide more thrust on the decending blades side. This increases the control deflection necessary (rudder) to keep the the airplane going in a srtaight flight path. In a conventional twin engine airplane, if you loose the right engine more rudder deflection is necessary to control the airplane than if you loose the left because with the left engine operating and the right not the decending blade on the left engine is outside of the engine producing more thrust with a longer leverage point. Where with the right operating and the left not the decending blade in on the INSIDE of the enging closer to the main airframe having less of a leverage effect around the vertical axis of the airplane.

With an airplane where the left engine is turning backwards from normal this puts the decending blade on the inside of the engine lessening the length of the arm and leverage which reduces the rudder deflection necessary to maintain control or the aircraft.

In the P-38's case if you look at engine and propeller rotation the decending blade is on the OUTSIDE of both engines. So, if you loose either engine you have to exert more control pressure and you run out of control at a higher airspeed.

Where the engineers reversed the right engine they should have reversed the left.

Flying a P-38 on one engine is easy, as long as you have enough airspeed or potential energy. Tony LeVier, Lockheed's chief test pilot was specifically sent overseas to teach single engine control to our military personnel because this aspect among others were giving our people a lot of grief and different limitations and methods for teaching giving our pilots survival skills had to be found.

Don't give me a P-38
The propellers they counter-rotate
When they cough and they sneeze
They head for the trees
OH don't give me a P-38!

(from an old WWII fighters pilots song :-)))

quote:

Originally posted by stdon:
Sorry, On a propeller driven airplane in a posotive angle of attack the decending blade has a higher angle of attack producing more thrust than the acecnding blade on the same engine. This will provide more thrust on the decending blades side. This increases the control deflection necessary (rudder) to keep the the airplane going in a srtaight flight path. In a conventional twin engine airplane, if you loose the right engine more rudder deflection is necessary to control the airplane than if you loose the left because with the left engine operating and the right not the decending blade on the left engine is outside of the engine producing more thrust with a longer leverage point. Where with the right operating and the left not the decending blade in on the INSIDE of the enging closer to the main airframe having less of a leverage effect around the vertical axis of the airplane.

With an airplane where the left engine is turning backwards from normal this puts the decending blade on the inside of the engine lessening the length of the arm and leverage which reduces the rudder deflection necessary to maintain control or the aircraft.

In the P-38's case if you look at engine and propeller rotation the decending blade is on the OUTSIDE of both engines. So, if you loose either engine you have to exert more control pressure and you run out of control at a higher airspeed.

Where the engineers reversed the right engine they should have reversed the left.

Flying a P-38 on one engine is easy, as long as you have enough airspeed or potential energy. Tony LeVier, Lockheed's chief test pilot was specifically sent overseas to teach single engine control to our military personnel because this aspect among others were giving our people a lot of grief and different limitations and methods for teaching giving our pilots survival skills had to be found.

Don't give me a P-38
The propellers they counter-rotate
When they cough and they sneeze
They head for the trees
OH don't give me a P-38!

(from an old WWII fighters pilots song :-)))

I'm not sbout to say your wrong as I flatly admit I don't know and have never flown a twin with C/R props but I was always told by the 'old guys' (Drat, I get closer to that every year!) that the reason for the C/R engines was to offset torque and thus improve control. Before the addition of the C/R props on the P38 it was almost impossible to turn left and it would snap your neck turning right due to the gyro effect of the engines rotation - same thing back in WWI with the LeRhone engine but that was mostly due to the rotating mass of the power plant vs the weight of the A/C, with the engine tuning around the crankshaft and not vice versa.
See, this tread gets better and better. Now if we can just find a real, live P38 driver we can ask them and see what they tell us.
BTW, I spoke to a friend of mine that flew the F4U Corsair and he told me this airplane had so much torque/power it was capable of pulling the entire A/C into a roll and thus became known as the "Ensign Eliminator" and killed a lot of new pilots, especially when they horsed it on T/O or landing.. He thought the F4U series tendency to roll under torque was no more difficult to handle than any other high powered fighter of the era, at least none he had flown, and stated he had heard tales of the P51 having a greater propensity to roll on its back than did the F4U. He would not commit any further, saying simply "I never flew the P51 so I don't know how it handles." He did think the Corsair was a far more forgiving aircraft than many others when approaching and entering a stall. Although it would drop its right wing abruptly, the aircraft gave plenty of advanced warning of an impending stall by entering a pronounced buffeting about 6-7 mph before the wing dropped and the A/C stalled out.
I can only sit and wonder what it must have felt like to strap in and light off a piston engine with the sort of power possessed in an Allison or a P&W R2800 in single engined fighter. And with all the factors involved plus avgas being some $5 per gallon into plane and the P51 'sipping' 60 GPH at cruise I doubt most of us will ever know. Pity!

Trapper,



When you point out the problems with the Spitfire, you need to specify which model you were talking about...For instance early models were armed with .303's but later models had brownings and/or 20mm cannon depending on the model.

quote:

Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain

If thats its only claim to fame, its good enough for me! It was probably the first and finest pure air superiority fighter of its day...that was both its strength and its weakenss, but it did the job it was intended to do brilliantly, especially as it was modified as the war went on...

Some very good footage appears in the link below:

Spitfire

Regards,

Pete

quote:

See, this tread gets better and better. Now if we can just find a real, live P38 driver we can ask them and see what they tell us.

Well I haven't flown a P38 but I did fly a bit of B-25 right seat back in the early 80's doing the airshow circuit.

I think when you are talking about CR props offsetting torque you're talking about a single engine with a CR propeller, when the engine can develop more torque at low airspeed than the flight controls (especially the rudder) can handle

An example:





Now with twin engines that are not mounted on the centerline (like a Cessna 337) one side of the propeller (as mentioned the side going down) takes a bigger bite of the air. You can hold a desk fan in your hand and pretend it is an airplane, now point it up like you are climbing and you'll see what I mean here.

Anyway, where this is dangerous is on takeoff or at low airspeed, since the downward side of the prop takes a bigger bite of the air, it pushes the nose of the plane to the other side. Now usually you can keep it going straight by giving it more rudder (well you can bank it too but for this discussion lets not talk about that) but you will often depending on the plane find a speed that is above stalling speed but at the same time the rudder does not have enough authority anymore to keep the plane going straight and you lose directional control.

Whew, hope that makes sense!

Anyway, this speed (whatever it is) will be a lower airspeed on the side where the descending prop blade is next to the fuselage rather than having it descend outboard towards the wingtip. Therefore, the opposite engine that DOES have the descending prop blade outboard needs a higher airspeed to keep flying straight, so they call it the critical engine since it will be the more difficult/dangerous of the 2 engines to control the aircraft should the opposite side fail.

Also, I think the proper term for 2 engines turning opposite is counter rotating, not contra-rotating. However, it is late here so I may be mistaken

Oh yeah, you can also feel this effect with an outboard motor at high power and slow speed, you feel how it wants to pull one way? I think Volvo makes a contra rotating prop setup for boats.

I'll pull down the post. I certainly had no intention of stepping on anyones toes or poo-pooing in someones Post Toasties.
I assumed anything posted out was public domain and if not, then I apologize for my error.
My quotes offered up from the gentleman working with Rolls re the K5054 effort were first hand and mine alone first hand and mine alone - but I will remove the entire post if that will suffice.

TrapperP

Mark, counter-rotating propellers is usually the term used for a convential twin engine airplane. The pic you show of a Griffin powered Mustang at Reno (probably Precious Metal) has contra-rotating propellers. Two props one being geared to turn in the opposite direction.

I pretty sure that the reason for the contra-rotating propellers on the R.R. Griffin is due to the added torque this engine produces over the Merlin engine. At about 11.5 feet diameter with 4 blades on Merlin engine airplanes this was about the limit as I'm sure that an increase in diameter would have decreased ground/prop tip clearance to the danger point. When you increase the torque of an engine you have to increase the prop diameter to soak up the power or add blades. You can see this difference when looking at a 3 bladed Allison powered P-51A vs. a Merlin, actually a Packard powered P-51B/C or D with 4 blades.

Another example would be a Hawker Seafury with it's Centaur(sp?) engine. Simliar to the P/W R2800 but swinging a smaller diameter 5 blade instead of a huge 4 or even bigger 3 blade.

A better example of the effect that engine displacement and torque has would be if you went to a museum that had real 1920's vintage airplanes. Look at the HUGE 2 bladed wooden props those engines were turning. Then compare that to a Cessna 172 or something like that. Usually about the same 150 HP but a massive difference in engine displacement and torque.

My info. on the propeller rotation of the P-38 came directly from an engineer working with Lockheed at the time of development on this aspect. He, dead now, was the uncle of a very good pilot friend of mine. His uncle used to chuckle remembering the amount of man-hours spent arguing about how to turn the engines. His statement was, "We got it wrong."

No promises, and it won't be right away, but I know a pilot who is current on P-38's and infact about any WWII vintage airplane made and several other pilots that fly these beauties and see if I can pick their brains a bit on these questions that pop up. My source of actual WWII heros is drying up as attrition rears it's ugly head but these other guys are current and about all race at Reno so they know the high performance aspect of these airplanes if not the combat issues.

Knowing the internet and one never knows who is a troll, FWIW, my knowledge and experience goes back a little ways. I first soloed on Sept. 17th. 1967 and have flown just about continously since. Proof is my certificate number which is ATP 186XXXX (can't ever be too careful). And at 56 I'm still in the fray.
Other than growing up in the WWII fighter pilot community, doing a google on William (Bill) Ross and or SL721 you can see my earliest hands on experience with warbirds.

Hey guys, this is fun dredging up old memories.

Regards, Don

I guess this is more of a question than comment. In reading over the planes mention I didn't see:
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Typhoon
P-61 Black Widow (night fighter)
De Havilland Mosquito

Any of you guys know how effective any of them were? I think that had the F8F Bearcat come out a few years earlier, it would have done well.

I feel like I'm getting more of a history lesson here. My great uncle and my wife's grandfather were both turret ball gunner's in B-17s in WWII and they both survived!

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
(Re Spitfire)
Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain .

Let's not forget, the Hurracane was the mainstay of the Battle of Britian. The Spitfire got all the glory.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:
(Re Spitfire)
Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain .

Let's not forget, the Hurracane was the mainstay of the Battle of Britian. The Spitfire got all the glory.

"Battle od Britain" is a good movie BTW.

And speaking of Spitfires, here's an old video that some of you may not have seen yet:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showatt.php?s=72e66325d4...&attachmentid=897239

You might have to cut and paste that.