My Dad was a VMF-121 Corsair pilot on Peleliu and was carrier rated. He had some time flying Hellcats as well. He greatly preferred flying the Corsair over the Hellcat.
John Buchman --My Dad was an infantry Marine on Peleliu (5th Marines), and was mighty glad that the Corsairs were in the fight. The close air support was impressive and deadly, in a physical setting so tight that spent shell casings fell on he and the other friendlies.
@@cardinalRGI believe that was the site of the shortest air-ground missions with Corsairs taking off from a newly captured airstrips that was still taking fire, barely going wheels up when it was time to drop ordnance on Japanese positions loop around, land, and do it again. My guess is, any of those Marine pilots would have loved an AU-1 about then cannons, rockets, 4400lb payload, and the short distance they were flying anyways would have more than made up for the 240mph top speed.
Make no mistake. Had the Hellcat or Cosair regularly gone up against the Germans, they would have had further development. But they `only` had to overpower the Japanese who were outclassed in every aviation term. Not to say it was easy, but `sufficient` was enough.
@@simonevans8979 that's an irrelevant observation. 1) those adaptations would take development and testing time, as Greg mentioned, 2) by 1944 the Germans were losing the attrition war, they couldn't rollout in significant numbers the great planes they had designed. Think Me 262, 163, Arado 234, even Dornier 335, Heinkel 219. By 1945 US engineers were still lagging behind. Hence the race against the Soviets to snatch German engineers for their space programs. The only area where the US was leading by and large, is nuclear physics and the A-bomb. People say it's because the most notable scientists in the field were Jews, foremost of whom was Heisenberg. Otherwise they would have led in that field as well.
I'm from Germany and I have several HOBBY MASTER 1/48 scale models of FW190 BF 109 and a CORSAIR standing by each other. And it is kind of spooky listening to your awesome podcast while at the same time watching those planes. I can't tell how much I enjoy your work. Without bias simply pure truth. Thank you for your time and effort to make those podcasts.
In a way 1/48 is the optimal scale. It's small enough to fit on any shelf, but large enough to see details like exhaust stacks and even cockpit gauges.
@@RadMax8this is one of the model's that I have from hobby master. www.hobbymastercollector.com/HA7424.html It's maybe a lame excuse but I'm to shakey to build it by my own ok I don't have the patience anymore too. 1 to 48 is simply awesome. Hope that your model will be awesome.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 1/72 is nice but 1/48 gives a better perspective of the size. As I wrote having those aircraft side by side I realized it much better than watching at a picture how big or actually giant for example the P47 really was. The Me 109 G in comparison to the P47D is simple a wtf moment. And you can really see it if you have them side by side. I remember reading Günther Rall biography when he visited the Luftwaffe Unit Zirkus Rosarius that had captured allied aircraft. He wrote that sitting in the cockpit of the P47 was something special. No german fighter had so much room in the cocktip like the P47. Till I bought the model's I really didn't understand why he was so impressed. Now I get it.
About that one engagement on 1:14:00, I managed to get a look at the FAA after-action report and a translation of the Luftwaffe after-action report on May 8, 1944 over Norway. I agree that we probably can't draw much in the way of conclusions about it, since the after-action reports more or less show us how unfamiliar each side was with how to handle the other's aircraft (for the FAA) and the other's aircraft in general (for the Luftwaffe). Still, it is pretty interesting to see how each side reacted. The dogfight was between Fleet Air Arm Hellcats from No. 800 Sqn, HMS Emperor, and JG5, which was operating a majority of Bf 109Gs and a minority of Fw 190As. JG5's after-action report survives in addition to 800 Sqn's, so we actually do know what happened and there was only one over-claim, which we'll get to later. Using both reports, a flight of Bf 109Gs got the drop on half a dozen Hellcats, destroying one almost immediately. However, the Bf 109G pilots made a fairly serious blunder and tried out-diving the Hellcats. Two of four 109Gs quickly went down, confirmed by both 800 Sqn and JG5. One further 109G reported "light damage", with the aircraft flying in the number two position undamaged. However, that's not where things end. The flight of Bf 109Gs was clearly beaten, which was witnessed by a flight of Fw 190As. They in turn dove on the Hellcats, with altitude being a genuine advantage (as opposed to a pretty bad mistake) since the FAA had pursued the Bf 109Gs downward. JG5's pilots hit and severely damaged at least two Hellcats (with one of these being likely mistaken for a kill and the other, which was almost certainly the second Hellcat lost, being damaged by Flak as well), but, possibly owing to the Fw 190A pilots' unfamiliarity with the type, one of the Hellcats actually climbed to meet the Fw 190As, destroying one and severely damaging another. This surprised the Fw 190A pilots, who--again, flying the entire Luftwaffe's first encounter with the Hellcat--did not expect an aircraft that had been mostly diving at the 109Gs to climb after them. Apparently, both sides gave each other enough of a bloody nose that following the two Fw 190A engagements, the FAA and Luftwaffe broke off. The only discrepancy as far as over-claims when comparing after-action reports is the Luftwaffe claiming a third Hellcat, which, as I stated, is one I believe the Fw 190A pilots believe they got. At least one Hellcat had been engaging a Bf 109G and landed more or less shot to pieces after breaking off that pursuit, and I have a hunch it may have been this aircraft the Fw 190A pilots believe they got. Also, the erasing history bit on the USCGC Taney is a disgrace.
Yep, time spent on his videos is more well spent than most RUclips Aviation Videos, Documentaries and aviation magazines. Funnily enough I was reading about the test about a month ago in the German Flugzeug Classic special Issue on the FW-190. (One of a few, I think it was the issue on the A-6, which includes the early G and F versions.) Reminds me I need to send him some of their stuff on the A-4 and the outside intakes, which were used, just very rarely and sadly were not followed up.
The performance difference can also be largely be explained by the larger propeller props...You can see the effect on PC fans...A 120mm fan is more efficient than a 80mm fan spinning faster at pushing are because the blades are covering a larger volume of air on a 120mm.
Always enjoy your videos! I am not a pilot, but a native german speaker so here is the translation of the two notes at 29:18: Left: "Speed with consideration for the error of the speed indicator due to compressibility" right: "Speed without consideration for error of the speed indicator due to compressibility" So this appears to be left: EAS, right: either IAS or CAS. Unfortunately, it is not apparent to me whether the right one contains any other error corrections and I can't really make out the equations in the parentheses. Maybe they can give you more information. I would also point out that after the war many of the aviation standards used in the german language might have changed due to international standardization. Don't hesitate if you have any questions or other questions regarding translations.
Taney crew here. That's her in my thumbnail from the stern in the North Atlantic, taken with my Kodak. WHEC stands for Coast Guard ship (W) - High Endurance Cutter HEC. Coast guard aircraft use H for aircraft as in the HH3-F helicopter or the HU-25A Falcon Fan Jet. H being the aircraft and U for utility. We could get on scene quick at t/s .85 mach, depressurize and open the drop hatch making a bombing run with pumps, flares and marker beacon as well as using loud speaker system located in the hell hole door! Don't know how audible it was below two Garret ATF's! I spent 2 years onboard Taney in the early 80's and weathered Hurricane Jeanne Nov. 1980. Greg, Taney served in Korea and Vietnam and then Weather stations maintaining Doppler Radar cover before all the satellites took over. She kept working and never stopped. She is responsible for saving many lives that surely would have been lost at sea or land. While I was onboard we pulled dozens of people from the water or sinking vessel. The Taney is the embodiment of the USCG and it is shameful that they have struck HER Name from the stern and record. I glad it bothered you because it burns my ass everyday and always will. What a disgraceful act against this National Historic Landmark and her service to this country.
Thanks for your awesome comment. The name change obviously bothers me as well. A few commenters here support the name change, but they are in the minority by a huge margin.
Geez, there almost needs to be a separate video detailing the differences in all the variants of all the aircraft involved. This can’t be easy work Greg, you’re doing a good job :)
Every aircraft made in WW2 has so many variants and sub variants it'll make your head spin, could you imagine the logistics of having to keep track of all the different parts for them? I'll bet the maintenance people drank a lot.
@@jadedengineer B-239E was lighter with a more powerful engine than the F2A-1! Kill ratio across all of the Finnish Brewsters ("Flying Beer Bottles") was 32 kills to 1 loss!!!!
@@damienmaynard8892 Brewster was too hard to say for those day Finns who does not use letter like B. So there are it's nicknames: Ryysteri, Perse Tynnyri (=arse barrel) 😄
It's a much better plane than it's given credit for. It just tended to operate in contexts that were... unfavorable... There's only so much you can do when you have rookie pilots with no early warning, lousy airfields, and no spare parts and are fighting battle hardened veterans who outnumber you 4-1.
Hi Greg, I re-visted this video after watching your newest video on the Ki-84. You did an awesome job overall with the bulk of the content being accurate and presented in the right context. However, I just want to clarify a couple details, even though this shouldn't change the conclusions you eventually arrived at in the video. First, the data presented in the NACA roll chart for the F6F-3 is actually a modified version with spring-tab ailerons, which gave it a roll performance similar to the F6F-5. The original ailerons had a higher peak rate by up to 10 deg/sec @ 260 mph, but rates fell off rapidly after this point, eventually being some 30 deg/sec slower at 400 mph than rates achieved with spring-tab ailerons. This information can be found in NACA report L5C23 which is downloadable from the NASA website. Secondly, the Corsair didn't have provisions for two external wing tanks until the advent of the F4U-1D sub-variant, this being sometime during the spring of 1944 (however, the first 300 could only carry one wing drop tank as the other pylon was used exclusively for bombs). The early F4U-1A only had provisions for a single centerline drop tank. The Hellcat was different, as there is a well-known photograph of Cdr James Flatley of CVAG-5 flying an F6F-3 with both wing and centerline tanks during the Hellcat's combat debut on August 31, 1943. So it was capable of carrying three external drop tanks months before the Corsair. I mention all of this because It seems like you were concerned with only discussing the performance of the various aircraft within the context of 1943. Again, I know this doesn't change anything concerning the outcome of your analysis but I felt they were details still worth bringing to your attention. I look forward to enjoying more of your excellent content!
Getting back to my previous reply about Hellcats fighting the Luftwaffe. I had to eat supper.I'm baaacckkk!! While the CorsIar only saw service with the Navy and Marines in the pacific as well as the Royal New Zealand Air Force in WWII,the Fleet Air Arm used both the Corsair and Hellcat in both theaters in WW2. They replaced the Blackburn Skua and Roc in Frontline Carrier Service after 1943. They still used the Sea Hurricane as well as the Superarine Seafire until the end of the war. In fact,the FAA still used the Seafire until the end of the Korean War. If you can find a copy of Aviation History from 2021,there's a cover story about it.
My great grandfather flew Corsairs for over a year. He swapped to Fw 190s when War Thunder nerfed the Corsair. He sadly passed on to World of Warcraft nearly two years ago.
Your relaxed and polished voice make listening to these quite enjoyable. Sometimes I lay here in bed just listening to the information that comes through you verbally and gives me insight into your comforting personality and mind. As a broken down old Vietnam Vet I thank you for the peace you have given me during these last days I have.
I sure hope Greg reads this amazing comment. Wishing you many blessings, Db. I hope you find comfort and peace knowing that God loves you and is watching over you.
UK Royal Navy deployed both Hellcat and Corsair on RN Fleet and Escort Carriers, there were attacks on Tirpitz when it was skulking in a Norwegian Fyord and they encountered Ms 109s and FW190s who defended Tirpitz
As always, fascinating and full of information. On Roger Taney, he is actually quite notorious in history, for authoring the Dred Scott decision (and arm-twisting a number of colleagues on the Supreme Court to support him, and co-ordinating the ruling with the President-Elect James Buchanan) which was one of the factors which led pretty directly to the Civil War. I know a lot of folks these days don't study history, or not very closely, but Taney deserves to be remembered because of his awful ruling. I for one know how you feel about these constant interruptions from people trying to re-write history, and I would argue that it's important to keep the name precisely because of Taney's notoriety. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, so to speak.
I know this isn't a new upload, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate that you don't treat your subscribers as though they are idiots. And for people who are just tuning in, you make it clear that it's their responsibility to get up to speed. Your channel is like taking a course in aviation with everything put into context. The only problem is that after absorbing the wealth of knowledge that you impart it's very difficult not to see the deficiencies and shortcomings of other popular content creators. As a mechanic I appreciate the effort you make to educate people. People are lazy unfortunately and don't want to think too hard. But for those who have a love of learning and appreciate real knowledge and attention to detail on aviation and history you have no peers.
My father was duty officer of VF-81 on the Wasp, which flew F6F-5s on the Wasp so I’ve read a bunch about them. I believe Grumman built the plane as an OJT fighter with plenty of armor to give young pilots a second chance.
Absolutely stellar video. Thank you so much. My pop flew both planes (WW2 and Korea). Aboard USS Cabot (CVL28) during WW2, he spent many hours filleting (tear dropping) the heads of the universal rivers on his Hellcat towards the end of reducing drag/increasing airspeed. Anything for an advantage and I’d guess to also kill boredom between CAPs and sorties. He did this using shoe wax, naphtha and a butter knife from the Officers Mess. As well, he bribed aircraft handlers to tip and shake his Hellcat when his centerline auxiliary tank was being fueled. This allowed every cubic inch of space to be filled with fuel. His fear of the Japanese paled in comparison to his fear of sharks.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I’m pretty sure he learned the fueling trick from more experienced fliers or the fuelers. He told me that as the Hellcat’s advantages over most enemy aircraft became evident and as that number of enemy aircraft began to wane and the Hellcat’s role evolved away from that of ranging fleet defense to that of ‘dump truck’ (his words, not mine), fewer and fewer external fuel tanks were simply ejected as a matter of course once emptied. He once shared with me how unremarkable the difference between flying the F6F with or without the tank, or an array of external ordnance, actually was. This characteristic is a notable difference between the Hellcat and the Corsair, which he maintained lacked good control surface authority across most iterations of it and throughout it’s service life and anything and everything it carried altered its trim. When I was a lad in the 60’s, among my my dad’s other duties at NAS Twin Cities was the role of Special Services Officer. He saw fit to acquire and keep maintained one (late model) F4U for recreational flying. A nicety for old timers like himself and something fun for the A4 community to blow off steam doing after Sunday mass while the kids swam. Even then, the plane retained it’s reputation as one requiring maximum attention to operate safely. Especially on the ramp (wing walkers) and through transitional flight phases near the deck. As for the rivet thing, I got the impression that profiling those was something he came up with himself. I know this... on the rare occasion someone else ended up flying 7, (his assigned plane) it irritated him greatly but as a JG he had no practical or technical say over who flew what plane. The matter of aviators having a plane which was their ‘own’ so to speak was not steadfast or always a decided matter aboard CVLs as there simply wasn’t the space for a slew of replacement AC or the abundance personnel to maintain the level of readiness squadrons benefitted aboard the larger carriers. Once Cabot’s Air Groups transitioned to being comprised solely of Hellcats, naturally the likely readiness of any one particular fighter increased. This is to be expected when every spare part aboard is for the same type of aircraft and a reason why virtually no carriers had more than one issue of fighter at a time. As you correctly pointed out in your (again, very well done) video, despite sharing the same power plant (P&W R2800), the differing quick change modules for the Hellcat and the Corsair rendered them completely incompatible with one another. Another reason he wanted to fly his ‘Zebra 7’ is that he had the convergence range of that plane’s Browning’s recalibrated to his liking. Then of course there was the photo of my mom taped above the clock on his instrument panel.
I greatly appreciate the enormous depth of detail and knowledge of your report. The Corsair is a personal favourite. I had hoped that the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm Corsairs would have engaged in combat the Luftwaffe's counterparts. But, history is truth made prose. A suggestion for a future presentation: How would the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" USAAF Fighter and the Grumman F7F "Tigercat" U.S. Navy Carrier-based Fighter have compared in both performance and combat?
For what it's worth ( I know, I know.....) I am with you on your comments at the end about removing the name from the Coastguard cutter. As always thought provoking stuff. Have a good day!
I love your entire P-47 series, too. I've watched it several times over. Were I a fighter pilot in WWII I'd have probably wanted to be assigned one. The P-38 is a close second. Speaking of which...have you done a video on the Lightning?
Yes, that surprised me too. I had never imagined such ordinary, sensible, things were important in war. Now we imagine how serious it is to have the same name as a former slaver. At least John Newton has escaped so far. These are very educational videos illuminating topics we rarely think of properly. Certainly not in a place where we needed to get up and at them, for all of 90 minutes.
@@robmarsh6668 When I read this comment, all I could think about was some old-school suburban dad in a wood paneled station wagon ranting about the values of practicality. Lol “You kids might not realize it now, but when you grow up you’ll see it’s a much more sensible choice! The retail savings are first class, and don’t even get me started on the gas mileage!” Except we’re talking about Warbirds instead of Edsels. 😂
When history is Erased, no one will know to NOT repeat those mistakes. History is a effective Guide on what NOT To Do, & should be taught, remembered & respected Worts & all for the lessons that it can teach.
Unfortunately People want to try the same failure again believing that there is something "special" about themselves and they can't fail. So they have to erase or "adjust" history to suit their need to fool people into going along with it yet again.
And President Trump started the 1776 commission to CORRECTLY teach U.S. history, That was one of the first items President Biden cancelled his first day.......
Swoop... would you have expected anything less from our recently erected Socialists? I heard on the news today that one of the first EOs he signed is to allow gender dysfunctional students to compete in any interscholastic sport they choose to conform with the gender they PREFER to be, not their biological/genetic gender. And I know all the cultural anthropologists are screaming that gender is all in one's mind...
Fantastic documentary. The ease of maintenance is a big factor on aircraft carriers. That is so true. But still - the F4U is such a beast. The range, the speed, the load-out. And thanks for mentioning the armor protection layout of the Navy fighters. I have never heard of that before. That and the lovely chosen pictures. I really enjoy watching your videos.
Nash license built R-2800s both during WWII and production was restarted during Korea. Later when the portion of the plant used for aero engine production was converted to automotive production the Tool Room* that supported that part of the plant was located in the former test cells where engines** were run up with a full size prop on them. The cells had circular areas where the props ran. Above the bosses desk there was a full color cutaway drawing of the R-2800 with the complete induction system. I've always wondered what happened to it. *A Tool Room is a machine shop as in Tool and Die Makers. It is not a place where tools are handed out. **Nash Kelvinator was the largest producer of props in the US during WWII
I was a navigator at sea, hold a degree in shipping and had a shoreside sailing career buying & operating ships. You are the FIRST non-maritime type in my lifetime that correctly stated the difference between a boat and a ship. This is a gripe among many in the "invisible" industry, one that puts 90% of everything you see in your room, IN that room! Thank you Sir! Golden rule = A ship can carry a boat, but a boat can't carry a ship. ⚓
I play my airplane games with altitude in metric so the numbers on the German charts seem intuitive to me but the American charts I always have to think for a bit as to what something like 5000 feet is roughly in meters. Always appreciate when Greg translates the numbers to metric as well.
The hellcat went up against the ME 109 once 4 fleet air arm hellcats we're bounced by six Me 109s. One hellcat was immediately shot down a few minutes later the last two surviving Me 109s broke off the engagement
@@12345fowler LOL!!! I dont know about that, I only know that the RAF overclaimed 3 to 1 during the BoB and that was whilst having access to the wrecks... ...and in 1941, when "leaning into France", the overclaiming became ridiculous, reaching SEVEN TO ONE!!!! And the RAF knew it, but decided to hide the fact in order to not demoralize the poor RAF pilots who were being mercilessly butchered by the LW at a FOUR TO ONE rate. The RAF was full of crap, keep that in mind when reading about the "mighty Spitfire" and imaginary "Stuka parties"....
On an almost unrelated tangent, the first place I came across “Equivalent Air Speed” is the SR-71. I forget why now, but the aircraft is operated by the pilot on “Knots Equivalent Air Speed”. There is a great interview of Maury Rosenberg who speaks about SR operations in length and their use of KEAS.
I think it’s because it flew so high and so fast that conventional methods of measuring speed that existed at the time didn’t necessarily work properly. Keep in mind that the OFFICIAL speed record for the SR-71 isn’t its actual top speed - it could go even faster than that, but exaxtly how fast remains highly classified (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was close to Mach 4).
@@z3r0_35 Yes that's the likely reason for using KEAS. The rumours of the SR/A-12 family being able to go faster than ~M3.2 I think are largely that. Sure they may have been able to make sprints to 3.3, 3.4 maybe even 3.5 depending upon atmospheric conditions (namely temperatures much lower than ISA),. However, the limiting factor was always the temperatures the J58 could handle internally (like any gas turbine engine). The operational limit that the pilot's flew to was a maximum compressor inlet temperature of 427 deg C. During NASA testing, the engine thrust was increased by 5% at the expense of a 20% shorter turbine life (the life-limiting component in the J58).
Greg you rock, my dad served on LSD 13 during Okinawa, Signalman 2nd class. He was topside all the time. (reloading 20's during air attack) And believing every second a suicide/something would tear them in two. Your research is spot on.
One other comment: I do voice over work professionally and I really enjoy your conversational delivery. Rather than the stilted narration of most RUclips presenters (many of whom pronounce the word "a" as AY, rather than correctly saying UH... so annoying!), you sound like you're just sitting in my living room having an extemporaneous chat. That's SO much better than listening to a lecture read off of a script.
Yes, it's airframe is good to 9Gs, the later manual only gives data to 7Gs as it was sort of a standardized USN maximum rather than an actual structural limit.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The amusing thing is the USN still has a 7.5G limit for fighters. This is why both the Classic and Super Hornets are limited to 7.5G. Aerodynamically they are easily capable of 9G. Swiss Classic Hornets have some internal structural changes and have their limit set to 9G.
My 1973 RAAF Squadron technical officer - former pilot flew Mustangs in Korea. He said when they did practice air combat tactics against the RNZAF Corsairs they would lose because they could not sustain the energy manoeuvring capability of the more powerful Corsair. No chance against the RAN Sea Furies later on..
Yeah, Mustang has to be history's most over-rated plane. It had great range, and speed. The wrong plane to choose for CAS in Korea. They should have used the P47.
My father has been in magazines for many model builds(mostly german), but this brings me back to my young days watching Black Sheep Squadron with my dad. I loved that wing. We were stationed at Charleston back then when he was a LT in navy.
And in post war air shows the Blue Angels who were flying Hellcats often had staged dogfights with Bearcats standing in for IJN and IJA aircraft. The Hellcat pilots must of been thinking "oh what I could do to that F6F"
I just love every one of your videos, I go back and look at your charts and relisten to get the details I missed on the 1st few listens. I consider you a treasure.
Wooo, USCG Taney! I live near Baltimore and I've visited the Taney multiple times. I love her simple lines and her cool story. Sad that our history is being removed by sensitive people, she'll always be the Taney to me.
Justice Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision that is perhaps the most despicable opinion to come from the SCOTUS. This name is infamous in Maryland, where I live, and rightly so. It made the civil war significantly more likely, and provided an appalling justification for denying African Americans treatment as human beings. I love your careful scholarship, but you should consider that the Germans do not retain monuments to the authors of the crimes in their terrible past, nor should we.
Thanks very much for this, Greg. I've been waiting and hoping you'd get around to the Hellcat. I could bore everyone, including Greg, with a lengthy essay. I've been reading about Hellcats and Corsairs for about half a century, though my own military flight experience is limited to 20 minutes in the front seat of a T-6, a revelation to a non-pilot. My Dad flew both planes - a combat tour in 1944 in the F6F (he flew both the -3 and the -5) with VF-19 aboard the USS Lexington, and 9 months of training in 1945 in the F4U-4 with VBF-150. 600 hours in the Hellcat, 500 hours in the Corsair. Let me say the Brewster pilot testing the Buffalo's dive characteristics must have had nerves of steel -550 mph in a Buffalo seems insane. The comparison(s) between / among the 4 planes were really interesting. The air war in the Pacific was very different from the air war in Europe, and the differences in fighter planes reflects that - I'm not surprised that Greg's research turned up few instances of either Corsairs or Hellcats engaging Luftwaffe fighters. To keep this short, I won't comment on Greg's expertise regarding climb, dive and turn performance except to say that the F4U and F6F came out better in the comparisons than I anticipated. It's worth noting that the F6F had the largest wing of any single-engine WW2 fighter, and I'm sure that has a lot to do with its turn performance, low stall speed, and top speed. The F6F was renowned, during the war, for being - in relative terms - easy to maintain, and its flight availability was at or near the top of any WW2 fighter, whether land or carrier-based - usually 90% or better. Designed to be forgiving for a fighter plane, Grumman built the F6F that way on purpose. Paraphrasing a description of the time, it was "Built by shoe salesmen [i.e. nonprofessionals] to be flown by shoe salesmen [i.e., nonprofessionals]." I was glad to see you bring up the issue of cost. The Hellcat was, at least in relative terms, a true bargain in terms of "bang for the buck." One reason why range would have been an issue for Navy fighters in Europe is that task force commanders in the Pacific went to some trouble to put the carriers within 250 miles or so of their intended target(s), and the Hellcat, especially, was built with that in mind. That said, use of the 150-gallon centerline drop tank on the Hellcat became so common that I've read it came to be considered standard equipment. Whether Grumman thought the same I can't say. I'm not usually bothered by political correctness, but in this instance, I think Greg is spot-on regarding the re-naming of the Coast Guard cutter. I taught history for 30 years, and while Taney was not an admirable man, history is full of such people, and they can't all be erased, nor should they be. For those whose interest in WW2 fighters is more casual, 90 minutes may be more than they'd like, but I've been a WW2 fighter plane geek most of my life, so I didn't mind the length.
Another thing with the Hellcat it was designed for relative ease of production and assembly. As I understand it once past the cowl there are no compound curves on the airframe.
Ray, is it just me, or have you also noticed that the wing planform of the F6F appears to be virtually identical to that of the TBF/M, other than in actual size?
Wait....so you mean to say if I have (which I do) a 1200 horsepower 93 mustang notchback drag (race) car, it's not fair to compare it to the bone stock 93 mustang notchback I drive on the street? Huh, who would have ever thought that.....🤔
He also have to take a look at the fact that if the hellcat and Corsair were in Europe they would have been modified for land use no folding wings or arrester the hook That would have saved a lot of weight and improved performance
@@jamesricker3997 the Corsair was even faster than the Mustang and it shared the same engine with the Hellcat & Thunderbolt...also the Corsair & Hellcat being built for carrier landings it made them tougher....
@@jamesricker3997 I think they wouldn't have gone to that length to be honest, or do you have examples in mind where that happened? Arrestor hook removal, I could see maybe; take out the folding wing mechanism and replace by something simpler that still can take up the entire wing load in combat - I don't think so.
Nice historical caveat at the end of the video. I understand where you are coming from and can't say I disagree. As usual, a very informative and entertaining video.
Chart Translation: Speed when Factoring in the Readout Errors of the Speedindicator due to Compressability of Air. (left) Speed without Factoring in the Errenous Readout of the Indicator due to Compressability of Air. (right) left side is pure read out right side is corrected
My old school grades for history and English were very good, my grades for math and science quite the opposite. If I had to take engineering, mathematics, or physics courses again, I would pray that my teachers would be just like Greg. What a great instructor he must be!
CO Tom Blackburn's "Jolly Rogers" book on VF-17, who flew Corsairs, gives accounts of winning mock dogfights with P-51s and of fighting with Japanese Tonys (Ki-61) which performed and were armed similarly to mid-war Bf-109s. The Tonys were very dangerous opponents that were not easy to shoot down or escape. However the Corsairs were not facing them at high altitudes like the conflict in Europe required. Most of these battles were well below 20,000 ft and often on or near the deck. VMF-214 also faced them.
I recall reading an account, years ago, of a Corsair tangling with a Japanese fighter above 40,000 ft altitude when its guns stopped either from lack of ammunition or freezing. I don't remember which. In any event, the Corsair pilot racked up a victory by using his propeller to chew off his opponent's tail surfaces. Said Corsair pilot then made it back on board his home carrier. I'm sure his mount required considerable reconditioning, at least in the nose area.
Escort wasn't the only mission in the ETO. Typhoons, Beufighters, B-25s, and B-26s all fought at lower altitudes. Plus let's not forget the med as well Now of we want to get into what ifs you could imagine an F4U with fixed wings and a modified fuel system with longer range. As well as a fixed wing F6F with lighter armor and water injection which would be a turning monster.
Oh yes! There's much written about German vs British vs American vs Japanese, but few seem to recognise that there were other countries flying around in their own designs at the time. :-)
@@TheAngelobarker What relation? I do know that the Re.2000 was basically a modified, partly licensed copy of the P-35 (the P-47’s predecessor), but I don’t know of any relation to the P-47 directly.
the Italians....never lacked courage in pilots. they lacked high performing engines, and the aircraft were lightly armed. but the designs....freaking sweet!
@@thedeathwobblechannel6539 Italy's armed forces can best be described as great men equipped with guns ranging from subpar but serviceable to among the best in their class...led by dogshit officers and hamstrung by incompetent bureaucrats, corrupt politicians, and a lack of heavy industry to support it all. Put Italian troops under foreign command though, and they'll pull off miracles.
So well done Greg. I look forward to all of your videos, please do not shy away from adding even more details and deep dives, that's what really makes it interesting. Thanks!!
It's clear that while Grumman had initiated the design of the Hellcat before the extensive encounters with the Zero, the insights from pilots and the analysis of the Akutan Zero were significant. These provided valuable information that informed adjustments in the Hellcat's design, particularly in power output to handle extra weight without compromising on defensive features.
Retired Coastie here. W was the Naval designation for the Coast Guard, HEC stood for High Endurance Cutter, and the 37 was the hull number. Put all that together and you get WHEC-37. And I agree, the “renaming” makes no sense to me. Really enjoy the channel!
Regarding the removal of USCGC Taney name from the ship. 100% agree with your view on this. History is history. It's happened and is a Fact of Life. If it's upsetting then learn from it. Point being, move on.
Good one, Greg. I watched it all the way through! I have no real expertise, but nonetheless I tend to be impressed by pilot-friendly designs. Easy to fly, rugged, good armor protection - all these make me an armchair Hellcat fan. And, I believe I have learned from your (and other) videos that the varied conditions from one theatre of war to another bear heavily on how warplanes should be evaluated. Thanks for the enormous amount of work you put into this video.
Memorializing and remembering are not the same thing. Paying honors to people tends to result in glossing over controversial parts of their history, rather than remembering it. For example, for all the bitching about removing statues of Lee, his defenders completely overlook that he himself was against being memorialized in such a way. Statues and names are used to honor people, not remember them.
I have to agree with you argument for changing the name of the USCG Tanny...I have to add when we remove, destroy, or hide anything of historical value(in reference to monuments, grave sites, buildings, etc.), we are intentionally trying to hide or destroy our historically important past, and without knowing our past, good and bad, we can never improve on our past or worse we will end up repeating our past.
Wow I loved your one more thing! I have to say I am a black man (half but still have heritage and family that are) but more so I’m an American and I agree that renaming the Tanney is just really disrespectful to those that fought and died in her midst. I’ve never even heard of Tanney the person but have heard of this ship being a sort of war history buff myself. Very well said brother. Keep up the great work!
The overarching question is which of these four aircraft is the "coolest" looking? A factor we all know to be the most important. Hands down the F4U owns that. Hands down.
I agree that the Corsair is absolutely gorgeous and is certainly a more beautiful plane than the others...but I have to give the 109G some steampunk points for the intake and bulge on the fuselage, and that hard edged canopy.
@@Silverhks If we’re bringing in other planes, the P-51D and H are MATHEMATICALLY pleasing, being almost entirely made of conic sections. To this day, you will find few aircraft with comparable Zero Lift Drag Coefficients to a properly maintained Mustang
0:52:50 (The Bf109) "definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteresitics are much better" - I saw a short snippet from a German WWII veteran interview, that a SINGLE P-51 was no problem in a turnfight, initially in would almost look like outturning the Gustav (Bf-109G) but then gradually the German plane would have gained the upper hand. Problem was, that if you bog down in a turnfight with a Mustang over Europe, his buddies are guaranteed to show up, usually sooner, than later - and speed is life. Will try to find this video...
@Hoa Tattis In low speed turnfight the Gustav was superior to the Mustang. Period. It could not outclimb, outrun or outdive it, however. And especially not outnumber. Period.
1:09:40: That they do not give the power ratings might have been because the BMW had a more or less fully automatic engine management, so that the pilot did not have to care about mixture or pressure settings. So no need to write that down as important information for the pilots. It would be only relevant for the engineers of BMW. I think also the propeller pitch control was integrated in the engine management system. It was the first analog "computer" for this task, and comprised "curved bodies" whose 3D-shape was "measured with a lever, allowing 2 parameters to be combined to govern an output parameter.
As much as I like "our" Bf 109 and Fw 190 (Spitfire and Hurricane as well), in my opinion the Corsair, Hellcat and Thunderbolt stand for "pure beautiful brute force". Excellent documentation as always, Sir !
Critical Mach number for the BF 109 and FW 190 at Mach 0.75 was calculated by the RAE at the request of the USAAF to determine which escort fighter would be best for the European theatre leading to the choice of the P51-B as neither the P-47C Mach 0.68 nor the P-38H Mach 0.71 could match the German fighters at 30,000 feet according to Captain Eric Brown who served as a test pilot at the RAE
No, Eric Brown reported on the "Tactical Mach Number", not Critical Mach number. His "tactical mach" numbers are hugely subjective, and his number for the P-47 stands in stark contrast to everyone else who tested the plane. I have a lot about this in my P-47 parts 2 and 8 videos.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles RAE reported on both tactical and critical Mach numbers I sit here with a copy of "Wings on my sleeves"open in front of me. It was an official RAE report not a subjective view by Brown
The only thumbs down I've ever issued have been on what I consider to be uneducated, stupid "fanboy" comments. NEVER on Greg's hard work he presents in such an intelligent manner.
I assure you it doesn't bother me. I'm not at all trying to make a channel for everybody. I am trying to appeal to the types who want to learn more detailed information, like the concept of EAS and Mach numbers. There are plenty of channels that gloss over this stuff, and they do well, and I think that's great, more power too them, but it's not my thing.
The more I read and hear about the ME/BF-109, the more impressed I become with Willie's iconic little creation. Dollar for dollar and pound for pound, it is probably in it's own category of effectiveness with respect to military procurement and resource-allocation.
@Harli Baron There are definitely a few things that could've been "refined" like the funky change in toe-in as the tail wheel came up, or the welder's helmet/canopy. A simple 2-position linkage device in the landing gear scissor and an ugly Malcolm hood could've saved a lot of fledgling pilots...but Willie and the RLM ain't as smart as me. Adding guns and ammo diminishes the massive benefit gained from a lower fighting weight. The 109 was a bantam despite it's enormous DB605 engine. That said...I wonder if up-armour could've been fitted into the wing roots, with the rounds firing thru small holes in the spars and landing gear mounts.
Very well done. I look forward to every new video you do. On another note, the erasure of history does not mean it didn't happen but does make possible for it to happen again.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg if you're reading this: Maybe create a video comparing the Dornier Pfeil "push-pull" fighter and the De Havilland Hornet. The WW2 Hornet design was cancelled because it couldn't be in service by D-Day, but dusted-off after the war when the Royal Navy needed a long-range strike-fighter.
Thank You Greg. After thinking about this topic for many years it's interesting to hear it put forth in the studied way that you have. Your thorough research and well-organized presentation is much appreciated and enjoyed.
Hi Greg, while the US versions of the F6F and F4U, but they both flew against the Germans in the hands of the Fleet Air Arm pilots. Thank you, thank you, thank you for being one of the first narrators or authors to recognize that the Hellcat was a better plane for those young pilots coming out of flight schools. It had no nasty habits (like torque rolling if you applied too much power to quickly) that would catch a young, inexperienced pilot out on a carrier qualification.
Hi Habu, that's true about the fleet air arm, but flying against and actually encountering German fighters are two different things. There were no Corsair vs. 109 or 190 fights and only one with Hellcats.
This was a great video. Thank you, Greg. I appreciate the work you put into making these videos. The information you've compiled and shared is First Class. I appreciate the deep dive into stats with charts. It amplifies understanding. I also appreciate your endcap to the video. I would appreciate our collective history of the Nation being preserved, thank you. Personally, I'll only ask once.
I do like how the corsair's gear brakes are literally up its sleeve. Thank you so much for making these, and for your aviation career advice; I just got 96% on my maths exam, and hope to do just as well, if not better, in the rest of my maintenance training.
Fantastic video again, Greg. One of the key factors in the choices that the US made about the fighters used in WWII that you have made me aware of is that cost seems to be the key feature. The Thunderbolt was not inferior to the Mustang; far from it. The Corsair was not inferior to the Hellcat either, by any means. But the Mustang and Hellcat were cheaper and very effective, and when you need to fill the skies on a budget paid for with War Bonds, cheap yet effective is probably your best choice. The Mustang’s much lower price tag, range, and high altitude performance made it the most cost effective US fighter for the European Theater. The Hellcat’s lower cost vs. the Corsair, along with its ease of use for carrier operations and comparable effectiveness made it the best choice as the Navy fighter for the Pacific. Now I finally understand these choices that I have wondered about for decades. Thank you.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles the Yak-3P is my favorite WW2 airplane to look at. I enjoy flying it in War Thunder on realistic battles. Low altitude fighter with all kinds of energy with top of the line climb rate. The G55-S is another beautiful bird too. The mustang looks okay. But as far as design goes the planes with the Vs have my heart. The i-225 looks astounding as well, but they only made a small handful to propose filling the interceptor role
Didn't some British carrier based F4U's and F6F's tangle with Germans whilst escorting bomber attacks on the battleship Tirpitz in Norway? I would give a decent pilot certainly in a F4U a more than reasonable chance against a 109 or 190. Looking forward to this one again Greg.
There was at least one FAA F6F v FW-190 battle over Norway which was won by the F6F. There were also some F6F v. Luftwaffe engagements during Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France. I do not know of an F4U v. Luftwaffe engagements. There was also a FAA FM-2 v. BF-109 battle which was in the Wildcats' sweet spot. The FM-2's won. As Von Richtofen stated, "It is not the crate, it is the pilot flying it."
Thank you Greg for research and comparisons of these fine aircraft. WW11 was a crucible of engineering and technology on all levels. My Father served in the Pacific Theater and his take on the aircraft of the day was they were all fast, bad, "killing machines" He loved aviation and flying seen from the birth of of it all. Shame that warfare has been the sole driving force for great technological breakthroughs in our lives. Keep up the good work man, James Smith.
Thanks Greg, This was very entertaining to listen to and watch. I must admit the Mark Hanna comments about the 51 did put a smile on my face. Always a pleasure, especially since you refuse to subscribe to "Alternate Facts". I do remember reading, not only did the FAA teach the U.S. Navy how to Carrier land the F4U, but I also thought {if I remember correctly} the FAA also trimmed 8" off each wingtip of the F4U. Not for performance, but to be able to fit the F4U below deck. Thanks for the show
My Dad was a VMF-121 Corsair pilot on Peleliu and was carrier rated. He had some time flying Hellcats as well. He greatly preferred flying the Corsair over the Hellcat.
Hi John, that's quite an accomplishment for your dad.
John Buchman --My Dad was an infantry Marine on Peleliu (5th Marines), and was mighty glad that the Corsairs were in the fight. The close air support was impressive and deadly, in a physical setting so tight that spent shell casings fell on he and the other friendlies.
@@cardinalRGI believe that was the site of the shortest air-ground missions with Corsairs taking off from a newly captured airstrips that was still taking fire, barely going wheels up when it was time to drop ordnance on Japanese positions loop around, land, and do it again. My guess is, any of those Marine pilots would have loved an AU-1 about then cannons, rockets, 4400lb payload, and the short distance they were flying anyways would have more than made up for the 240mph top speed.
Make no mistake. Had the Hellcat or Cosair regularly gone up against the Germans, they would have had further development. But they `only` had to overpower the Japanese who were outclassed in every aviation term. Not to say it was easy, but `sufficient` was enough.
@@simonevans8979 that's an irrelevant observation. 1) those adaptations would take development and testing time, as Greg mentioned, 2) by 1944 the Germans were losing the attrition war, they couldn't rollout in significant numbers the great planes they had designed. Think Me 262, 163, Arado 234, even Dornier 335, Heinkel 219. By 1945 US engineers were still lagging behind. Hence the race against the Soviets to snatch German engineers for their space programs. The only area where the US was leading by and large, is nuclear physics and the A-bomb. People say it's because the most notable scientists in the field were Jews, foremost of whom was Heisenberg. Otherwise they would have led in that field as well.
I'm from Germany and I have several HOBBY MASTER 1/48 scale models of FW190 BF 109 and a CORSAIR standing by each other. And it is kind of spooky listening to your awesome podcast while at the same time watching those planes. I can't tell how much I enjoy your work. Without bias simply pure truth. Thank you for your time and effort to make those podcasts.
I sell diecast models. The hobby master models are excellent! Just wish they'd produce larger runs...
In a way 1/48 is the optimal scale. It's small enough to fit on any shelf, but large enough to see details like exhaust stacks and even cockpit gauges.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I’m currently building a 1/48 scale FW 190 A-5 as we speak, and I can confirm about the right size for details.
@@RadMax8this is one of the model's that I have from hobby master.
www.hobbymastercollector.com/HA7424.html
It's maybe a lame excuse but I'm to shakey to build it by my own ok I don't have the patience anymore too. 1 to 48 is simply awesome. Hope that your model will be awesome.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 1/72 is nice but 1/48 gives a better perspective of the size. As I wrote having those aircraft side by side I realized it much better than watching at a picture how big or actually giant for example the P47 really was. The Me 109 G in comparison to the P47D is simple a wtf moment. And you can really see it if you have them side by side. I remember reading Günther Rall biography when he visited the Luftwaffe Unit Zirkus Rosarius that had captured allied aircraft. He wrote that sitting in the cockpit of the P47 was something special. No german fighter had so much room in the cocktip like the P47. Till I bought the model's I really didn't understand why he was so impressed. Now I get it.
About that one engagement on 1:14:00, I managed to get a look at the FAA after-action report and a translation of the Luftwaffe after-action report on May 8, 1944 over Norway. I agree that we probably can't draw much in the way of conclusions about it, since the after-action reports more or less show us how unfamiliar each side was with how to handle the other's aircraft (for the FAA) and the other's aircraft in general (for the Luftwaffe). Still, it is pretty interesting to see how each side reacted. The dogfight was between Fleet Air Arm Hellcats from No. 800 Sqn, HMS Emperor, and JG5, which was operating a majority of Bf 109Gs and a minority of Fw 190As. JG5's after-action report survives in addition to 800 Sqn's, so we actually do know what happened and there was only one over-claim, which we'll get to later.
Using both reports, a flight of Bf 109Gs got the drop on half a dozen Hellcats, destroying one almost immediately. However, the Bf 109G pilots made a fairly serious blunder and tried out-diving the Hellcats. Two of four 109Gs quickly went down, confirmed by both 800 Sqn and JG5. One further 109G reported "light damage", with the aircraft flying in the number two position undamaged. However, that's not where things end.
The flight of Bf 109Gs was clearly beaten, which was witnessed by a flight of Fw 190As. They in turn dove on the Hellcats, with altitude being a genuine advantage (as opposed to a pretty bad mistake) since the FAA had pursued the Bf 109Gs downward. JG5's pilots hit and severely damaged at least two Hellcats (with one of these being likely mistaken for a kill and the other, which was almost certainly the second Hellcat lost, being damaged by Flak as well), but, possibly owing to the Fw 190A pilots' unfamiliarity with the type, one of the Hellcats actually climbed to meet the Fw 190As, destroying one and severely damaging another. This surprised the Fw 190A pilots, who--again, flying the entire Luftwaffe's first encounter with the Hellcat--did not expect an aircraft that had been mostly diving at the 109Gs to climb after them. Apparently, both sides gave each other enough of a bloody nose that following the two Fw 190A engagements, the FAA and Luftwaffe broke off.
The only discrepancy as far as over-claims when comparing after-action reports is the Luftwaffe claiming a third Hellcat, which, as I stated, is one I believe the Fw 190A pilots believe they got. At least one Hellcat had been engaging a Bf 109G and landed more or less shot to pieces after breaking off that pursuit, and I have a hunch it may have been this aircraft the Fw 190A pilots believe they got.
Also, the erasing history bit on the USCGC Taney is a disgrace.
That's a good one! Thanks for sharing the history.
@@dusk6159 Happy to share what I know!
Great comment! If I may ask, what happened with the USCGC taney?
@@alexboccaccio5431 Thanks! Unfortunately, to my knowledge, she’s still not officially the Taney. C’mon people. The ship redeemed the name quite well…
thank you
"Greetings, this is greg"
Those 4 words make my day.
Every time.
Keep the content coming, Greg. I absolutely love the long format videos. Detail is king.
Yep, time spent on his videos is more well spent than most RUclips Aviation Videos, Documentaries and aviation magazines.
Funnily enough I was reading about the test about a month ago in the German Flugzeug Classic special Issue on the FW-190. (One of a few, I think it was the issue on the A-6, which includes the early G and F versions.)
Reminds me I need to send him some of their stuff on the A-4 and the outside intakes, which were used, just very rarely and sadly were not followed up.
Start a gay relationship with a Greg.
The performance difference can also be largely be explained by the larger propeller props...You can see the effect on PC fans...A 120mm fan is more efficient than a 80mm fan spinning faster at pushing are because the blades are covering a larger volume of air on a 120mm.
Exactly.
Greg: This is the level of detail that I have sought all my life (aged 67).
Give me the numbers!
Have u tried the manuals 😂😅😂😅
Greg is an even bigger geek on these subjects than I am. He presents detailed and accurate data. I loved it.
Always enjoy your videos!
I am not a pilot, but a native german speaker so here is the translation of the two notes at 29:18:
Left: "Speed with consideration for the error of the speed indicator due to compressibility"
right: "Speed without consideration for error of the speed indicator due to compressibility"
So this appears to be left: EAS, right: either IAS or CAS. Unfortunately, it is not apparent to me whether the right one contains any other error corrections and I can't really make out the equations in the parentheses. Maybe they can give you more information. I would also point out that after the war many of the aviation standards used in the german language might have changed due to international standardization.
Don't hesitate if you have any questions or other questions regarding translations.
dude you are awesome to offer translation services for this channel :)
Appreciate your help and translation.
Taney crew here. That's her in my thumbnail from the stern in the North Atlantic, taken with my Kodak. WHEC stands for Coast Guard ship (W) - High Endurance Cutter HEC. Coast guard aircraft use H for aircraft as in the HH3-F helicopter or the HU-25A Falcon Fan Jet. H being the aircraft and U for utility. We could get on scene quick at t/s .85 mach, depressurize and open the drop hatch making a bombing run with pumps, flares and marker beacon as well as using loud speaker system located in the hell hole door! Don't know how audible it was below two Garret ATF's! I spent 2 years onboard Taney in the early 80's and weathered Hurricane Jeanne Nov. 1980. Greg, Taney served in Korea and Vietnam and then Weather stations maintaining Doppler Radar cover before all the satellites took over. She kept working and never stopped. She is responsible for saving many lives that surely would have been lost at sea or land. While I was onboard we pulled dozens of people from the water or sinking vessel. The Taney is the embodiment of the USCG and it is shameful that they have struck HER Name from the stern and record. I glad it bothered you because it burns my ass everyday and always will. What a disgraceful act against this National Historic Landmark and her service to this country.
Thanks for your awesome comment. The name change obviously bothers me as well. A few commenters here support the name change, but they are in the minority by a huge margin.
Thanks! information packed!
Thanks very much Robert, I appreciate it.
Geez, there almost needs to be a separate video detailing the differences in all the variants of all the aircraft involved. This can’t be easy work Greg, you’re doing a good job :)
Lots work went into seeking any advantage by all sizes for hence the mods
That's sides not size
I would not play WW2 Aircraft Trivial Pursuit for money against Greg.
@@jefferynelson oh, that sounds like a lot of fun, but for money would be insane
Every aircraft made in WW2 has so many variants and sub variants it'll make your head spin, could you imagine the logistics of having to keep track of all the different parts for them?
I'll bet the maintenance people drank a lot.
The Buffalo at 550mph will forever haunt my dreams
That answers some questions I’ve always had over Finlands best ace and his success in that plane.
@@jadedengineer B-239E was lighter with a more powerful engine than the F2A-1! Kill ratio across all of the Finnish Brewsters ("Flying Beer Bottles") was 32 kills to 1 loss!!!!
@@damienmaynard8892 Brewster was too hard to say for those day Finns who does not use letter like B.
So there are it's nicknames:
Ryysteri, Perse Tynnyri (=arse barrel) 😄
It's a much better plane than it's given credit for. It just tended to operate in contexts that were... unfavorable...
There's only so much you can do when you have rookie pilots with no early warning, lousy airfields, and no spare parts and are fighting battle hardened veterans who outnumber you 4-1.
Ouh 1:41! Every time a see an early FW190 i really have to say: What a nice looking, straight design and style. Still today awesome!
Hi Greg, I re-visted this video after watching your newest video on the Ki-84. You did an awesome job overall with the bulk of the content being accurate and presented in the right context. However, I just want to clarify a couple details, even though this shouldn't change the conclusions you eventually arrived at in the video.
First, the data presented in the NACA roll chart for the F6F-3 is actually a modified version with spring-tab ailerons, which gave it a roll performance similar to the F6F-5. The original ailerons had a higher peak rate by up to 10 deg/sec @ 260 mph, but rates fell off rapidly after this point, eventually being some 30 deg/sec slower at 400 mph than rates achieved with spring-tab ailerons. This information can be found in NACA report L5C23 which is downloadable from the NASA website.
Secondly, the Corsair didn't have provisions for two external wing tanks until the advent of the F4U-1D sub-variant, this being sometime during the spring of 1944 (however, the first 300 could only carry one wing drop tank as the other pylon was used exclusively for bombs). The early F4U-1A only had provisions for a single centerline drop tank.
The Hellcat was different, as there is a well-known photograph of Cdr James Flatley of CVAG-5 flying an F6F-3 with both wing and centerline tanks during the Hellcat's combat debut on August 31, 1943. So it was capable of carrying three external drop tanks months before the Corsair.
I mention all of this because It seems like you were concerned with only discussing the performance of the various aircraft within the context of 1943.
Again, I know this doesn't change anything concerning the outcome of your analysis but I felt they were details still worth bringing to your attention. I look forward to enjoying more of your excellent content!
Getting back to my previous reply about Hellcats fighting the Luftwaffe.
I had to eat supper.I'm baaacckkk!!
While the CorsIar only saw service with the Navy and Marines in the pacific as well as the Royal New Zealand Air Force in WWII,the Fleet Air Arm used both the Corsair and Hellcat in both theaters in WW2.
They replaced the Blackburn Skua and Roc in Frontline Carrier Service after 1943.
They still used the Sea Hurricane as well as the Superarine Seafire until the end of the war.
In fact,the FAA still used the Seafire until the end of the Korean War.
If you can find a copy of Aviation History from 2021,there's a cover story about it.
My great grandfather flew Corsairs for over a year. He swapped to Fw 190s when War Thunder nerfed the Corsair. He sadly passed on to World of Warcraft nearly two years ago.
Your relaxed and polished voice make listening to these quite enjoyable. Sometimes I lay here in bed just listening to the information that comes through you verbally and gives me insight into your comforting personality and mind. As a broken down old Vietnam Vet I thank you for the peace you have given me during these last days I have.
I sure hope Greg reads this amazing comment. Wishing you many blessings, Db. I hope you find comfort and peace knowing that God loves you and is watching over you.
@@christopherg9806 Thank you
I can't wait for an in-depth discussion on the Bearcat.
Tigercat! 😁
That sounds sweet. I like the look of them.
@@astealthyfellow4795 And the sound!
ooooooooooo-YEAH!!! Be great if compared the Bearcat vs. the Hawker Sea Fury. Here's an 'incentive'... ruclips.net/video/RKj_Pknm3wk/видео.html
The bearcat was designed as a lighter weight substitute for the F6F and F4U. Intended to be deployed on the escort and light carriers.
UK Royal Navy deployed both Hellcat and Corsair on RN Fleet and Escort Carriers, there were attacks on Tirpitz when it was skulking in a Norwegian Fyord and they encountered Ms 109s and FW190s who defended Tirpitz
The RN Corsairs never fought 109s or 190s. Hellcats did, but I think on only one occasion.
this video is so exhaustively researched it's more like a lecture on the subject than a simple youtube video, genuinely feel like i'm back at Uni!
The little things incorporated to tell you alot!
Not to to mention that fun lecture you actually want to hear and pay attention to every bit of the lecture
As always, fascinating and full of information. On Roger Taney, he is actually quite notorious in history, for authoring the Dred Scott decision (and arm-twisting a number of colleagues on the Supreme Court to support him, and co-ordinating the ruling with the President-Elect James Buchanan) which was one of the factors which led pretty directly to the Civil War. I know a lot of folks these days don't study history, or not very closely, but Taney deserves to be remembered because of his awful ruling. I for one know how you feel about these constant interruptions from people trying to re-write history, and I would argue that it's important to keep the name precisely because of Taney's notoriety. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, so to speak.
I know this isn't a new upload, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate that you don't treat your subscribers as though they are idiots. And for people who are just tuning in, you make it clear that it's their responsibility to get up to speed. Your channel is like taking a course in aviation with everything put into context. The only problem is that after absorbing the wealth of knowledge that you impart it's very difficult not to see the deficiencies and shortcomings of other popular content creators. As a mechanic I appreciate the effort you make to educate people. People are lazy unfortunately and don't want to think too hard. But for those who have a love of learning and appreciate real knowledge and attention to detail on aviation and history you have no peers.
theres no replacement for positive manifold pressure
^In addition to copious quantities of ADI.
My father was duty officer of VF-81 on the Wasp, which flew F6F-5s on the Wasp so I’ve read a bunch about them. I believe Grumman built the plane as an OJT fighter with plenty of armor to give young pilots a second chance.
Absolutely stellar video. Thank you so much.
My pop flew both planes (WW2 and Korea). Aboard USS Cabot (CVL28) during WW2, he spent many hours filleting (tear dropping) the heads of the universal rivers on his Hellcat towards the end of reducing drag/increasing airspeed. Anything for an advantage and I’d guess to also kill boredom between CAPs and sorties. He did this using shoe wax, naphtha and a butter knife from the Officers Mess. As well, he bribed aircraft handlers to tip and shake his Hellcat when his centerline auxiliary tank was being fueled. This allowed every cubic inch of space to be filled with fuel. His fear of the Japanese paled in comparison to his fear of sharks.
Wow, that's really interesting. I wonder if other Hellcat pilots did the same. I suspect they did.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I’m pretty sure he learned the fueling trick from more experienced fliers or the fuelers. He told me that as the Hellcat’s advantages over most enemy aircraft became evident and as that number of enemy aircraft began to wane and the Hellcat’s role evolved away from that of ranging fleet defense to that of ‘dump truck’ (his words, not mine), fewer and fewer external fuel tanks were simply ejected as a matter of course once emptied. He once shared with me how unremarkable the difference between flying the F6F with or without the tank, or an array of external ordnance, actually was. This characteristic is a notable difference between the Hellcat and the Corsair, which he maintained lacked good control surface authority across most iterations of it and throughout it’s service life and anything and everything it carried altered its trim.
When I was a lad in the 60’s, among my my dad’s other duties at NAS Twin Cities was the role of Special Services Officer. He saw fit to acquire and keep maintained one (late model) F4U for recreational flying. A nicety for old timers like himself and something fun for the A4 community to blow off steam doing after Sunday mass while the kids swam. Even then, the plane retained it’s reputation as one requiring maximum attention to operate safely. Especially on the ramp (wing walkers) and through transitional flight phases near the deck.
As for the rivet thing, I got the impression that profiling those was something he came up with himself. I know this... on the rare occasion someone else ended up flying 7, (his assigned plane) it irritated him greatly but as a JG he had no practical or technical say over who flew what plane. The matter of aviators having a plane which was their ‘own’ so to speak was not steadfast or always a decided matter aboard CVLs as there simply wasn’t the space for a slew of replacement AC or the abundance personnel to maintain the level of readiness squadrons benefitted aboard the larger carriers. Once Cabot’s Air Groups transitioned to being comprised solely of Hellcats, naturally the likely readiness of any one particular fighter increased. This is to be expected when every spare part aboard is for the same type of aircraft and a reason why virtually no carriers had more than one issue of fighter at a time. As you correctly pointed out in your (again, very well done) video, despite sharing the same power plant (P&W R2800), the differing quick change modules for the Hellcat and the Corsair rendered them completely incompatible with one another.
Another reason he wanted to fly his ‘Zebra 7’ is that he had the convergence range of that plane’s Browning’s recalibrated to his liking. Then of course there was the photo of my mom taped above the clock on his instrument panel.
I greatly appreciate the enormous depth of detail and knowledge of your report. The Corsair is a personal favourite. I had hoped that the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm Corsairs would have engaged in combat the Luftwaffe's counterparts. But, history is truth made prose.
A suggestion for a future presentation: How would the Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" USAAF Fighter and the Grumman F7F "Tigercat" U.S. Navy Carrier-based Fighter have compared in both performance and combat?
For what it's worth ( I know, I know.....) I am with you on your comments at the end about removing the name from the Coastguard cutter. As always thought provoking stuff. Have a good day!
Thanks davidb.
Great video. I enjoyed it. My favorite plane is F6F Hellcat of this time period. I wish I could have been there. 🇺🇸 🇺🇲 Always!!!
Enjoyable to listen to, well researched and thought provoking as ever. Thank you for making and posting.
It's a great day when i see a new video from Greg's Airlines being released. Such amazing content
Gregs airlines don always deliver on time but when thy deliver it is always worth the wait
Thank you for making these
You're welcome Ryan.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles My dad and I love your videos, he especially appreciates your passionate defense of the P-47.
@@sylvesterstewart868 Sounds like I would like your dad.
@@sylvesterstewart868 Virtually the same comment goes for me.
I love your entire P-47 series, too. I've watched it several times over. Were I a fighter pilot in WWII I'd have probably wanted to be assigned one. The P-38 is a close second. Speaking of which...have you done a video on the Lightning?
We always love the cost analysis you do, that is an often overlooked factor when comparing planes.
Yes, that surprised me too. I had never imagined such ordinary, sensible, things were important in war. Now we imagine how serious it is to have the same name as a former slaver.
At least John Newton has escaped so far.
These are very educational videos illuminating topics we rarely think of properly. Certainly not in a place where we needed to get up and at them, for all of 90 minutes.
I love the p-47 way more than the p-51, but ya can't argue the 51 was much cheaper and much better on gas.
@@robmarsh6668 Same
@@robmarsh6668 When I read this comment, all I could think about was some old-school suburban dad in a wood paneled station wagon ranting about the values of practicality. Lol “You kids might not realize it now, but when you grow up you’ll see it’s a much more sensible choice! The retail savings are first class, and don’t even get me started on the gas mileage!” Except we’re talking about Warbirds instead of Edsels. 😂
@@catsooey these darn kids today!
Greg’s channel is so much better than the Discovery Channel ever was.
When history is Erased, no one will know to NOT repeat those mistakes. History is a effective Guide on what NOT To Do, & should be taught, remembered & respected Worts & all for the lessons that it can teach.
I agree absolutely.
US history is taking a beating, to say the least.
Unfortunately People want to try the same failure again believing that there is something "special" about themselves and they can't fail. So they have to erase or "adjust" history to suit their need to fool people into going along with it yet again.
And President Trump started the 1776 commission to CORRECTLY teach U.S. history, That was one of the first items President Biden cancelled his first day.......
What does this have to do with the video?
Swoop... would you have expected anything less from our recently erected Socialists? I heard on the news today that one of the first EOs he signed is to allow gender dysfunctional students to compete in any interscholastic sport they choose to conform with the gender they PREFER to be, not their biological/genetic gender. And I know all the cultural anthropologists are screaming that gender is all in one's mind...
Fantastic documentary. The ease of maintenance is a big factor on aircraft carriers. That is so true. But still - the F4U is such a beast. The range, the speed, the load-out.
And thanks for mentioning the armor protection layout of the Navy fighters. I have never heard of that before. That and the lovely chosen pictures. I really enjoy watching your videos.
Thanks. I try to use pictures that are rarely seen.
Nash license built R-2800s both during WWII and production was restarted during Korea. Later when the portion of the plant used for aero engine production was converted to automotive production the Tool Room* that supported that part of the plant was located in the former test cells where engines** were run up with a full size prop on them. The cells had circular areas where the props ran. Above the bosses desk there was a full color cutaway drawing of the R-2800 with the complete induction system. I've always wondered what happened to it.
*A Tool Room is a machine shop as in Tool and Die Makers. It is not a place where tools are handed out.
**Nash Kelvinator was the largest producer of props in the US during WWII
I was a navigator at sea, hold a degree in shipping and had a shoreside sailing career buying & operating ships. You are the FIRST non-maritime type in my lifetime that correctly stated the difference between a boat and a ship. This is a gripe among many in the "invisible" industry, one that puts 90% of everything you see in your room, IN that room! Thank you Sir!
Golden rule = A ship can carry a boat, but a boat can't carry a ship. ⚓
And every ship can become a submarine, once.
I play my airplane games with altitude in metric so the numbers on the German charts seem intuitive to me but the American charts I always have to think for a bit as to what something like 5000 feet is roughly in meters. Always appreciate when Greg translates the numbers to metric as well.
The hellcat went up against the ME 109 once
4 fleet air arm hellcats we're bounced by six Me 109s. One hellcat was immediately shot down a few minutes later the last two surviving Me 109s broke off the engagement
what?
Actual losses or the usual UK "claims"?
@@trauko1388 The UK had far more strict and robust procedures to give any "victory" count to any fighter pilot compared to the U.S.
@@12345fowler LOL!!! I dont know about that, I only know that the RAF overclaimed 3 to 1 during the BoB and that was whilst having access to the wrecks...
...and in 1941, when "leaning into France", the overclaiming became ridiculous, reaching SEVEN TO ONE!!!! And the RAF knew it, but decided to hide the fact in order to not demoralize the poor RAF pilots who were being mercilessly butchered by the LW at a FOUR TO ONE rate.
The RAF was full of crap, keep that in mind when reading about the "mighty Spitfire" and imaginary "Stuka parties"....
@@trauko1388 The Luftwaffe got their asses handed to them in the BoB. Someone is a sore loser.
Dang! This has got the best channel on YT for this kind of stuff!
On an almost unrelated tangent, the first place I came across “Equivalent Air Speed” is the SR-71. I forget why now, but the aircraft is operated by the pilot on “Knots Equivalent Air Speed”. There is a great interview of Maury Rosenberg who speaks about SR operations in length and their use of KEAS.
I think it’s because it flew so high and so fast that conventional methods of measuring speed that existed at the time didn’t necessarily work properly. Keep in mind that the OFFICIAL speed record for the SR-71 isn’t its actual top speed - it could go even faster than that, but exaxtly how fast remains highly classified (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was close to Mach 4).
@@z3r0_35 Yes that's the likely reason for using KEAS. The rumours of the SR/A-12 family being able to go faster than ~M3.2 I think are largely that. Sure they may have been able to make sprints to 3.3, 3.4 maybe even 3.5 depending upon atmospheric conditions (namely temperatures much lower than ISA),. However, the limiting factor was always the temperatures the J58 could handle internally (like any gas turbine engine). The operational limit that the pilot's flew to was a maximum compressor inlet temperature of 427 deg C. During NASA testing, the engine thrust was increased by 5% at the expense of a 20% shorter turbine life (the life-limiting component in the J58).
Greg you rock, my dad served on LSD 13 during Okinawa, Signalman 2nd class. He was topside all the time. (reloading 20's during air attack) And believing every second a suicide/something would tear them in two. Your research is spot on.
One other comment: I do voice over work professionally and I really enjoy your conversational delivery. Rather than the stilted narration of most RUclips presenters (many of whom pronounce the word "a" as AY, rather than correctly saying UH... so annoying!), you sound like you're just sitting in my living room having an extemporaneous chat. That's SO much better than listening to a lecture read off of a script.
I liked in your earlier Corsair video you mention that the F4u-1 could do a 9G turn and it was listed in the flight manual!
Yes, it's airframe is good to 9Gs, the later manual only gives data to 7Gs as it was sort of a standardized USN maximum rather than an actual structural limit.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The amusing thing is the USN still has a 7.5G limit for fighters. This is why both the Classic and Super Hornets are limited to 7.5G. Aerodynamically they are easily capable of 9G. Swiss Classic Hornets have some internal structural changes and have their limit set to 9G.
@@dat581 If you max turn performance is around 7G is no point to extend it. Its just better to slow down...
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles the US military equipment is usually much more capable than the official manual says they are
@@jamesricker3997 Gotta leave the room for that cocky kid from Kansas to surprise someone.
My 1973 RAAF Squadron technical officer - former pilot flew Mustangs in Korea. He said when they did practice air combat tactics against the RNZAF Corsairs they would lose because they could not sustain the energy manoeuvring capability of the more powerful Corsair. No chance against the RAN Sea Furies later on..
Yeah, Mustang has to be history's most over-rated plane. It had great range, and speed. The wrong plane to choose for CAS in Korea. They should have used the P47.
My father has been in magazines for many model builds(mostly german), but this brings me back to my young days watching Black Sheep Squadron with my dad. I loved that wing. We were stationed at Charleston back then when he was a LT in navy.
I know some people who have confused the Bearcat with the Hellcat, so that could be the Air Racing comparison there
Yeah the Bearcat didn't make deployment for the war iirc.
And in post war air shows the Blue Angels who were flying Hellcats often had staged dogfights with Bearcats standing in for IJN and IJA aircraft. The Hellcat pilots must of been thinking "oh what I could do to that F6F"
@@confectortyrannis275
As well as the F7F Tigercat
Its the pilot makes or breaks the race... Unlimited is just that..
Greg, you are the very best at these deep dives, and I appreciate your compassion. It comes through. Peace!
I just love every one of your videos, I go back and look at your charts and relisten to get the details I missed on the 1st few listens. I consider you a treasure.
This feels like Top Gun theoretical class if it were done in the 40s... I love it!
Wooo, USCG Taney! I live near Baltimore and I've visited the Taney multiple times. I love her simple lines and her cool story.
Sad that our history is being removed by sensitive people, she'll always be the Taney to me.
Who is erasing our history and how?
Justice Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision that is perhaps the most despicable opinion to come from the SCOTUS. This name is infamous in Maryland, where I live, and rightly so. It made the civil war significantly more likely, and provided an appalling justification for denying African Americans treatment as human beings. I love your careful scholarship, but you should consider that the Germans do not retain monuments to the authors of the crimes in their terrible past, nor should we.
@@markhaigney816 GFYS.
Thanks very much for this, Greg. I've been waiting and hoping you'd get around to the Hellcat. I could bore everyone, including Greg, with a lengthy essay. I've been reading about Hellcats and Corsairs for about half a century, though my own military flight experience is limited to 20 minutes in the front seat of a T-6, a revelation to a non-pilot. My Dad flew both planes - a combat tour in 1944 in the F6F (he flew both the -3 and the -5) with VF-19 aboard the USS Lexington, and 9 months of training in 1945 in the F4U-4 with VBF-150. 600 hours in the Hellcat, 500 hours in the Corsair. Let me say the Brewster pilot testing the Buffalo's dive characteristics must have had nerves of steel -550 mph in a Buffalo seems insane.
The comparison(s) between / among the 4 planes were really interesting. The air war in the Pacific was very different from the air war in Europe, and the differences in fighter planes reflects that - I'm not surprised that Greg's research turned up few instances of either Corsairs or Hellcats engaging Luftwaffe fighters. To keep this short, I won't comment on Greg's expertise regarding climb, dive and turn performance except to say that the F4U and F6F came out better in the comparisons than I anticipated. It's worth noting that the F6F had the largest wing of any single-engine WW2 fighter, and I'm sure that has a lot to do with its turn performance, low stall speed, and top speed. The F6F was renowned, during the war, for being - in relative terms - easy to maintain, and its flight availability was at or near the top of any WW2 fighter, whether land or carrier-based - usually 90% or better. Designed to be forgiving for a fighter plane, Grumman built the F6F that way on purpose. Paraphrasing a description of the time, it was "Built by shoe salesmen [i.e. nonprofessionals] to be flown by shoe salesmen [i.e., nonprofessionals]." I was glad to see you bring up the issue of cost. The Hellcat was, at least in relative terms, a true bargain in terms of "bang for the buck."
One reason why range would have been an issue for Navy fighters in Europe is that task force commanders in the Pacific went to some trouble to put the carriers within 250 miles or so of their intended target(s), and the Hellcat, especially, was built with that in mind. That said, use of the 150-gallon centerline drop tank on the Hellcat became so common that I've read it came to be considered standard equipment. Whether Grumman thought the same I can't say.
I'm not usually bothered by political correctness, but in this instance, I think Greg is spot-on regarding the re-naming of the Coast Guard cutter. I taught history for 30 years, and while Taney was not an admirable man, history is full of such people, and they can't all be erased, nor should they be. For those whose interest in WW2 fighters is more casual, 90 minutes may be more than they'd like, but I've been a WW2 fighter plane geek most of my life, so I didn't mind the length.
Another thing with the Hellcat it was designed for relative ease of production and assembly. As I understand it once past the cowl there are no compound curves on the airframe.
Ray, is it just me, or have you also noticed that the wing planform of the F6F appears to be virtually identical to that of the TBF/M, other than in actual size?
From a distance at certain angles the Hellcat and Avenger look a lot alike, especially the wing.
Awesome post Ray. Thanks.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I don't know who the lead designer was for either plane, but there's definitely a strong family resemblance.
I never would have thought a Brewster Buffalo could hold balls that big in such a small cockpit!
I have to say, I facepalmed at the "race version was faster" argument. Oh, Internet, never change.
Wait....so you mean to say if I have (which I do) a 1200 horsepower 93 mustang notchback drag (race) car, it's not fair to compare it to the bone stock 93 mustang notchback I drive on the street? Huh, who would have ever thought that.....🤔
He also have to take a look at the fact that if the hellcat and Corsair were in Europe they would have been modified for land use no folding wings or arrester the hook
That would have saved a lot of weight and improved performance
@@jamesricker3997 the Corsair was even faster than the Mustang and it shared the same engine with the Hellcat & Thunderbolt...also the Corsair & Hellcat being built for carrier landings it made them tougher....
@@jamesricker3997 I think they wouldn't have gone to that length to be honest, or do you have examples in mind where that happened? Arrestor hook removal, I could see maybe; take out the folding wing mechanism and replace by something simpler that still can take up the entire wing load in combat - I don't think so.
Did anyone besides me notice that the "Red 57" bird shown during the race trim portion was NOT an F6F Hellcat, but an F8F Bearcat?
Nice historical caveat at the end of the video. I understand where you are coming from and can't say I disagree. As usual, a very informative and entertaining video.
Chart Translation:
Speed when Factoring in the Readout Errors of the Speedindicator due to Compressability of Air. (left)
Speed without Factoring in the Errenous Readout of the Indicator due to Compressability of Air. (right)
left side is pure read out
right side is corrected
My old school grades for history and English were very good, my grades for math and science quite the opposite. If I had to take engineering, mathematics, or physics courses again, I would pray that my teachers would be just like Greg. What a great instructor he must be!
CO Tom Blackburn's "Jolly Rogers" book on VF-17, who flew Corsairs, gives accounts of winning mock dogfights with P-51s and of fighting with Japanese Tonys (Ki-61) which performed and were armed similarly to mid-war Bf-109s. The Tonys were very dangerous opponents that were not easy to shoot down or escape. However the Corsairs were not facing them at high altitudes like the conflict in Europe required. Most of these battles were well below 20,000 ft and often on or near the deck.
VMF-214 also faced them.
I recall reading an account, years ago, of a Corsair tangling with a Japanese fighter above 40,000 ft altitude when its guns stopped either from lack of ammunition or freezing. I don't remember which.
In any event, the Corsair pilot racked up a victory by using his propeller to chew off his opponent's tail surfaces. Said Corsair pilot then made it back on board his home carrier. I'm sure his mount required considerable reconditioning, at least in the nose area.
Escort wasn't the only mission in the ETO. Typhoons, Beufighters, B-25s, and B-26s all fought at lower altitudes. Plus let's not forget the med as well
Now of we want to get into what ifs you could imagine an F4U with fixed wings and a modified fuel system with longer range. As well as a fixed wing F6F with lighter armor and water injection which would be a turning monster.
@@rhondohslade : I recall that account, except that it was a Japanese photo recon plane.
Be cool to see some Italian planes thrown into the mix sometime too (G55-S, RE2005, C.205, etc)
Oh yes! There's much written about German vs British vs American vs Japanese, but few seem to recognise that there were other countries flying around in their own designs at the time. :-)
Especially the reggiane and it's relation to the p47.
@@TheAngelobarker What relation? I do know that the Re.2000 was basically a modified, partly licensed copy of the P-35 (the P-47’s predecessor), but I don’t know of any relation to the P-47 directly.
the Italians....never lacked courage in pilots. they lacked high performing engines, and the aircraft were lightly armed. but the designs....freaking sweet!
@@thedeathwobblechannel6539 Italy's armed forces can best be described as great men equipped with guns ranging from subpar but serviceable to among the best in their class...led by dogshit officers and hamstrung by incompetent bureaucrats, corrupt politicians, and a lack of heavy industry to support it all. Put Italian troops under foreign command though, and they'll pull off miracles.
So well done Greg. I look forward to all of your videos, please do not shy away from adding even more details and deep dives, that's what really makes it interesting. Thanks!!
I’d love a video specific to the Hellcat. The F6F had a very interesting and unique flap system!
It's clear that while Grumman had initiated the design of the Hellcat before the extensive encounters with the Zero, the insights from pilots and the analysis of the Akutan Zero were significant. These provided valuable information that informed adjustments in the Hellcat's design, particularly in power output to handle extra weight without compromising on defensive features.
Retired Coastie here. W was the Naval designation for the Coast Guard, HEC stood for High Endurance Cutter, and the 37 was the hull number. Put all that together and you get WHEC-37. And I agree, the “renaming” makes no sense to me.
Really enjoy the channel!
Thanks. I also learned that "coastie" is a word.
Regarding the removal of USCGC Taney name from the ship. 100% agree with your view on this. History is history. It's happened and is a Fact of Life. If it's upsetting then learn from it. Point being, move on.
Good one, Greg. I watched it all the way through! I have no real expertise, but nonetheless I tend to be impressed by pilot-friendly designs. Easy to fly, rugged, good armor protection - all these make me an armchair Hellcat fan. And, I believe I have learned from your (and other) videos that the varied conditions from one theatre of war to another bear heavily on how warplanes should be evaluated. Thanks for the enormous amount of work you put into this video.
Amen, regarding your spot on comments about the USCGC Taney W 37. Changing history is a bad joke.
Memorializing and remembering are not the same thing. Paying honors to people tends to result in glossing over controversial parts of their history, rather than remembering it.
For example, for all the bitching about removing statues of Lee, his defenders completely overlook that he himself was against being memorialized in such a way. Statues and names are used to honor people, not remember them.
I have to agree with you argument for changing the name of the USCG Tanny...I have to add when we remove, destroy, or hide anything of historical value(in reference to monuments, grave sites, buildings, etc.), we are intentionally trying to hide or destroy our historically important past, and without knowing our past, good and bad, we can never improve on our past or worse we will end up repeating our past.
Wow I loved your one more thing! I have to say I am a black man (half but still have heritage and family that are) but more so I’m an American and I agree that renaming the Tanney is just really disrespectful to those that fought and died in her midst. I’ve never even heard of Tanney the person but have heard of this ship being a sort of war history buff myself. Very well said brother. Keep up the great work!
Jeremy, you are a true American.
One of the most valuable channels on YT. Million subs soon!
The overarching question is which of these four aircraft is the "coolest" looking? A factor we all know to be the most important. Hands down the F4U owns that. Hands down.
I agree that the Corsair is absolutely gorgeous and is certainly a more beautiful plane than the others...but I have to give the 109G some steampunk points for the intake and bulge on the fuselage, and that hard edged canopy.
I love the 190A but it doesn't compete in looks with the Corsair. The only fighter of similar era that competes for me is the P-38
To the opticians with you! Your taste is clearly in your mouth. The Hellcat has the classic look. It is the Channel LBD of WWII fighter design.
@@Silverhks
If we’re bringing in other planes, the P-51D and H are MATHEMATICALLY pleasing, being almost entirely made of conic sections. To this day, you will find few aircraft with comparable Zero Lift Drag Coefficients to a properly maintained Mustang
@@Silverhks 190's, corsairs, mustangs and spits are very pleasing to look at. They are just beautiful.
Would love to see an analysis on how the Tigercat and Bearcat would have done against late-war Japanese fighters and bombers
That is one of the greatest topics and great what if analysis.
Or at least to me, I've considered it very interesting for a couple of years now.
Was the f7f and the f8f built to compliment each other?
Yes, add the P-51H and maybe even the F4U-5 for good measure
F7F & F8F > Whatever else is misfortunate enough to lack turbojet propulsion.
0:52:50 (The Bf109) "definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteresitics are much better" - I saw a short snippet from a German WWII veteran interview, that a SINGLE P-51 was no problem in a turnfight, initially in would almost look like outturning the Gustav (Bf-109G) but then gradually the German plane would have gained the upper hand.
Problem was, that if you bog down in a turnfight with a Mustang over Europe, his buddies are guaranteed to show up, usually sooner, than later - and speed is life. Will try to find this video...
@Hoa Tattis In low speed turnfight the Gustav was superior to the Mustang. Period.
It could not outclimb, outrun or outdive it, however.
And especially not outnumber. Period.
I'd love to see a detailed video on the late cats (Bearcat and Tigercat) and how good they actually were.
Bearcat vs Ta-152, and Tigercat vs He-219.
F7F Tigercat vs P-38 J?
@@donaldclay9535 The very late-war P-38L may be a better fit in that case.
@@rafaelalandrade Touche' (smile)
@Hoa Tattis Agreed, but He-219 was a hell of a plane that did not have a chance to manifest itself before the close of WW2.
1:09:40: That they do not give the power ratings might have been because the BMW had a more or less fully automatic engine management, so that the pilot did not have to care about mixture or pressure settings. So no need to write that down as important information for the pilots. It would be only relevant for the engineers of BMW.
I think also the propeller pitch control was integrated in the engine management system. It was the first analog "computer" for this task, and comprised "curved bodies" whose 3D-shape was "measured with a lever, allowing 2 parameters to be combined to govern an output parameter.
As much as I like "our" Bf 109 and Fw 190 (Spitfire and Hurricane as well), in my opinion the Corsair, Hellcat and Thunderbolt stand for "pure beautiful brute force".
Excellent documentation as always, Sir !
The fw190 is very sexy
@@runninggames771 it’s like a chubby women - gotta know to handle her
I agree with you about the Coast Guard cutter. That's a shame. Hard to believe it's come to this.
You are kind of amazing. Thanks for your commitment
Your final assessment of the Taney is spot on, which is why we are currently in such domestic conflict with those so easily offended.
You're right. I'm concerned about it too.
What is there to find offence at?
Critical Mach number for the BF 109 and FW 190 at Mach 0.75 was calculated by the RAE at the request of the USAAF to determine which escort fighter would be best for the European theatre leading to the choice of the P51-B as neither the P-47C Mach 0.68 nor the P-38H Mach 0.71 could match the German fighters at 30,000 feet according to Captain Eric Brown who served as a test pilot at the RAE
No, Eric Brown reported on the "Tactical Mach Number", not Critical Mach number. His "tactical mach" numbers are hugely subjective, and his number for the P-47 stands in stark contrast to everyone else who tested the plane. I have a lot about this in my P-47 parts 2 and 8 videos.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles RAE reported on both tactical and critical Mach numbers I sit here with a copy of "Wings on my sleeves"open in front of me. It was an official RAE report not a subjective view by Brown
@@davidmcintyre8145maybe you should refer to a reliable source.....the raf test concluded .836 for the p47.
@@kenneth9874 my source is captain Eric Brown from his autobiography"Wings on my Sleeve"
@@davidmcintyre8145 check again
Thanks again Greg. As a lifelong history buff a Greg video is a perfect escape (for me) from this silly world we now inhabit.
Who the hell thumbs down Greg's videos??? I guess good detailed information is too much for simpletons.
The only thumbs down I've ever issued have been on what I consider to be uneducated, stupid "fanboy" comments. NEVER on Greg's hard work he presents in such an intelligent manner.
I assure you it doesn't bother me. I'm not at all trying to make a channel for everybody. I am trying to appeal to the types who want to learn more detailed information, like the concept of EAS and Mach numbers. There are plenty of channels that gloss over this stuff, and they do well, and I think that's great, more power too them, but it's not my thing.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Don't go changing Greg.
Outstanding video. Nice to see someone go beyond the flat numbers and understand just what made the Hellcat such an excellent choice for its time.
The more I read and hear about the ME/BF-109, the more impressed I become with Willie's iconic little creation. Dollar for dollar and pound for pound, it is probably in it's own category of effectiveness with respect to military procurement and resource-allocation.
@Harli Baron There are definitely a few things that could've been "refined" like the funky change in toe-in as the tail wheel came up, or the welder's helmet/canopy. A simple 2-position linkage device in the landing gear scissor and an ugly Malcolm hood could've saved a lot of fledgling pilots...but Willie and the RLM ain't as smart as me. Adding guns and ammo diminishes the massive benefit gained from a lower fighting weight. The 109 was a bantam despite it's enormous DB605 engine. That said...I wonder if up-armour could've been fitted into the wing roots, with the rounds firing thru small holes in the spars and landing gear mounts.
Very well done. I look forward to every new video you do. On another note, the erasure of history does not mean it didn't happen but does make possible for it to happen again.
Great point, I think it makes it a lot easier to happen again.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Greg if you're reading this:
Maybe create a video comparing the Dornier Pfeil "push-pull" fighter and the De Havilland Hornet. The WW2 Hornet design was cancelled because it couldn't be in service by D-Day, but dusted-off after the war when the Royal Navy needed a long-range strike-fighter.
Thank You Greg. After thinking about this topic for many years it's interesting to hear it put forth in the studied way that you have. Your thorough research and well-organized presentation is much appreciated and enjoyed.
You are a true blessing to us audience. Thank you for your efforts and time you take to make these talks for us!
Hi Greg, while the US versions of the F6F and F4U, but they both flew against the Germans in the hands of the Fleet Air Arm pilots.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for being one of the first narrators or authors to recognize that the Hellcat was a better plane for those young pilots coming out of flight schools. It had no nasty habits (like torque rolling if you applied too much power to quickly) that would catch a young, inexperienced pilot out on a carrier qualification.
Hi Habu, that's true about the fleet air arm, but flying against and actually encountering German fighters are two different things. There were no Corsair vs. 109 or 190 fights and only one with Hellcats.
@ hi Greg the media I’ve seen and read said there were encounters. However I think I believe your research more.
Second time I watch this episode right on the verge of my attention for technical details you're really good thank you
Thanks in advance Greg.. you put together the most interesting videos.
Frankly I’m not surprised the Brewster Buffalo can drop like a stone.
Yeah, I was wondering if that 'dive speed' was really 'falling speed'?
This was a great video. Thank you, Greg. I appreciate the work you put into making these videos. The information you've compiled and shared is First Class. I appreciate the deep dive into stats with charts. It amplifies understanding. I also appreciate your endcap to the video. I would appreciate our collective history of the Nation being preserved, thank you. Personally, I'll only ask once.
I do like how the corsair's gear brakes are literally up its sleeve.
Thank you so much for making these, and for your aviation career advice; I just got 96% on my maths exam, and hope to do just as well, if not better, in the rest of my maintenance training.
Great Video. I think your commentary on the USCG Taney excellemt and sensible.
Fantastic video again, Greg. One of the key factors in the choices that the US made about the fighters used in WWII that you have made me aware of is that cost seems to be the key feature. The Thunderbolt was not inferior to the Mustang; far from it. The Corsair was not inferior to the Hellcat either, by any means. But the Mustang and Hellcat were cheaper and very effective, and when you need to fill the skies on a budget paid for with War Bonds, cheap yet effective is probably your best choice.
The Mustang’s much lower price tag, range, and high altitude performance made it the most cost effective US fighter for the European Theater. The Hellcat’s lower cost vs. the Corsair, along with its ease of use for carrier operations and comparable effectiveness made it the best choice as the Navy fighter for the Pacific. Now I finally understand these choices that I have wondered about for decades. Thank you.
Excellent and thorough as always. As for your last point, spot on.
Thanks for touching a bit with the Yaks Greg. Another nice episode
I like the Yaks, I think they are beautiful.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles the Yak-3P is my favorite WW2 airplane to look at. I enjoy flying it in War Thunder on realistic battles. Low altitude fighter with all kinds of energy with top of the line climb rate. The G55-S is another beautiful bird too. The mustang looks okay. But as far as design goes the planes with the Vs have my heart. The i-225 looks astounding as well, but they only made a small handful to propose filling the interceptor role
Keep the videos coming. They are well worth the wait, so do not feel rushed to produce. Quality over quantity.
I have listened to this at least 15 times. This is my favourite channel. Il2 sturmovik video game in vr ROCKS
"Just one more thing..." Reminded me of Detective Columbo. Excellent video. Thank you.
Hmm, I wonder if that's where I got it. If so, I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but I did watch the show as a kid.
Didn't some British carrier based F4U's and F6F's tangle with Germans whilst escorting bomber attacks on the battleship Tirpitz in Norway? I would give a decent pilot certainly in a F4U a more than reasonable chance against a 109 or 190. Looking forward to this one again Greg.
There was at least one FAA F6F v FW-190 battle over Norway which was won by the F6F. There were also some F6F v. Luftwaffe engagements during Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France.
I do not know of an F4U v. Luftwaffe engagements.
There was also a FAA FM-2 v. BF-109 battle which was in the Wildcats' sweet spot. The FM-2's won.
As Von Richtofen stated, "It is not the crate, it is the pilot flying it."
Carrier-based pilots were the best. You simply had to be a more skilled pilot to take off and land on a carrier, especially at that time.
@@wanyelewis9667 Being carrier rated certainly does not make you a better dog fighter or a better shot!
@wanyelewis9667 thats as absurd as saying that someone who can parallel park better than Jeff Gordon will beat him in a race
Thank you Greg for research and comparisons of these fine aircraft. WW11 was a crucible of engineering and technology on all levels. My Father served in the Pacific Theater and his take on the aircraft of the day was they were all fast, bad, "killing machines" He loved aviation and flying seen from the birth of of it all. Shame that warfare has been the sole driving force for great technological breakthroughs in our lives. Keep up the good work man, James Smith.
War has always been a hotbed for technological innovation .
Thanks Greg, This was very entertaining to listen to and watch. I must admit the Mark Hanna comments about the 51 did put a smile on my face. Always a pleasure, especially since you refuse to subscribe to "Alternate Facts". I do remember reading, not only did the FAA teach the U.S. Navy how to Carrier land the F4U, but I also thought {if I remember correctly} the FAA also trimmed 8" off each wingtip of the F4U. Not for performance, but to be able to fit the F4U below deck. Thanks for the show
Smart comment at the end about the ship 🚢
We’ll done 👍🏻