PDA

View Full Version : F6F Hellcat vs Bf 109



mynameisroland
03-21-2007, 10:46 AM
On the UKD2 server we have a couple of maps, one by Icefire which is a simulated Tirpitz raid and one of Operation Dragoon by a guy called Kat,

On both of these maps there is the chance to take up the F6F and fight the Bf 109, the Fw 190 and the Macchi. No surprises that the Hellcat can out manuver the Fw 190 but that it is much slower than the A5/6 model. The real, and pleasant surprise was how effective the Hellcat was against the Italian and German turn fighters.

Do any Hellcat fans have any similar experiences against European Axis fighters?

mynameisroland
03-21-2007, 10:46 AM
On the UKD2 server we have a couple of maps, one by Icefire which is a simulated Tirpitz raid and one of Operation Dragoon by a guy called Kat,

On both of these maps there is the chance to take up the F6F and fight the Bf 109, the Fw 190 and the Macchi. No surprises that the Hellcat can out manuver the Fw 190 but that it is much slower than the A5/6 model. The real, and pleasant surprise was how effective the Hellcat was against the Italian and German turn fighters.

Do any Hellcat fans have any similar experiences against European Axis fighters?

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-21-2007, 11:06 AM
I've flown the Wildcat against early 109's on many occassions (including G2's) and can say that they perform quite well. While I attribute this primarily to the fact that most 109 pilots are surprised by the presence of the 'crazy' dude in the F4F while almost everyone else is in the Hurris and Spits.

Can't say I've logged many hours in the Hellcat though against 109's.


TB

Bremspropeller
03-21-2007, 11:27 AM
The Hellcat suffers from it's snap-stall behaviour.
Pull back on the stick and mix in some aileron-input...here we go spinning and tumbling.

Thatswhy turning with 109s is really tough.
A 190 with a capable pilot will eat any Hellcat alive...

JtD
03-21-2007, 02:07 PM
If bounced by a G-6, I don't usually drop my ground attack loadout and still win the fight. Good bird.

G-2 is more of a challenge.

ElAurens
03-21-2007, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Hellcat suffers from it's snap-stall behaviour.
Pull back on the stick and mix in some aileron-input...here we go spinning and tumbling.

Thatswhy turning with 109s is really tough.
A 190 with a capable pilot will eat any Hellcat alive... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A properly modeled Hellcat would be much more competitive. The real Hellcat was an excellent turner and displayed none of the bogus slip on a banana peel behavior of the in game F6F.

The real F6F was faster too...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
03-21-2007, 03:02 PM
F6F absolutely eats the 109s in a properly co-ordinated turn at a fair average speed. The 109 can still pull a bit better in the really slow speed range but this range is almost unusable as the Hellcats turn on the whole is better than most European opponents. I was genuinely surprised at first but then it started to make sense.

tigertalon
03-21-2007, 03:17 PM
These maps you mention are some of my favs on UKD, right due to the unusual matchups (and the ones with F4F vs E4/F4 too).

Comparing the two, I'd pick a F6F anyday, especially if on teamspeak and in a group (at least in pair). With a proper DnB and BnZ combination, F6Fs can completely dominate the fight versus similar number of 109s. Battle damage resistance contributes to this even more, as 109s are quite vulnerable to .50cals. 1v1 is a bit of a different story, pilot being the deciding factor. Without E advantage I'd rather firewall it and run for help if alone and bounced by a 109, although many 109 pilots are surprised how well an F6F can follow them in a turn, they get confused and make mistake: ease up on a stick.

190s... There is not much hellcats can do about it.

Bremspropeller
03-21-2007, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
A properly modeled Hellcat would be much more competitive. The real Hellcat was an excellent turner and displayed none of the bogus slip on a banana peel behavior of the in game F6F.

The real F6F was faster too...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agree 100%

Frequent_Flyer
03-21-2007, 03:29 PM
In the few times the Hellcat the 109 and 190 met near Norway the Hellcat shot down both types of German aircraft.- If real life matters.

K_Freddie
03-21-2007, 04:20 PM
"While I attribute this primarily to the fact that most 109 pilots are surprised by the presence of the 'crazy' dude"

"A 190 with a capable pilot will eat any Hellcat alive..."

"A properly modeled Hellcat would be much more competitive. The real Hellcat was an excellent turner and displayed none of the bogus slip on a banana peel behavior of the in game F6F.

The real F6F was faster too..."

"F6F absolutely eats the 109s in a properly co-ordinated turn at a fair average speed. The 109 can still pull a bit better in the really slow speed range but this range is almost unusable as the Hellcats turn on the whole is better than most European opponents."

"1v1 is a bit of a different story, pilot being the deciding factor. Without E advantage I'd rather firewall it and run for help if alone and bounced by a 109, although many 109 pilots are surprised how well an F6F can follow them in a turn, they get confused and make mistake: ease up on a stick.

190s... There is not much hellcats can do about it."
----------------------------------------------------------

I'd take a Me109 or a FW190 (1st choice) anyday... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

horseback
03-21-2007, 05:01 PM
Real-life results may be a bit skewed, especially late in the war. Fleet Air Arm and US Naval aviators were trained to a pretty high standard; it was generally acknowledged that USN/USMC aviators ('pilots' would be thought derogotory by them, altho entirely appropriate for Army types) were a couple of notches better trained than the USAAF throughout the war.

With that in mind, most Luftwaffe pilots from the late summer of 1944 onwards would have been badly overmatched in almost any prop fighter in the inventory at that time.

Now where pilots were evenly skilled, altitude becomes a consideration, because F6Fs had a lower performance than the P-47 above 7000m/22,000 ft. Below 22,000 ft would be the Hellcat driver's preference, and he'd want to drive the fight downward. Against either LW prop fighter, the F6F had a disadvantage in acceleration and climb. Dive might be a tossup, but it wins maneuverability contests most of the time.

One of my neighbors back when I lived in Coronado CA was a retired admiral who had first flown F4Fs and then went to Hellcats. He loved the things, and said once that if it weren't for the Zero, he would have said the F6F (especially the -5) was the most responsive prop fighter of the war. There were times, he said, that he could have sworn that he had flown right up his own @ss with it (he was a colorful old coot).

A FW or 109 driver would have to get and keep a significant E advantage. This would be difficult if the Hellcat uses its turning advantage and better than average RL pilot field of view to the fullest. The performance advantages of the LW fighters wasn't so great as to be overpowering, so they'd have their work cut out for them...

If you're flying right out on the far edge of performance and handling, the Hellcat would give its pilot a great deal of confidence. It was considered far and away one of the most forgiving and responsive fighters in the US inventory, and far more 'honest' than the Il-2 version, especially in the -5 model. It was widely acknowledged to be user friendly long before that concept became fashionable.

I suspect that Oleg's interpretation of the Hellcat would have been far more generous had the Soviets received Hellcats instead of P-47s.

cheers

horseback

WOLFMondo
03-22-2007, 03:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The performance advantages of the LW fighters wasn't so great as to be overpowering, so they'd have their work cut out for them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have to disagree to a point. The earliest FW190's had superior speed over the F6F, even using the most optimistic data people have on the F6F. Don't get me wrong, I actually like flying Olegs Hellcat (I think im one of a small minority who like it!!) but I find the 190A5 and A6 to much nicer fighters in everyway except turning. The speed difference at low altitude is enourmous, its like comparing a Claude to a Frank.

leitmotiv
03-22-2007, 03:35 AM
I have had interesting times using an F4F-3 in desert scenarios vs. 109E-7s and Fs---I'd rather be in a dust-up with French Hawk 75s in the -4!

If I have to fight the Luftwaffe in a naval fighter, in a historical situation, I'd rather be in a Corsair because of its speed advantage over the game Hellcat.

mynameisroland
03-22-2007, 06:47 AM
From my experience online Id rather be in a Hellcat over the Bf 109 G series and a Wildcat over a Bf 109 E/F series. The Fw 190 can use its speed to run away but co energy it cant out manuver you but can maybe try and outclimb depending on altitude. In a F4F3 I have repeatedly beaten Bf 109 F2 and F4 pilots who try and turn fight, the area of gain for me is at the bottom of the loop where I just reel them in and smoke their engines with the .50s

The average Bf 109 pilot really lays a cable when he sees the Hellcat eat him up in a turn lol

drose01
03-22-2007, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Hellcat suffers from it's snap-stall behaviour.
Pull back on the stick and mix in some aileron-input...here we go spinning and tumbling.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
A properly modeled Hellcat would be much more competitive. The real Hellcat was an excellent turner and displayed none of the bogus slip on a banana peel behavior of the in game F6F.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the kind of stuff I was alluding to in a recent post asking how does Oleg model FM features that can not be easily quantified, like stability in a turn.

How does the Hellcat end up flying this way? Is this calculated by a complex formula involving measurable attributes like weight, wing loading etc?

Or is this just how Oleg thinks the plane ought to fly? Either way, something seems wrong:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Capt. John Strane joined VF-15 in Atlantic City, New Jersey after almost two years as an instructor at NAS Pensacola. Strane had a few hours in the F4F before flying the Hellcat, something that convinced him he wanted to be a fighter pilot. When the opportunity came to join a new squadron just forming, Strane was eager for the opportunity.

"My initial impression of the Hellcat was that I was in a completely different ballpark than that of the SNJ or the Wildcat," he writes, "the tremendous power, the comfort of the cockpit, the ease of handling the plane thoroughout its entire flight envelope was unbelievable."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tater-SW-
03-22-2007, 08:12 AM
Thr F6F is universally described as "docile" by rea; pilots who flew them. The one we have is pretty fubar, imo.

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Either way, something seems wrong: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's wrong is your improper or insufficient use of rudder in your turns. The F6F, or any plane for that matter, only snaps off when you let the ball get out of center. Keep the ball centered and it will NEVER snap until you are into a slow speed mush without enough rudder authority to prevent it.
You cannot fly properly with elevator and aileron alone! Keep that ball where it belongs - in the center!

Blutarski2004
03-22-2007, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Thr F6F is universally described as "docile" by rea; pilots who flew them. The one we have is pretty fubar, imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'm suprised by the snap stall behavior. The Hellcat was, after all, designed to land on carriers. And that often meant a controlled stall-crash descent onto the deck with forward progress halted by arrestor cable. A plane with ugle stall characteristics would never have been accepted for such service.

horseback
03-22-2007, 08:27 AM
What I said...

This is like a bone in the throat for enthusiasts of US aircraft. The Hellcat and the Mustang were universally praised for their straightforward and forgiving handling. What that expression means is that they went where you wanted quickly and easily, gave ample warning of a stall, and were very reliable mechanically compared to their contemporaries.

Moreover, both were notable for light control forces, which cut down on pilot fatigue during extended periods of hard maneuvering. This would be critical in a time of unboosted controls and long missions to and from the combat zone on oxygen.

cheers

horseback

drose01
03-22-2007, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Either way, something seems wrong: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's wrong is your improper or insufficient use of rudder in your turns. The F6F, or any plane for that matter, only snaps off when you let the ball get out of center. Keep the ball centered and it will NEVER snap until you are into a slow speed mush without enough rudder authority to prevent it.
You cannot fly properly with elevator and aileron alone! Keep that ball where it belongs - in the center! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course any plane will snap if you push it too hard or fly it with poor technique, but some planes are just more unforgiving than others, even "tricky".

In contrast, other planes seem to "fly like a dream," "light on the controls," etc. This is the way the Hellcat was described by the men who flew it.

Many planes in Il2 have that "light" feeling when flying (not a reflection of their actual weight but their handling). The Hellcat is not one of those.

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 09:03 AM
I'm sorry but without .trk files to see what control inputs are being used, without knowledge of airspeeds, altitudes, loadouts, fuel loads, etc. there is NO WAY to make any true determination regarding the propriety of any FM. I guarantee that I will skewer any F6F flying at 100% fuel if my -109 is only carrying 25%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In contrast, other planes seem to "fly like a dream," "light on the controls," etc. This is the way the Hellcat was described by the men who flew it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What planes had those men been flying prior to hoping in to the F6F - Stearman? AT-6? Most likely - and in comparison to those two tanks anything is going to fly like a dream!
The primary difficulty here, as in every discussion of FM'S is that we are all tossing around our opinions - the gold standard is flight test data and comparisons, not feelings. As far as that goes I trust the boys over at Maddox ,many of whom cut their teeth in the aircraft industry, over anyone here who uses one or two isolated and out of context and uncited quotes to make their case.

WWSpinDry
03-22-2007, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
...I trust the boys over at Maddox ,many of whom cut their teeth in the aircraft industry, over anyone here who uses one or two isolated and out of context and uncited quotes to make their case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, now you're trying to inject common sense and fact-based discussion into a Zoo thread. You know that's not permitted here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

drose01
03-22-2007, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I'm sorry but without .trk files to see what control inputs are being used, without knowledge of airspeeds, altitudes, loadouts, fuel loads, etc. there is NO WAY to make any true determination regarding the propriety of any FM. I guarantee that I will skewer any F6F flying at 100% fuel if my -109 is only carrying 25%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In contrast, other planes seem to "fly like a dream," "light on the controls," etc. This is the way the Hellcat was described by the men who flew it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What planes had those men been flying prior to hoping in to the F6F - Stearman? AT-6? Most likely - and in comparison to those two tanks anything is going to fly like a dream!
The primary difficulty here, as in every discussion of FM'S is that we are all tossing around our opinions - the gold standard is flight test data and comparisons, not feelings. As far as that goes I trust the boys over at Maddox ,many of whom cut their teeth in the aircraft industry, over anyone here who uses one or two isolated and out of context and uncited quotes to make their case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough, this stuff is difficult to quantify, and even if we can create an objective Il2 analysis of handling, we probably will have no quantitative historical data to compare it to.

So we probably have no objective way to definitively prove almost anything about the way any plane in Il2 should handle, except for a limited number of known performance measurables like speed, climb and turn radius.

We just have to trust Oleg to get it right, knowing there is a great deal of subjectivity in building these flight models, right?

OK, but if we are working on "best judgement" flight models, then all kinds of information, INCLUDING pilot accounts and general reputation of airplanes, should be used in designing these flight models, shouldn't it, especially when it seems to represent a consensus?

And here are links to a few of the many many attributions to quotes about Hellcat handling.

<A HREF="http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?" TARGET=_blank>http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?
ArticleID=42</A>


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200308/ai_n9261306/pg_9

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f6f_hellcat.html

Many more in these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Hellcat-F6F-World-War-II/dp/15575.../102-4158905-4425763 (http://www.amazon.com/Hellcat-F6F-World-War-II/dp/1557509913/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-4158905-4425763)

http://www.amazon.com/Hellcat-Aces-World-Osprey-Aircraft/dp/1855325969

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 10:18 AM
I agree with you completely in that it is critical to utilize all aspects of flight behavior when building and studying the FM the sim produces. What I disagree with are posts that accuse a FM of error but provide little or no information to determine why. For example -
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The real Hellcat was an excellent turner and displayed none of the bogus slip on a banana peel behavior of the in game F6F. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can think of many situations where any aircraft can exhibit "slip on a banana peel behavior" - most involve improper use of one or more controls, lack of proper E for the current angle of attack, high wing loading due to heavy fuel and/or weapon load, flying in a slip/skid and not coordinating turns properly, and bleeding off too much airspeed in high drag (landing) configuration.
This is what a docile little 152 can do when mishandled (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/snaps.html#@default812)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One fine spring day I was instructing a student who had about 5 hours experience. This was her first lesson in slow flight, but she was doing really well: she was maintaining the assigned altitude, the assigned heading, and the assigned airspeed (a couple of knots above the stalling speed). She was also doing a good job of keeping the inclinometer ball in the center, which required considerable pressure on the right rudder pedal because of the high power and low airspeed. I was really enjoying the flight, but suddenly I developed a feeling that there was something wrong. Gradually it dawned on me what the problem was. The problem was that the airplane was upside down.

Here's what had happened: her right foot had gotten tired, so she just removed it from the pedal --- all at once. This produced a sudden yaw to the left. Naturally the left wing dropped, so she applied full right aileron. The nose was dropping, too, so she pulled back sharply on the yoke. The next thing anybody knew, we were upside down.

I took the controls and rolled the plane right-side-up. (See section 16.21 for more about this.) We lost about 500 feet of altitude during the maneuver. The student asked "What was THAT?" and I said "That was a pretty nice snap roll".

This is indeed the recipe for a snap roll: starting from a speed slightly above the stall, apply a sudden yaw with the rudder, apply opposite aileron, and pull back on the yoke. SNAP! --- One wing stalls and the plane rolls over. In our case, we didn't roll exactly 180 degrees --- "only" about 135 degrees --- but that's upside down enough for most people. It took a fraction of a second. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

drose01
03-22-2007, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I agree with you completely in that it is critical to utilize all aspects of flight behavior when building and studying the FM the sim produces. What I disagree with are posts that accuse a FM of error but provide little or no information to determine why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe we could do a little Il2 testing to objectively measure the relative handling stability of the Hellcat versus other planes.

I wonder what the best way to do that would be? Is it possible?

horseback
03-22-2007, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In contrast, other planes seem to "fly like a dream," "light on the controls," etc. This is the way the Hellcat was described by the men who flew it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What planes had those men been flying prior to hoping in to the F6F - Stearman? AT-6? Most likely - and in comparison to those two tanks anything is going to fly like a dream!
The primary difficulty here, as in every discussion of FM'S is that we are all tossing around our opinions - the gold standard is flight test data and comparisons, not feelings. As far as that goes I trust the boys over at Maddox ,many of whom cut their teeth in the aircraft industry, over anyone here who uses one or two isolated and out of context and uncited quotes to make their case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The high praise of the Hellcat's handling came from men who had flown Grumman F3Fs (a spectacularly agile biplane by all accounts) as well as Wildcats (which had 'heavy' control forces according to some reports) or Corsairs in combat as well as 'noobs' fresh out of flight training. Jock Southerland, David McCampbell, Thach, O'Hare and many, many other prewar trained Naval aviators' quotes can be found sprinkled liberally throughout any reliable reference on US Naval fighters of the period, and all have praised the Hellcat's handling.

As for the boys at Maddox, I can only point to their depiction of the P-40E/M versus the Mustang. The Warhawk is well known as particularly trim hungry on the wing, and as a torque-y, ground looping beast once on its wheels. The Mustang in ALL its varieties was known to be far more refined both in the air and on the ground, yet the Pony is depicted as the trim monster in this sim, and I would say that neither US bird lands or ground handles any differently.

Both aircraft types are still around in significant numbers and their handling qualities are easily verified, yet their depictions relative to their contemporaries are clearly 'off.'

cheers

horseback

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Both aircraft types are still around in significant numbers and their handling qualities are easily verified, yet their depictions relative to their contemporaries are clearly 'off.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again I question the similarity of examples - especially regarding the P-51. Citations are from Bud Andersons flight review here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200112/ai_n9013544)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It was a great performer at sea level as well as at altitudes of 30,000 to 35,000 feet, with the best speed attained somewhere in between. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you flying at 15,000-18,00- feet (with proper supercharger and mixture settings) when looking for best speed?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On the takeoff roll, you concentrated on keeping the P-51 going in a straight line. You preset six degrees of right-rudder trim, but it still required some right rudder to hold it straight. After you got the tail up and you could see the runway, you had enough speed to easily keep it straight with the rudder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you presetting some right rudder trim? Bud seems to indicate that takeoffs were not too bad when done properly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The stick force required for maneuvering at higher G was heavier than I liked, but it could easily be decreased by using the elevator-trim control. While doing any heavy maneuvering, especially if there were big changes in airspeed, I found my left hand busy with the trim knobs that were conveniently located on the left side panel. Particularly in combat, you had to keep the rudder trim centered for gun firing; otherwise, you'd spray bullets all over the place. I always kept the ball centered fairly closely to the trim and then used rudder control for the fine tuning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Heavy controls, lots of trimming...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Landing the Mustang was not really a problem. If you made a three-point landing, you couldn't see ahead very well. In combat, we almost always made two-point, or wheel, landings for safety reasons. A four-ship flight would come down the runway at low altitude in echelon formation. The flight would then separate by breaking up individually into a 180-degree climbing turn. There, you dropped the gear and held about 170mph around the pattern to the final and then lowered the flaps-usually to full down-and maintained 120mph down the final, slowing as you crossed the runway threshold and touched down at around 90 to 95mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are these the approach and landing speeds you use?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The fuselage fuel tank mounted behind the pilot was always a problem, and you had to take it into consideration on any combat mission. The full tank gave the Mustang an aft center of gravity, and it was actually unstable. Flying instruments with the tank full required careful attention, and with any heavy maneuvering, you could get a stick force reversal. Imagine pushing forward on the stick to control your turn with a 109 across the circle from you! It happened to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> OK this one is huge for all you guys who always carry 100% fuel - the fuselage tank IS modelled. If you are carrying that fuel EXPECT weird things to occur - just as in RL. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Mustang flew like a dream after you had burned half of the fuel from this tank. You were taking a chance that you would not have to engage in combat until you were ready. On a shorter mission, you could consider using the fuel from the fuselage tank after takeoff. Once you were down to half, you went to the external tanks. That way, when you dropped your wing tanks, you were ready to fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> More on the fuselage tank. Finally this great nugget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Today, quite a few restored Mustangs are still flying. Many thanks go to the wonderful folks in the warbird community; because of them, we can see, hear and fly these wonderful old planes. I have the good fortune to be able to fly a carefully rebuilt Mustang that belongs to Jack Roush. It is beautifully painted in the exact colors of the 357th Fighter Group and my own Old Crow that I flew during WW II. I probably don't have to tell you what this means to me. Most of these Mustangs have had the fuselage tank removed. Some have also had the guns and armor-plate protection removed, so they are lighter than those we flew in WW II. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So any flight report regarding a "modernized" mustang is suspect. This is exactly my point - what is your loadout, what is your fuel load, what altitude are you flying. Just because a pilot recalls hitting ###mph in a p-51 does not tell us anything.

horseback
03-22-2007, 12:47 PM
Again, a classic case of cherry-picking. Where's Anderson's comparison to the P-40?

Anderson had very little (if any) stick time on the P-40; his point of reference would be the P-39, which his group formed up and trained on before deploying to Great Britain.

And that's my beef with many of the FMs in this sim; taken individually, they might be more or less accurate depending upon how one interprets the data and pilots' accounts of how they handled. Unfortunately, these aircraft flew against each other during a long bloody war, and they earned their reputations relative to each other.

If you take the known points of reference (A was better than B in this respect, but B could this thing much better than A) and do the math, there are huge gaping holes in this sim. The 109 and the P-40 land as easily as the P-47 or P-51, the P-51 needs far more trim adjustment far more often than the P-40E/M, the FW 190 is sluggish and heavy compared to the 109, the Hellcat is clumsy compared to the P-40--these things don't add up compared to the historical record.

One's natural tendency to cynicism is reinforced under these circumstances, don't you think?

cheers

horseback

p-11.cAce
03-22-2007, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One's natural tendency to cynicism is reinforced under these circumstances, don't you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I do think (opinion) that most of the FM's are better than some would have us believe - especially considering the number of flyable aircraft available in sim. I also am of the opinion that many of the "flaws" are the result of sim pilots not understanding the why & how of aircraft controls and some of their stranger effects. An extreme example would be my nephew who cried and complained about not being able to land - even after a great deal of instruction. Turns out he was flying his pattern fine but his final was WAY too slow. He would end up in one of those nasty, mushing, pilot induced oscillations and then snap off into the ground. I asked him why he was flying so slow - "I like the white smoke coming of the wings - looks just like the jets at the airshows" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
03-23-2007, 01:34 AM
The Hellcat in the sim is incredibly light on the controls, even at very high speeds, so thats true with reality.

The Hellcat is still quite a big stubby beast, a bit like the P47. However it is still the best turner of the US birds IMO, so this would be correct also. (for the 'Hellcat was a great turner people)

'The Hellcat no doubt came as a nasty surprise to Japanese pilots, since it looked enough like a Wildcat to be confused for one at a distance, but was a substantially more dangerous adversary, every bit as tough as the Wildcat but faster and more heavily armed. It was still no match for the Zero in terms of agility and couldn't outclimb the "Zeke", but the Hellcat could almost always escape by going into a dive. Any competent Hellcat pilot who understood his machine's advantages and the Zeke's weaknesses had the upper hand.'

I love the Hellcat and Wildcat, they have the best views in the game and it represents the 'future' of air combat in High Speed rather than turning ability.

I think its a good representation of the real thing from what I have read. It shouldnt outturn a Zero or Spitfire, but should turn better than a P51, FW190, P47 - and it does.

Sergio_101
03-23-2007, 02:46 AM
Late F6F-3 and all F6F-5 Hellcats were powered by
the P&W R-2800-10W.
Rated dry at 2,000 @ 2700 rpm "WEP" or Military
power settings, and 2,300 hp with water methanol.
The R-2800-10W had a two stage two speed
gear driven supercharger that delivered excellent
power to over 20,000 feet altitude.

Above 10,000' altitude a F6F should easily
out climb any Zero (A6M-#) that saw combat.
Even at sea level it should be able to out run
and as a result, out climb a Zero at any speed
above 200mph.

The only performance regime where the Zero had the edge
was in high angle of attack climb at low speeds.
Low speed turning and minimum speed were also
Zero's advantage.

Sergio

horseback
03-23-2007, 09:36 AM
I have not had much time in the Hellcat since the last patch, so I'll take others' testimonies at face value.

However, the dash-5 Hellcat was much better in terms of maneuverability than the dash-3, and it had some significant improvements in the engine as well. In practical terms, it required much less pilot skill to get the most out of it than most of its contemporaries, and the margin between it and the Spit IX in the horizontal was less than our British friends might care to acknowledge-enough so that it would take a more experienced Spit pilot than the average to outturn a 'run of the mill' Hellcat driver.

The whole 'light on the controls' interpretation is the biggest issue for me, because it seems to me that Oleg and Co have made the easy to fly (and fight in) aircraft like the Mustang, FW, and Hellcat (among others)oversensitive, unforgiving, twitchy & treacherous beasts. I have spent a good bit of time in the P-40 and FW in off-line campaigns since the 4.08 patch, and they do seem a good bit more like I would have expected; the P-40 needing more trim than previously (still too easy to land and takeoff) and the FW a LOT more responsive and quicker to accelerate. It seems as tho the button/key trim input settings are more consistant in their effect, which is a big help.

Still, there's a clear point when you're crossing from one level of stick or rudder input, and the force increases (as little as 1 or 2 units), and the aircraft will twitch over the line on you...and frankly, it's a PITA to constantly have to readjust your joystick sensitivities for each aircraft type, much less spend a lot of time experimenting until it's right for you, and then keep a record of the 'correct' setting for a given aircraft.

Most of us try to find a middle ground sensitivity setting for most of our flights and then try to have seperate settings for the 'special cases', which in real life were the easiest aircraft to fly.

Am I the only one who thinks this is bass-ackward?

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
03-23-2007, 09:52 AM
What was the turn time of the Hellcat ? I know it was good but the Spitfire IX was very good. As for noob pilots, Spitfire was regarded as an idiot friendly plane and in 1943/44(ny the time the Hellcat was in service) there wouldnt be many poorly trained pilots in either the RAF or the USN so a match up of Hellcat vs Spitfire IX would actually favour the inexperienced pilot in the Spitfire as he would have powerloading, wing loading, turn and climb advantages.

Anyway, this isnt a chest beating thread. It seems there arent many servers out there which offer this particular match up, I just wanted to say for those who havent experienced it online the Hellcat excells in the dogfight in this planeset and flying it in a 4 ship far over enemy territory is great as you know you can mix it up in a fight, take a good solid beating and still rtb if you wingmen provide cover.

Xiolablu3
03-23-2007, 10:22 AM
What is the turn time for the various versions of the Hellcat pls.

Does anyone know?

I would be interested to see them, I dont think I ever saw actual Hellcat turn times, only 'comparisons' ie. Hellcat will be outturned by Zeke and Spit, Hellcat will outturn FW190,P47 and P51.

SHe certainly turns well in the game. The only reason why people migh get the impression that the Hellcat doesnt turn well is because its almost always up against a Zero or other Jpaanese planes. Anything against these planes, even the Spitfire comes of badly in a low speed turnfight.

horseback
03-23-2007, 10:30 AM
I don't dispute what you're saying, Roland, but the Spitfire was a point defense fighter designed to enter combat with a nearly full tank, while the Hellcat was a long range carrier fighter intended to enter combat with significantly less than a full fuel load. Wing and power loading at normal combat levels (say 60-70% fuel levels) were closer than 'book' values.

Further, the Hellcat had the more 'balanced' controls as well as similarly light control forces and a later, more ergonomic cockpit layout (the Spit's cockpit layout changed very little from first production Mk I to Mk IX). The Spit also had a bit of an issue with a very short pull on the elevators compared to the aileron throw, while the Hellcat's stick had a more even distribution of control throw between the elevators and ailerons. It was quite a bit more noob friendly than the Spitfire.

In practice, there is always a bit of difference between theoretical performance and actual average performance. Operator friendly aircraft allowed their pilots to get closer to the maximum theoretical peformance sooner, and the Hellcat was spectacular in this regard, and I would rate the Spitfire (a pioneer in this category) only pretty darned good at that point in its development.

No chest beating going on here, but a cold appraisal of two disparate types. Just as the more noob friendly Spit I/II outturned its (theoretical) equal BF 109E in the BoB in general practice, I would expect the dash 5 Hellcat (at combat weights) to be very competitive with the Spit VIII/IX in a turning contest unless the Spit was flown by a much more experienced (and gifted) pilot.

Not better necessarily, but close enough that the typical Spit driver would be offering to pay for the beers afterwards and asking his Yank (or FAA) counterpart how he did that.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
03-23-2007, 11:16 AM
Any carrier borne fighter has to make concessions which a land based fighter does not, and there can be no question that the Hellcat of 1944 was superior to the main Seafires of that year in the Seafire III which is basically a Spitfire Vc.

I would expect a dogfight between a land based Spitfire IX 25lbs or Griffon Spitfire (XII or XIV) from 1944 and a Hellcat from 1944 to be won by the Spitfire tho. But then you have the numbers issue. Probably no more than 1000 combined SPitfire IX 25lbs and Griffon SPitfires combined in 1944.

But as I say, its not really fair, as the Hellcat as it is made to be a carrier fighter, and its a darn good one. In fact its joint equal favourite of my US planes along with the Jug.

NO doubt the Hellcat would be the better diver as the Spitfire was not good in that respect. I would expect the Spitfire to the better turner, look at the size of the Spitfires wings compared to the Hellcat, and also the weight difference.

Just thoughts tho, I have no evidence for any of this..

If anyone has turn times for the Hellcat, pls post them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS I love the 'Cats' ingame. Proper tactics and teamwork make short work of the Japanese fighters. I remember a rocket attack on the enemy targets with 8 of us in Hellcats on Ukded2. We won the map in no time. Icefire was there, and also Jarhead if you guys remember. On the map with 2 Islands close together.

R_Target
03-23-2007, 11:37 AM
I'm not sure if turn times were measured. There doesn't seem to be much talk about it in testing docs. Here's some info from the 1944 Zeke 52 test:

http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/8480/f6turnyu8.gif

VW-IceFire
03-23-2007, 04:51 PM
RE: The use of the word "docile" in describing the stall behavior of the Hellcat. You could use that term to describe the Hellcat in the game depending on what your impression of docile is. If the test pilots made this comment after flying the Corsair, the P-40 and P-39 then its small wonder that the Hellcat suddenly becomes docile.

Its still a high performance prop fighter...fighters are not going to be inherently docile to the point of being so utterly forgiving that it can do all sorts of things and not bite you back. Except maybe the most modern of jet fighters with all of the computer controls.

I think the expectation is a bit high here. I think I know where it comes from and thats the lack of stall warning and that comes from a lack of modeling the seat of the aircraft in our chairs so we can't feel the plane. Sadly its hard to model that....perhaps better use of sound.

Ratsack
03-24-2007, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
...

I think the expectation is a bit high here. I think I know where it comes from and thats the lack of stall warning and that comes from a lack of modeling the seat of the aircraft in our chairs so we can't feel the plane. Sadly its hard to model that....perhaps better use of sound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to agree with you about high expectations. One of the things that helps here is a good force feedback joystick. The buffeting of the incipient stall gives you some of the warning the real pilot had. Its onset is quite different for different planes, too.

M$FFB2 here.

cheers,
Ratsack

ImpStarDuece
03-24-2007, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Late F6F-3 and all F6F-5 Hellcats were powered by
the P&W R-2800-10W.
Rated dry at 2,000 @ 2700 rpm "WEP" or Military
power settings, and 2,300 hp with water methanol.
The R-2800-10W had a two stage two speed
gear driven supercharger that delivered excellent
power to over 20,000 feet altitude.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=r280010wpoweroutputsf6fyi7.jpg

FAA testing gives the following output figures for the -10W:

2125 hp WEP @ 58" manifold

2250 hp WEP @ 62" manifold

Pauxtent River testing gives the following:

Brake horsepower available:
High Blower 1942 2015 2078 2140
Low Blower 2108 2185 2250 2315
Manifold pressure - ins. Hg.
High Blower 57.7 60.0 62 63.8
Low Blower 58.1 60.3 62.2 64.1

Probably differences in atmospheric conditions

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Above 10,000' altitude a F6F should easily
out climb any Zero (A6M-#) that saw combat.
Even at sea level it should be able to out run
and as a result, out climb a Zero at any speed
above 200mph.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAIC says different.

The A6M5 they tested (which was experiancing some engine trouble and was ~17 mph down on top speed) outclimbed their F6F-5 until 14,000 feet.

The climb of the F6F was then 250-500 ft/min better, depending on altitude.

JG52Karaya-X
03-24-2007, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
F6F absolutely eats the 109s in a properly co-ordinated turn at a fair average speed. The 109 can still pull a bit better in the really slow speed range but this range is almost unusable as the Hellcats turn on the whole is better than most European opponents. I was genuinely surprised at first but then it started to make sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends against which version of the 109, the F4 and G2 will eat the Hellcat alive, if you compare it against our 10% undermodelled G6 then of course its a far worse competition. With a fixed G6 we would have the 109 outturning the Hellcat a slow speeds and at least matching it at higher.

Blutarski2004
03-24-2007, 05:23 AM
FWIW, Mike William's WW2 aircrcraft performance site has a LOAD of historical testing data on the Hellcat series.

Worth a look.

R_Target
03-27-2007, 12:56 AM
The stall/spin behaviour in the F6F is a little puzzling.