• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Scourge of the Pacific

Mumbles

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
5,156 victories (4797 by carrier-based F6F's) vs 270 lost in air-to-air combat (19.1:1 kill ratio);


305 Aces;


55 per cent of all aircraft destroyed by Navy/Marine aviators for all of WW2;


When WW2 began, the US fighter force (land- and sea-based) was woefully inadequate. Slow in speed and maneuvering, out powered in the climb, often times out-gunned and certainly outnumbered, the fighters that oversaw the US entry into the war were relics of an earlier age, even though most were relatively new production. P-40, F2A, F4F - even the vaunted P-38 all suffered various degrees of inadequacy. In the European Theater of Operations (ETO), the P-47 and ultimately the P-51 would rise to the top of the pile, asserting an ironclad air supremacy that knocked the Luftwaffe from its home skies. In the Pacific Theater - it was the Grumman F6F and specifically the F6F-3 and -5 models that gave the fast carrier task force its lethal offensive counter-air punch.



Begun in February 1938 as an improved derivative of the XF4F- 2 in which the Wright R-2600 replaced the R-1830, the F6F saw a fitful development period, not altogether surprising in light of the pre-war economic austerity that typified American planning prior to WW2. Development work ceased in late 1938 as emphasis had to be given over to the F4F while the design of its follow on proved especially problematic (in particular, the mating of the R-2600 to the relatively simple F4F airframe.


By 1940, the feedback coming from the war in Europe made it clear to Grumman that the current performance of the F4F would have to be dramatically improved to meet the threat. Work began anew on the dormant Design 33/33A. But Grumman wasn't alone in this endeavor - over at Vought, the XF4U-1 was taking form and Curtiss was busy with the XF14C. Of the three, the Navy favored the XF4U which seemed to be further along than the others. As such, Grumman had pretty much of a free hand in working on the XF6F. Ditching the last vestiges of the F4F design, the Grumman team moved on to a larger, heavier aircraft that that bore faint resemblance to the F4F. In turn, the new design emphasized ease of production and maintenance, better forward visibility, a wider track landing gear, increased range (by over 300 nm), airspeed and armor. Liking what it saw, the Navy ordered two prototypes on 30 Jun 1941, coincident with the F4U being ordered into production. While the first prototype was fitted with the R-2600, all subsequent models were fitted with the more capable Pratt & Whitney R-2800. Immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Navy placed an order for 1080 F6F's to be powered by the R-2600 and delivered Sept 42. Subsequent orders brought the total to over 12,000 F6F's built and delivered - all at the Bethpage plant. (ed. during one of the delivery missions to pick up a new Hawkeye from the plant at Bethpage, YHS had the opportunity to take a plant tour and saw the presses that were used for the production of the F6F - which was then being used for new production aircraft including the E-2. - SJS)


The XF6F-2 prototype first flew on 26 Jun 42 - only a couple of weeks after the defeat administered to the IJN at Midway. Trials continued until August when it was modified to XF6F-3 configuration with the conversion to the more powerful R-2800. Flight trials with the first and second prototypes continued apace and were relatively trouble--free save the teething problems with the new R-2800 and a tail flutter condition during high-speed dives which was solved by strengthening the rear fuselage. The first production model flew that October and by January 1943, were entering operational status beginning with VF-9, based at NAS Oceana, VA and assigned to the lead ship of the next class of carrier, the Essex (CV 9). The first air-to-air victory came in the very first combat employment on 31 Aug 43 by LT Richard Loesch during an attack on Marcus Island. The rest - as they say, was history.

ww2-75usn_pilots_return.jpg


 

Junkball

"I believe in ammunition"
pilot
Companion Picture

Beyond_Darkness_June_20_1944.jpg

LT Alexander Veraciu was the Navy's 4th highest scoring ace in the Pacific, shooting down 19 Japanese aircraft. During the Marianas Turkey Shoot, he knocked down 6 Judys, using only 60 rounds per kill!

http://www.iart7.com/WARBIRDS/gallery5c.html

So why was the Hellcat such an improvement over the F4F? Bigger engine, faster, better climb, better armed and armored... was it more maneuverable too?
 

Pugs

Back from the range
None
So why was the Hellcat such an improvement over the F4F? Bigger engine, faster, better climb, better armed and armored... was it more maneuverable too?

Not just faster but 50 kts faster which was a lot of % faster, 100 miles better range clean and 400 more with a drop tank, almost twice as fast a climb rate and much more maneuverable, the first fighter we had that could turn with a zero. It was light years ahead of the Wildcat.

The Bearcat even more so if it had seen service.
 

bunk22

Super *********
pilot
Super Moderator
Bearcat would have owned the George. The Hellcat was the machine but like all things air-comat, its total kills is most likely overblown by 3:1. Takes nothing away from the aircraft and pilots but in the confusion of battle, scores were a bit exaggerated. For example, there was an engagement towards the end of the war where a dozen Hellcats engaged a like number of Ki-100's, the advanced Tony...one of the best fighters of the war. The Hellcat pilots thought they were Franks of course. The Hellcat crews claimed 9 kills (one of the Navy's leading aces claimed his last 4 for a total of 19) vs the Japanese claims of 10. Actual losses, 2 on each side. Of those, 4 total lost, two had a mid-air. So only 1 Ki-100 and 1 Hellcat were actually shot down. This wasn't always the case of course but it did happen quite a bit. A few of our aces are not in fact aces. No need to bring them down after the fact, it is what it is.

John B. Lunstrom has done the definitive work of very accurate and detailed air to air combat between US Navy and MC and the Japanese from Feb 42 to Nov 42. He was meticulous in his research and wrote two excellent books. In his book concerning the Guadacanal campaign (7 Aug to 15 November 1942), the USN claimed 193 kills (fighter, bombers, torpedo, dive bombers, float planes, etc) with an estimated 102 actual kills. The Marines were worse, with 373 total kills claimed vs an actual 137 shot down. No exact numbers for the Japanese but it was along the magnitude of 5 to 10 times overclaiming. Another example is the Flying Tigers, claimed around 296 kills while actual score was around 115-120 shot down. Just more useless trivia.
 
Top