View Full Version : Hellcat

09-29-2004, 06:07 PM
F6f pilot manual (http://www.planestuff.com/f6fhelman.html) available for $15.00



09-29-2004, 06:27 PM
Real nice pics heywood!

09-29-2004, 06:31 PM
Toad... the composition in the color pic is unusually good I thought , what with the incoming plane off the fantail and the various crew members going about their business like its just another day.

09-29-2004, 06:33 PM
Look at the incoming plane, how narrow the wheelbase is! I also noticed the huge white wake of the carrier.

09-29-2004, 06:36 PM
might be an Avenger...All Grumman mind you...

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
09-29-2004, 06:38 PM
Real nice pics heywood!

the pictures can be nice, yes, but one is stupidly inverted ! LOL.-

strange nobody noticed it (its the 2nd time already..)

09-29-2004, 06:41 PM
yeah - the pic is 'flipped' but does it matter?

09-29-2004, 06:46 PM
It appears that the first photo is backwards. The Island should be on the left, and the number on the landing gear strut of the middle plain should be 82, but looks like 28.

Good photos though.

Cmte. Carvalho
09-29-2004, 07:02 PM
Nice shots... I was thinking in what would happen if the guy landing in the first shot has missed the wires...

09-29-2004, 07:04 PM
Great pics, thanks for sharing.

09-29-2004, 08:04 PM
I found the F6F pilots manual for free on the net. I'll see if I can remember the link.

09-29-2004, 08:11 PM
First pic. Awesome! Only arresting wires no crash barrier that I can see.

09-29-2004, 08:18 PM

09-29-2004, 09:40 PM
Okay, granted, Haywood's first cool pic is flopped.


(obscure fact): early Essex class CVs' had arrestor gear on the bow as well as the stern. They could recover planes going astern. This capablity never really used, and so removed from the early class #s and never included on the later ones. Or so I read someplace. Anybody have confirmation?

In which case the first pic is right, and the Avenger is in the groove over the bow, and the Hellcat is number 28. And come to think of it, how could any plane on an Essex class carrier be #82, if the ship only carried 40 or so a/c?

Navy fanboys, straighten me out.

(Edit a minute later). Wait a minute. It's not an Essex class CV. Look at the life rafts lashed to the superstructure. Probably the Enterprise.

Forget the whole thing.


09-29-2004, 09:44 PM
Heh dudes look at the pic again. Its 85 with 88 in the background. Nice reflop Chimp.

VFA-195 Snacky
09-29-2004, 10:31 PM
Launch and recovery will always be into the wind. no arrestor wires up front.

09-29-2004, 11:18 PM
Jungmann, you are absolutely right! My dad, who was the Flight Deck Officer and a plank holder on the new Yorktown, told me that very story, about rigging arresting gear forward, and recovering aircraft while backing down. I don't think it was ever put to use operationally. I have seen a movie clip of it being done though, taken from the plane guard destroyer.

I believe the wires you see in that first reversed photo are, in fact, the barriers, not arresting gear.

09-29-2004, 11:30 PM
I like how most of the guys on deck are keeping a weary eye on the incoming aircraft.

Nice shots Heywood...

09-29-2004, 11:53 PM
Two things, one, there were arrestor wires in front, and they were sometimes even used. If the planes were spotted aft for TO, they could steam in reverse to land the CAP, for example. This happened early in the war at least one, I think on Lex, need to check First Team to be sure when/where.

Second, if the pic of landing F6Fs was in the PF we have seen to this point, they'd get creamed because instead of stopping in a plane length, the PF arrestors stop in 3 plane lengths, lol.


09-30-2004, 09:23 AM
"Second, if the pic of landing F6Fs was in the PF we have seen to this point, they'd get creamed because instead of stopping in a plane length, the PF arrestors stop in 3 plane lengths, lol."

I don't know what videos you've been watching Tater. I don't think I've seen a single plane trap in less than about 300ft!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Oh, and the plane in the groove is a Turkey http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

09-30-2004, 07:21 PM
I think that carrier is the Saratoga.

09-30-2004, 09:19 PM
Chimp - thanks for coming up with the corrected pic. The fact that mine was 'flipped' was causing me skin failure.

did you find the free pilots manual?...I'd like to spend that $15.00 on medication.

09-30-2004, 11:04 PM

Official Navy performance data and specs.

10-01-2004, 01:13 AM
Indeed the Essex Class carriers were originally fitted with wires forward, but to my knowledge they were not operationally used and were removed at a later date. Hard to tell from the photo, but there may be a three wire barier rigged there. This appears to possibly be the Saratoga, though I don't have the references at hand (within 7000 miles) to say for sure.

10-01-2004, 06:26 AM
What happens if the incomming plane misses the wire.
He's gonna make a mess of thoe guys working on the deck and take out the aircraft.

10-01-2004, 07:04 AM
"What happens if the incomming plane misses the wire.
He's gonna make a mess of thoe guys working on the deck and take out the aircraft."


10-01-2004, 04:14 PM
Not enough resolutuion in the photo reproduction to tell, but what appears to be three arresting wires is, I believe, a three wire barrier, which is raised to ensnare, but stop with some damage, a plane who misses the wires. Guys have bounced over the barrier or snagged on a waveoff and caused fatalities and damage as you suggest. If you plow through some of the books showing photos of barrier crashes you will see them wrapped up in the wires.

It is possible that someone 'added' the TBF using Photoshop as the deck operations don't look quite right for a recovery sequence.

10-03-2004, 12:26 PM
I have the F6F hellcat manual.

10-03-2004, 12:56 PM
ahhh... WP - do you have a scanner?

10-03-2004, 03:28 PM
Flieger, I think it's just the depth of field used by the photographer when he took that picture. I don't see anything in it that looks odd, or out of place. Obviously, the folks in the foreground are putting a lot of faith and trust in that Turkey pilot (and LSO) to make a successful trap.

Funny, I've listend to my dad's lies and sea stories for 40+ years, about his exploits as a Naval Aviator, and he never once used that word "trap", to describe one of his landings aboard ship. They were always referred to as "arrested" landings. He even has a patch on his flight jacket which says "500 Arrested landings". Is "Trap" a term which surfaced with the advent of the angled deck? Vidar? Snacky?

10-04-2004, 10:23 AM
Heywoood check PM.

10-04-2004, 11:48 AM
As far as I know, you are correct that 'trap' is a (more) modern slang term for 'arrested landing' aboard ship. Anyone know what the book or source for the photo is, the only reason I ask is the apparent lack of a barrier rigged. It is difficult to tell if we are seeing the arresting wires or a wire barrier there. The LSO is also not visible enought to tell if he is standing there with his hands in his pockets or giving a 'cut'.

500 is a lot of 'arrested landings'!

Regards: TF

10-04-2004, 02:35 PM
I believe that the wires we're seeing is the barrier, simply because the arresting gear would not be so easily seen at the angle from which the photo was taken. The LSO looks to me like he has already given that Turkey the "cut", and is just watching his landing for grading purposes.

"500 is a lot of 'arrested landings'!" Yeah, especially when they were all on straight decks with only a flat tire to complain about, and never got into the barrier. He flew Turkeys during the war, Bearcats and ADs afterwards, then Panthers during Korea for his "operational" flying carreer. I'm pretty proud of him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-04-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Heywoood check PM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

done... and thanks

10-04-2004, 05:27 PM
Proud as you should be! Some of the guys I fly with flew the 'Spad' in later days. Operating te early jets like the Panther (beautiful plane) off of a straight deck was about as challenging as it got!

10-04-2004, 05:34 PM
His last operational flying billet was as CO of VF-52, a Panther squadron. They helped make "Bridges of Toko Ri" just before heading over to Korea aboard the Wasp http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

10-04-2004, 07:53 PM
I remember watching that movie a few months ago and marveling as always at the speed at which they came into that straight deck (and barrier). Fuel critical just about all of the time (no aeial re-fueling) is good for prolonged puckering for 'aware' types.

One of my old flying buddies had his own 'Bridges of Toko-Ri' having made a number of missions against the famous Than Ho bridge in North Vietnam.

10-04-2004, 08:56 PM
You gotta love those Able Dog drivers!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

10-05-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Launch and recovery will always be into the wind. no arrestor wires up front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, although the picture was of an aircraft recovering over the aft end of the flight deck, American carriers did in fact have arrestor cables at the forward end of the flight deck for recovery over the bow (as several have stated already).

I saw a comment about not being used operationally as well and that is incorrect. In fact there is a nice color photo taken in '44 or '45 that shows an Avenger recovering over the bow of an Essex class carrier backing down at high speed somewhere in the Pacific (I'll try to find the pic online as I've only seen it in books). This was used sometimes when a carrier launched scout or ASW patrols while maintaining spotted aircraft aft for a quick launch.

All early American carriers including the Lexington class as well as the Essex class were built with propulsion systems that were capable of backing down at high speed for extended periods of time. It was a requirement set forth by the BuerShips in case of damage to the hull or flight deck. The pupose, as some have mentioned, was to recover aircraft without having to re-spot aircraft already spotted for launch. It was also a safety precaution in the event the after end of the flight deck was damaged, landing ops could continue or if the bow was damaged, launching could continue over the stern. Also, if the hull took damage forward the ability of maintaining operations while backing down allowed stress relief in the forward part of the vessel without a catastrophic comprimise to combat operations until an escape for repairs could be made.

The ship WAS sailing into the wind while conducting flight ops over the bow, it was just moving in reverse. I've seen numbers that state the Essex class as built were cabable of 20+ knots while backing down and they could often do this indefinantly because their turbine power plants could run both forward and reverse with few difficulties.

online as:

10-06-2004, 12:34 AM
Having been in one of the engine rooms of an Essex underway (noisy and hot, as with all engine rooms) the reversing turbines appeared to be of normal size for a ship of that size (not huge). Seperate turbines are provided for reversing as turbines do not run in reverse. They are built very much like the axial compressor turbines of the jet engines that followed in a later era, with multiple stages.

The Saratoga and lexington ,by contrast, were provided with a turbo-electric drive in which steam turbines drove electric generators, which then powered electric motors to drive the screws. Though heavy and complicated and not replicated in large ships till the modern era (to my knowledge) it did allow great flexibility in powering the ship from any combination of the turbines. This allowed full power in reverse and great advantage in case of possible battle damage.

Indeed the forward cables were tested, but ships are quite difficult to control precisely making sternway due to the combined action of the screws and the lack of enhanced flow over the rudders (or rudder). It would be hard to imagine doing this in the company of other ships.

As noted, the photo is probably of Saratoga.

10-10-2004, 01:38 PM
I found an 'original' of the photo of 'TBF Avenger comes aboard USS Saratoga'. The F6F-3's are positioned right by the open mid elevator (open). The 'wires' are a three wire barrier, which is shown better on the opposite page of the book (though on the new Lex) but is of the same configuration.