F6F Hellcat vs Japanese Zero
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 авг 2015
- Japanese Zero Pilot Rob Hertberg and F6F Hellcat Pilot Chris Rushing's presentation about the Hellcat and Zero during the war in the Pacific. Produced by Jarel & Betty Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors www.pvseniors.org
I just love this channel and these presentations.
F6 Hellcats and F4 Corsairs were also used by the Royal Navy. In one pilot's memoir he mentioned how he had little regard for the Zero, calling them "flying matchboxes" since they lit up so easily!
But there is one Zero that was hit by 78 50.cal bullet and was still flown, sometimes Zero can survive like this or not.
@@yoseipilot depends if you hit the fuselage of not. If you don't hit that. The Zero will probably be just fine.
I have a friend who is certified in airframe, fabric and engine maintenance. He worked for Lefty Gardner of the Confederate Air Force rebuilding WW2 airplanes. He told me that the Japanese reverse engineered the Howard Hughes' racing airplane, including wear in the engine. I can't say whether he was right or wrong.
I like your comment concerning osmosis. JU 87 WAS developed by Germany from observation of the demonstration Billy Mitchell's use of Dive bombing battleships. The whole world was watching each other's mid-war militaries development
Great video!
Hellcat's could splash the early models of the light weight zero in a steep dive because the zero needed more altitude to pull out of steep dive like a hellcat. Loved the video...S~
Bills Hardy's thoughts are right on.. Same exact statements my friend use to tell me.. My friend Bud was in the Army Air Corp before the war, and there were no Jobs in the private sector.. Bud went on to fly 31 missions in Europe, piloting a B-24.. Went from pushing a broom in a blimp hanger in California. (Born in Oregon) to Flying a Silver B-24 with 4 blade paddle props in the lead group of Planes on D-day. Right next to the Col. flying Red Ass. Leading the whole 8th air force. Buds plane was the Heine Hunter..
It was his Birthday yesterday Aug,18th 1920, and he would of been 95 years old. Died two years ago, but is greatly missed by all that knew him...
The argument down the page is light vs strong. The Zero flew apart when 50 cal hit it. Simple. When 20mm hit the Hellcat, the damage was mostly negligible. It took many more hits to take one out.
stupid: a 20mm projectile as a massive destroy power, that's known sinze the battle of France: only ONE SINGLE 20mm shot with the Hispano Suiza HS404 cannon from MS406, Dewoitine D520 or Bloch 152 was able to destroy a Bf109...(but they had only 60 shot drum magazines)
There is Zero that was hit by 78 50.cal bullet and was still flown
20 mm round is twice the size of a .50 cal so that is saying something about the US planes if that's true. Not to mention all the pilot armor around the cockpit and resealable fuel tanks.
Gerald Wagster ,,...It took a lot more hits to take you out...''? This is too stupid to say that! SBD, SB2C (Dive Bomber) and TBF (Torpedo Bomber) was shot down by 7.7 mm, so Hellcat would also be shot down by 7.7 mm.
The Senior Citizens of the Peninsula arent like most senior citizens.....
From the F4 toF6 and even the Corsair US military built planes with protection of the pilots. Self sealing fuel tanks and pilot training and rotation.
US was more of utilizing economy of force philosophy.
Next A7M, the next version of Zero, to compare it is a better plane than other planes.
It would have been nice to have explained the reasons for the lopsided kill ratio against F-6F That we captured a zero in Alaska brought it back and reverse engineered it to design the F-6F
Unlike the Germans that kept building and training to the end, the Japanese lost most of those pilots in the first year and replacements were substandard who never lasted long enough to become veterans. I think well trained US pilots would have done very well against them even in Wildcats, because the numbers and skill advantage would have overcome the weaker airplane.
Hellcat 150 mph faster than the Zero ? That would make the Hellcat speed at 500 mph !~ Not likely. Top speed of the Hellcat was about 380 mph. Ron T.
You're only considering level flight. In a bounce aircraft are limited in speed by airframe strength and controls effectiveness. Read up on "compressibility" of aircraft at that time (P-38, P-47, etc.,).
It all depends on altitude.. (air density)
So diving from hight the top speed may differ Grumman to the zero it can building more E.
The lightweight zero and it’s low lift ratio wing will not let you go fast.. you need to clip the wings (-;
300 for the Zero and 414 for the Hellcat on a level flight
150 difference is easy to achieve thing.
300 knots for the zero is a speed that was recorded by American fliers on a captured aircraft. Since they only had one such aircraft they were pretty careful with it. The japanese pilots indicated that the plane was capable of 320 to 330 knots when flown flat out.
F6F is heavier and cannot be maneuvered better
@@yoseipilot doesn't matter at medium and have high altitudes the hellcat could old perform zero all-day
BS you guys keep telling to yourself over and over again.
1. Light (implied weak) construction - If you read what actual WWII pilots write, those who actually tested the Zero, they unanimously write it's quite strong. Yes, it was light, but not particularly weak.
2. Weak armament - Are you joking? A pair of 20 mm cannons is weak? Yes, the 7.7s were not enough to down a tough plane reliably, but all those testers I read unanimously (again) say something like "Oh, I get it. Mgs for ranging and cannons for punch." Hellcat had weak armament! Proper fighters carried cannons.
3. Climb rate vs. Hellcat - Zero could climb with Spits! They tested it. Pilots themselves wrote that the Zero is (to put it simply) superior aircraft below 22000 feet, if I remember correctly. Anyway, under most typical combat conditions WWII pilots rated Zero above the Spit ("outclassed" is how they put it). 1942-43ish. Hellcats could not climb with Spits.
4. *Claimed* victories vs. confirmed losses - That's total BS. You can't compare that. And what you *really* can't do is to compare a claimed victories against enemy aircraft and *imply it was against the Zero*. That's just gross.
5. When they specified victories against fighters, they "forgot" to mention that Japanese planes at this time (Turkey Shoot) were piloted by rookies, who didn't even understand high speed control lockup. Saburo Sakai trained them, and he said so himself. They were green! (Which is obvious from what they quote - "Japanese pilots did not attempt to defend themselves.", but they do not make it clear for the audience.) Propaganda BS.
6. If Hellcat was so good, why Mustang?
7. If Zero was so bad, how come it swooped the floor with Spits over Darwin?
8. If American engineering was so great, why did they had to adopt British standards to produce the truly amazing post-war Mustang-H? Significantly lighter one... And this is the best American fighter we are talking about here.
You guys won with superior production and organisation, but not necessarily with engineering.
The Zero was the best carrier borne fighter of the war. Japanese lost despite of it, not because of it. Hellcats won despite being a heavy lumbering mediocrity, not because being a truly inspiring achievement. You didn't stick to it yourselves, so stop pretending it was the second coming.
Dude the Hellcat absolutely destroyed the Zeros..the kill rate was like 18 Zeros to 1 Hellcat...and that is most factual...so stop kidding yourself thinking the Zero was all that...and yes American engineering was dominant from Lockheed and McConnell Douglas...and the only things Brits contribuition was changing the motor in the Mustang from an Allison to a Merlin
gdub454 Dude, just read what I wrote. They compare actual combat losses against claimed victories, and even further imply that downed planes were all Zeros. Weird but not uncommon, especially for Americans. During (and after) Vietnam they went much further than that.
What's so hard in admitting that men won the war, not their toys?
bakters
Nothing wrong with saying men won WWII..but what do those same men achieve without those "toys" ?...they have to go hand in hand..
gdub454 Of course men need weapons to fight, but they do not necessarily need superior weapons to win. I read an argument, that Hellcat was not necessary at all. That Americans could win with Wildcats, and practically won the war already by the time Hellcats appeared.
Imagine that actually happened, then everybody would argue that Wildcats were at least equal if not better than Zeros, which does not make much sense to me at all. They could even back it up with kill ratios, claimed vs, actual, and without accounting for tactical or numerical superiority, pilot training, group tactics, radios and other actually important factors.
bakters
Well kind of silly to "what if" and assume what could've happened..doesnt do much..