Jump to content

Talk:Grumman F6F Hellcat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Question

I'm not sure if anyone can answer this, but to what extent was the success of the Hellcat against Japanese fighters a reflection of the sheer numbers of Hellcats? Are there any examples of Hellcat pilots overcoming numerically stronger Japanese formations? Grant65 | Talk 04:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer the specific questions, and the answer may well depend on the relative levels of experience of the opposing pilots. There are however some objective comparisons of Hellcats vs. Zeros by two Japanese authors, Masatake Okumiya, a flying officer and IJN staff officer of carrier task forces in most of the major battles in the Pacific from 1942-44, and Jiro Horikoshi, who designed the Claude, Zero, Raiden, and Reppu. Here are quotes from their book:
". . . the new Hellcat had a higher maximum speed than the Zero, could outclimb and outdive and outgun it, and retained the desired benefits of high structural strength, armor plating, and self-sealing fuel tanks. In fact, with the exception of turning radius and radius of action, the Hellcat completely outperformed the Zero."
"Of the many American fighter planes we encountered in the Pacific, the Hellcat was the only fighter which could acquit itself with distinction in a fighter-vs-fighter dogfight."
Okumiya, M. and Horikoshi, J., with Caidin, M., Zero, E. P. Dutton & Co. (New York, 1956).
Having given the Hellcat its due, we should acknowledge that this article does not have a NPOV. It should not be a fanpage, and fulsome adjectives and unqualified comparisons do not belong. The facts speak for themselves. And the answer to the question of which aircraft was the "best" turns on this question: "For what?". Kablammo 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kab. Grant65 | Talk 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the designaton "0.5 in." to .50 caliber as this is the more common designation. El Jorge 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed some NPOV sentences: "Safe, reliable, and beloved by its crews, the Grumman F6F Hellcat remains one of the greatest fighting machines in all of aviation history." While true, it is definately NPOV. El Jorge 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many images

There are 10 pictures of Hellcats and their crews on this page. Could someone make a Commons page to hold them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kniobo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

  • I appreciate the pictures and propose we keep them on the page unless there's an issue with the size of the page being too large.

Drawingnearisgood 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur; ten images is acceptable for an article of a major subject such as the Grumman Hellcat. Previous editors have also been scrupulously attentive to the size of the images so that the article is not overly large. Bzuk 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Personally I like more images as opposed to less, especially for Aircraft Articles. I suppose they would be annoying for people on dial-up connections, but to me they never detract from an article. --Colputt 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IE7 display weirdness?

Does anyone else see a big gap under the heading for "Design and Development" in IE7? It doesn't show up for me in Mozilla, and was wondering if it was happening to anyone else.--Raguleader 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I played with it some, and now there are no spaces on my display. But there are too many pictures, as mentioned above. A gallery may be in order. Kablammo 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I have started doing an aircraft image gallery(hobby project) and I think it will be useful to add a link to it here. I have tried this in the past but I broke some rules (you are not allowed to add links to your own website) so it was deleted by another user (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TAG.Odessa#Why_are_you_deleting_the_external_links.3F).

The solution, according to the 'external links' rules : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest is to "please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it".

F6F Hellcat Image Gallery : http://www.aircraft-list.com/db/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat/48/

So please look over that page and if you think it is useful then add it, if not then just ignore this message.

Thanks

Best wishes

Nekhbet 08:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it should be added. 69.214.57.104 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Combat Radius Vs Ferry Range

The data for the combat radius (820 nm) and ferry range (1330 nm) do not make sense. The combat radius is the distance a fully armed fighter can fly to, fight, and return. The ferry range is the maximum safe one-way distance you can fly at the most economical speed. It seems to me the ferry range should be more than twice the combat radius. Could anyone please confirm this and/or edit the main page. Mark Wales, mark.wales@yahoo.com

The combat radius quoted looks wrong - the version of the F6F-5's Standard Aircraft Characteristics online (at http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)- states the combat RANGE as 950 nm @ 15,000 ft and 178 knots - and a combat RADIUS of 340 nm. I certantly can't find the quoted ranges in any of the references that are claimed for the specifications - although the maximum range is quoted in Thetfords "British Naval Aircraft" as 1,530 mi at 161 mph (with maximum fuel of 332 gallons) which matches up and fits reasonably with the data in the SACs- it looks like someone could have confused combat range with combat radius and miles with nm. Nigel Ish 21:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If the F6F-5 Standard Aircraft Characteristics link above doesn't work (it didn't work for me), it can also be found at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf . A problem with generalized "specifications" in venues such as this is that usually the loading condition of the airplane (which greatly effects the performance of the airplane) is not specified (WWII flight test documents--especially U.S.Navy & RAF flight tests--go to great lengths to specify the loading condition of the tested airplane for a given set of performance data)71.228.225.234 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

F6F-5 Control Surfaces

Regarding the statement, "The next and most common variant, the F6F-5, featured improvements such as all-metal control surfaces," no production F6F ever had "all-metal" covered control surfaces. The only metal clad control surfaces on the production F6Fs were the small (about 3 foot span) inboard flaps on the stub wing abbutting the fuselage. The outboard sections of the flaps, ailerons, elevators & rudder were all fabric covered throughout production. The fabric covered surfaces were easier to manufacture, lighter & easier to maintain/repair. Even the later F8F had all fabric covered surfaces (including flaps) throughout production. The improvement made to the flight controls of the F6F-5 was to inhance roll performance by adding a "spring tab" (known in British circles as a "servo tab") to each aileron. "On the F6F-5 airplane the ailerons are equipped with spring tabs to lighten control forces. Their operation is completely automatic." (Ref: Pilots Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions for Navy Models F6F-3, F6F-3N, F6F-5, F6F-5N Airplanes) Also, the small window behind the cockpit wasn't actually "replaced with armor," but rather was deleted as of little value to the pilot (reducing production steps required in that section of the airframe, thus slightly simplifying production). There was a slight addition of armor to the area (the small cut-outs in the seat back armor which supposedly allowed the pilot to look out of the windows were illiminated, again simplifying production of that part).192.100.70.210 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

(All of the trim tabs were also metal clad; a small point, but I know how we all like to split hairs)192.100.70.210 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat

An excellent site for Hellcat data

I discovered this site just after it first started http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ - lots of good data and pdf files to get stuck into. I've added some of these to the external links and tweaked the F6F-5 info.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Paraguay?

According to me Paraguay never used F6F Hellcats, who can prove me wrong? I think someone mixed up Uruguay and Paraguay at some point. Could not find a shred of evidence for Paraguay yet in my library.Dirk P Broer (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Found a reference [1] to the Paraguayan Hellcats, they would have been handed down by Argentina, another unconfirmed user of the Hellcat...Dirk P Broer (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many images (round 2)

See round one above

We are now up to 17 images. That is way too many. The text should be accompanied by a few photos which illustrate the points made in print. If there are multiple images showing the same point, choose the best, or rotate them periodically. The rest should be put in a gallery, or those wishing to see them can go to the Commons link. This should be an article, not a repository for photographs. We have Commons for the latter. Kablammo (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur and when there are two or three similar images, one should suffice. I think that a dozen images would be appropriate for an article this size. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
I deleted a few and more could be trimmed. On a wide monitor there still are whitespaces, but less than before. The infobox intrudes into the first section but with a fuller introduction (which an article of this size could use) that problem would be mitigated.
In selecting images to delete I attempted to choose the better image of similar views-- a subjective process, to be sure. But as nothing on Wikipedia is permanent that can be changed if others feel differently. I do agree with Bzuk (who does an excellent job maintaining this article) that one (perhaps two) per section, and a dozen overall, are more than enough.
I also moved the commons link up to See also where it is more visible. Kablammo (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cf the F4U

This uncited statement was added to the end of the design and development section: "Though many people would debate that the Vought F4U Corsair is better than the F6F Hellcat, some pilots would say that the F6F is better because the F4U is harder to fly compared to the F6F. Only professional pilots were offered F4U but many pilots stayed with the Hellcat.[citation needed]"

Er, this is a silly statement to put in an encyclopaedic article; who cares if many people debate whether the F4U was better than the F6F? And of course pilots who flew one or t'other have long debated their respective merits, with many having strong loyalties towards their favourite mount. Anyway, it's gone and been replaced with cited material which should make more sense. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hellcat vs. Zero armament

I just reverted an edit that removed the claim that the Hellcat had better armament than the Zero. I think this needs to be discussed first.

Williams and Gustin, in their Flying Guns of World War II, give the Type 99 20mm cannon a total gun power (taking into account both destructiveness of round and rate of fire) of between 96 and 120 depending on the precise model. The 7.7mm Type 97 has a gun power of just 16. Total for the Zero is this from 224 to 272. The Browning 0.50 is given a gun power of 58, which gives the Hellcat a total gun power of 348. So it would seem the Hellcat really does have the superior gun power.

In addition, the ammunition loadout for the Zero's 20mm guns was quite small, and the low muzzle velocity of the weapon made for poor accuracy. Saburo Sakai is quoted at http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/6/A6M_Zero.htm has saying: "Our 20mm cannons were big, heavy and slow firing. It was extremely hard to hit a moving target. Shooting down an enemy aircraft was like hitting a dragonfly with a rifle! It was never easy to score ... our opponents were tough." (Regrettably, this tertiary source does not precisely identify its own source for the quote, but it may have been Bergerud, Fire in the Sky).

So the claim that the Hellcat was better armed overall than the Zero has considerable support. --Yaush (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note on F6F's purpose

This comment - "The Grumman F6F Hellcat was a carrier-based fighter aircraft initially conceived as a super Wildcat or "wilder Wildcat"[1] - is either expression historically accurate, or is it just an anecdote made up by an author to sound good? I have not seen this in several books on the Hellcat and some confirmation that this was historical would be useful.

This note: "Although originally proposed as an up-graded replacement for the F4F Wildcat, by April 1942, due to the urgency of war, the carrier borne F6F Hellcat would be purpose built. 1938 Designs 33, 33A, 35, and Design 50 in 1940 were designated as "F4F" airplanes[2] The F6F Hellcat's beginning, as known by history, can be traced to Medal of Honor receipient Butch O'Hare's meeting with Grumman engineers on 22 April 1942, when 4 days later BuAer directed Grumman to begin designing the F6F to counter the A6M Zero.[3][4][5][6]"

is confused and confusing to anyone reading it, nor does it belong in the introduction, which is not a discussion about the F6F's design origins or evolution. The first sentence is rhetoric because quite obviously the F6F was "purpose built" and it was designed to replace the F4F. Secondly it is doubtful that O'Hare alone can be credited with the "Hellcat's beginning as known by history"; the F6F evolved into an anti-A6M fighter at the instigation of a lot of people, with O'Hare being one of the most notable; Grumman had already worked with other pilots, including Thach. The story is well covered in the design and development section and adding this note would simply confuse things.

Finally, the F6F was not the only "wartime design to see service..." The Douglas A-26 Invader first flew after the XF6F-1 and saw combat service from mid-1944. The Hawker Tempest V was a wartime design. The F6F was one of the few wartime designs to see service, not the only. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur, as most of the recent edits were extremely difficult to incorporate, rife with spelling and citation errors as well as not established in a chronological order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Yup, lots of very bad history there. The F6F was already in prototype by July 1942 (if not earlier); a number of other designs came later (the P-61 Black Widow is another that comes to mind); the rhetoric is bloated. Edit away. Yaush (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Bzuk & Yaush, Grumman's Bill Schwendler and his engineers were working on designs to improve the F4F Wildcat in 1941.(The Grumman Story p. 134) It flew as an experimental XF6F-1 prototype at Bethpage on 26 June 1942.(The Grumman Story p. 135) After the meetings with Butch O'Hare and 'Jimmy' Thach and Grumman Vice President Jake Swirbul. There was no mention of a F6F Hellcat prior December 7, 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.226.177 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello Minorhistorian, you initially did a fine job on formating the Hellcat article, was quite impressive, you took the facts (referenced sources) and put them into a readable and chronological article; well done! But of course it later got "edited a bit too much" (which hinted of having a "smack" of an agenda instead of a standard editing job; especially deleting 6 reputable authors as references that was the part that caught the eye) leaving no meat or pototoes, just vegetables. Regardless, you did a professional job, good work.

We'll try to answer your questions but we'll raise your paragraphs and answer them in dark print just below each paragraph, if thats OK with you? Be easier to track and understand that way: But before we start, with your expertise (shown with your A-20 and Hawker airplane research) can you find out if American aircraft builders ever used an integral wing (attached to the fuselage). 9 wrecked Zeros from the Pearl Harbor attack were shipped to Dayton Ohio for study. Next thing you know, Grumman's experimental XF6F-1 has "integral wings" 90 days after Pearl Harbor.

Its the author's words Minorhistorian, we can only go by what people write...none of us were there. Those people, are for the most part, long gone now. All we have is what they recorded. It can be stated that the "Hellcat" went without a name from its beginnings until September 1943. So a "super Wildcat" or "wilder Wildcat" could have very well have been possible. Grumman employees (Bethpage) was the only producer of the Hellcat simply called it "the plane." (Again ref Graff).

Grumman wanted to replace the F4F Wildcat just like any automobile manufacturer replaces their products every year. Example: A 1970 Dodge Charger will be replaced by a newer model 1971 Dodge Charger, and auto engineers are (or were) designing it well before the 1970 car ever hit the assembly line. Its standard operating procedure if companies want to stay in business. Keeping up with demand and retaining their loyal customers. Roy Grumman was doing the same thing, satisfying his number one customer, the United States Navy. Designs 33, 33A, 35, and then in 1940 Design 50 were all "new cars" to replace the old one. (Ref Francillon p. 194) Remember, Design 50 was used to commence the newly modified airplane F6F, but was marked F4F. (Photo of Design 50 is on page 195 Francillon-marked F4F). Therefore, the F6F couldn't have designed to replace the F4F, a souped up version of the Wildcat was intended to do that.(Evidence is photograph on p. 195 of Francillon's book). Butch O'Hare met with Grumman first in April '42, Thack met Grumman in June '42 just after fighting at Midway. Its possible that other meetings occurred between those dates.

Leroy Grumman The un-named F6F was not designed to replace the F4F. An un-named up-graded aircraft was, based upon Grumman designs 33, 33A, 35, and the one that was ultimately used, plan 50. The Hellcat was designed and built based upon the "integral wing" that you might be able find out about, as well as Medal of Honor recipient Butch O'Hare's visit with Grumman engineers on 22 April 1942.

The reference on Thruelsen's page 135 was from a paragraph discussing a "single engine fighter" not a twin engine A-20 bomber. The same sentence specifically stated "American". Not a British airplane.

The term "purpose built" was intended to replace such offending terms such as: "The Hellcat was designed (or built) to exterminate the Zero", or the "Hellcat was specifically built to terminate the Zero", or "the Hellcat was specifically intened to kill the Zero", "the Hellcat was built to murder the Zero", and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all how about reading Wikipedia's protocols about not interleaving your comments with those of other editors - it is simply bad manners, so please don't do it again, thank you.
Secondly what's this with the royal "We"? How about saying "I will..." which is a little less condescending.
Third - you complain about my editing to an "agenda" based on what? Read and learn about good faith editing before you start flinging accusations around. It could equally be demonstrated that your editing was based on an agenda, so don't get into that.
About the "integral wings" - you seem to be confused on this point - the Zero had its wings built in as an integral part of the aircraft's centre section, correct? In other words the forward and rear fuselage were bolted to the centre section entire, including the wings. You seem to be implying that the F6F cribbed this? Take a look at page 27 of Graff's book on the F6F and tell me that it used identical construction techniques to the A6M; the wing centre section was built as a unit which was then added to the fuselage, quite different to the A6M -plus the F6F was an extension and refinement of construction techniques already used in the F4F.
Your comments about the F6F being a replacement for the F4F with the analogue about a car manufacturer replacing cars was completely unnecessary because I and others are fully aware of this.
Much of the material which was removed discussed, at some length, the qualities of the F4F against the Zero and it did not belong in this article. Then there was an extremely long and detailed note about what happened to the TBD-1s at Midway which, while properly referenced, had nothing whatsoever to do with an article on the Hellcat.
As for your specific claim that " The F6F Hellcat's beginning, as known by history, can be traced to Medal of Honor receipient Butch O'Hare's meeting with Grumman engineers on 22 April 1942". Please elucidate: what happened at this meeting to change the prototype so significantly that it only became known as the F6F Hellcat from that date?
Does this phrase mean that O'Hare saw the XF6F-1 being built, grabbed the blueprints, redesigned the prototype then called up BuAer who made it official four days later? Or does it just mean he said to Swirbul and co "Nope, not good enough, put a more powerful engine in the thing, beef up the structure and call it the F6F Hellcat?"
Do your sources actually say that " The F6F Hellcat's beginning, as known by history, can be traced to..." or is this your opinion? If so Wikipedia has guidelines about original research which asks that editors refrain from this.
The fact is that your edits were confused and confusing to read; other editors have agreed and your comments have indicated this. For example, there is no historical evidence that the Hellcat was called "Wilder Wildcat' or similar - you have confirmed that this is nothing but anecdote which may or may not have been current in 1942 - hence, it does not belong in an encylopaedic article. Being "very well possible" is not good enough. (I have Graff's book, BTW, and he does not clarify whether this term was historical, or his own ahistorical conjecture)
Please show me anywhere in the article where the "offending terms such as: "The Hellcat was designed (or built) to exterminate the Zero", or the "Hellcat was specifically built to terminate the Zero", or "the Hellcat was specifically intened to kill the Zero", "the Hellcat was built to murder the Zero", and so forth... are or were? The only phrase to similar effect was "The Hellcat was the first USN fighter for which the design took into account lessons from combat with the Japanese Zero.[7]" which disappeared sometime between September 2011 and now.
This is how the sentence about the Hellcat being the only wartime design to see service read;

The Hellcat would be America's "only wartime design to see combat with American forces".[8][9]

It did not specify "single engine fighter" so, if quoting directly from the source why omit that fact, only to clarify it now? The way it was worded was historically inaccurate and, again, it did not belong in the article. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


If the paragraph had stated "Fletcher class destroyers" instead of Hellcat, and the sentence "only wartime design to see combat with American forces" was used, wouldn't you think that meant a destroyer?
Greetings Minorhistorian,
I'll start off this way to get started, but will probably have to scroll back up again, like last time in order to isolate your question to answer them accurately.  Cannot memorize each one of your questions (paragraphs in some cases).  The screen does NOT ALLOW the writer to see all of the question(s) and reply to them AT THE SAME TIME. Scrolling is constantly up and down, causing mispellings as well as not answering the question, which may have happended to you by the way.  As I've noticed some (alot) of your responses, that I'm going to respond to now, were not relatrd to what I wrote.  Said another way, you misread my replies.
So here we go: Your quote "First of all how about reading Wikipedia's protocols about not interleaving your comments with those of other editors, it is simply bad manners, so please don't do it again, thank you."
One of my first replys to you (don't recall if it was the first, second, or third...because I can't currently see it without scrolling and then losing my thought process): "WE'LL TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS BUT WE'LL RAISE YOUR PARAGRAPHS AND ANSWER THEM IN DARK PRINT JUST BELOW EACH PARAGRAPH, IF THATS OK WITH YOU? BE EASIER TO TRACK AND UNDERSTAND THAT WAY."
Is that what you were referring to, about "interleaving", if it was, could you please read things completely and digest them properly before going off "half-cocked" on somebody. It is much easier to repond to questions one at a time rather then going back and forth through a whole page of sentences, trying to figure out which question needs to be addressed. If thats what that so called "interleaving" was all about (if that is what you were referring to). A computer screen DOES NOT allow a writer to read the whole letter and type a response at the same time. The writing is cut off, he has to scroll to read then scroll again to type a response, thats why the so called "interleaving" was done...again, if that is what you were referring to. Furthermore, I'm not as familiar with these communication machines as you are, apparently, I have absolutely no problem at all with you re-formatting these sentences/paragraphs like you did with the previous messages. Obviously, you now how to do it both quickly and efficiently. But its far more important to get to the business of discussing the F6F Hellcat, no matter what our writing style is, agreed?
Your commment, "Secondly what's this with the royal "We"? (again we're wasting time here, but it deserves a response). Generally, as there are always exceptions to the rule, in the 20th century Cold War era, unless you were the commander, "I" was seldom used, a form of "protocol" if you will. Example: "I don't ever want to hear that term again, am I clear!?" This statement tensed up the men. "We don't want to use those terms, clear?" The men were more relaxed (and receptive).
To make a long story short (and it should be sense we're wasting an awful lot of time talking about something un-related to the subject-the Hellcat) when an officer said the word "I", the men tensed up. Constant use of the word "I" when leading men in combat can lead to deterioration of moral, and after a few days of absorbing casualties, it can lead to disciplinary problems; in one particular war it led to fraggings. "I" meant, "I'm in charge", "I give the orders." The Grumman F6F Hellcat is a military machine, this is a military subject, and this article is being discussed by more than one person, so "we'll" discuss it.
Your statement, "you complain about my editing to an "agenda" based on what?" Again Minorhistorian, read and understand (digest) what you are reading before "going-off half-cocked" on people. "Half-cocked" for this usage means, "thinking too thoughtlessly or hastily without knowing (reading) all the facts first", (Reference dictionary). The sentence read, "which hinted of having a "smack" of an agenda." What that meant was, you didn't have an agenda, but it certainly skirted the border of having one; deleting or relegating to fine print (like in a contract) any direct references from reputable authors supporting evidence to the Hellcat's "direct" designing/construction which gave any influence to it's "designed purpose."
You void out Graff's term "wilder Wildcat" as an "anecdote" (p. 24, 57) because you disagree with it, and yet you want me use page 27 from the same author, same book, same subject (the Hellcat) to support your statesment(s),(Hypocritical).
You void out (or relegate to hidden places where readers won't look, are too lazy to scroll to, or don't know it exists) Tillman's p. 6; "You can't hit 'em if you can't see 'em", (I do agree however, that some of those "notes" that you put into fine print DO LOOK GOOD in an encyclopedia though)...as I wrote in my first response to you (THAT YOU DID NOT READ CORRECTLY) you are a very knowledgable and seemingly to me, a very professional historian/writer. To continue, ALL PILOTS HAVE TO HAVE GOOD VISIBILITY...this article is about the Hellcat, the only general issue warplane (unless you can discover another one, and discounting experimental ones, prototypes, etc) that was designed and built to destroy another specific airplane; an aircraft carrier based fighter, the Zero. How many combat fliers of a specific warplane during WWII (F4F Wildcat in this case), plus the President of the United States (FDR's conversation with Butch O'Hare), the highest ranking US Naval Officer, second only to the President of the United States, Admiral King, communicating with secret military messages with the highest ranking Naval Commander during WWII in the PTO, Admiral Nimitz, and Admiral Spruance in command during one of the most decisive naval battles in WWII's PTO (Midway), discussing via classified messages with Capt Miles Browning; Grumman F4F Wildcat]]s running out of fuel, which resulted in the annihilation of the Hornet's bombers (all 15 of them), and the destruction of 10 bombers from the Enterprise's 14 Devastators (because the Enterprise's F4Fs were running out of fuel and had to return to the Enterprise). The Yorktown's F4F Wildcats were the only ones that stayed in the fight and tangled with the intercepting Zeros. But 10 out of the 12 launched Yorktown bombers were shot down. But their loss was valid, escorts running out of gas (short ranged fighters) is not a good excuse; and bearing in mind that the Hellcat is a carrier based fighter and the Imperial Navy only operates one type of carrier based fighter, therefore the Hellcat is being designed to kill the Zero...not the Betty, not the Kate torpedo plane, not the Val dive bomber, nor the Me 109. Do you know if any of the above described "type of people" were INVOLVED with another American warplane to destroy another type during WWII?
The Zero/Hellcat actually became a war between Grumman and Mitsubishi. Note the semi or quoted information from p. 166 of Thruelsen's book, "The Grumman Story." "We (Grumman) read all the reports...talked to the boys...O'Hare, Gaylor, Thach...it was an education. They gave us a picture of a fighter pilot's operation as it was...alot of things they didn't like about their fighter opposition...We (Grumman) realized by this time that we (Grumman) had a problem." "Grumman was beginning to get a picture of that "enigma" it was facing, the Zero fighter. Grumman took the combat information back to Bethpage and struggled to translate it into terms of improved hardware...but unfortunately there was nothing radical they could do to improve the Wildcat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
To avoid embarrassment, Roy Grummand didn't name the F6F Hellcat untl after it proved itself in combat which was August 31, 1943 over the Island of San Marcus, he then had the press show up and publicly christened the F6F the Hellcat in September 1943; which was then loaded upon the USS Esses in January 1943.
The original plane that was supposed to replace the Wildcat, had a weaker engine, with an engine mount and fuselage to support it. This aircraft was never built. In its stead was the F6F Hellcat. This fighter, although designed and undergoing construction (actually alittle before or after December 7, 1941 ref. Thruelsen p. 135) was being built to gain supremacy over the skies of the Pacific against one airplane (IJN only operated the Zero), and by default replaced the F4F Wildcat. If WWII never had existed, then the F6F Hellcat never would've existed. There would not have been the inter-action of the President of the United States, no Medal of Honor recipient O'Hare, no Thach, no Nimitz, no Admiral King (he had been recalled retirement to fight WWII), no feedback from the battle of the Coral Sea or Midway. Just a standard ole F4F Wildcat being improved upon as the years rolled by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I repeat please do not interleave your comments in with mine. I will not ask again.
I'm not the only one editing these articles, nor am I the only one who edited out your additions: other experienced editors have disagreed with your approach and style and have altered the article accordingly, so please don't address your remarks exclusively to me. If you do not understand this, that's not my fault. As for your claims about me going off half-cocked? On the one hand you say I'm very good or professional, and I thank you for that, yet you then go on to disparage much of my editing and make out I'm "skirting" some agenda? Has it actually occurred to you that I and other editors who are experienced in editing Wikipedia articles might happen to know what we are doing? (Take a look at how many Wikipedia articles are edited and you will find the same processes taking place, where information is "relegated" to footnotes or omitted because it is not central or essential to the story. This is an encylopaedic article, not a book where every small anecdote can be described in detail.)
"You void out Graff's term "wilder Wildcat" as an "anecdote" (p. 24, 57) because you disagree with it, and yet you want me use page 27 from the same author, same book, same subject (the Hellcat) to support your statesment(s),(Hypocritical)."
Talk about going off half-cocked! I asked for some supporting information for the origins of the expression "Wilder Wildcat", which is not supplied by Graff. By contrast the illustration of the Hellcat's construction on page 27 as been properly documented: "Grumman via the Cradle of Aviation Museum". There is no need to speculate whether this drawing is the author's drawing or his interpretation of the construction techniques used for the F6F. Plus I was showing you that your comments about the F6F's construction techniques being similar to that of the A6M, (and, by implication, based on the construction techniques gleaned from the captured examples) are wrong. That you do not appreciate either point is not my problem. BTW there is properly referenced information in Graff's book which is somewhat more useful to this article than the material you want to include.
In your rather rambling paragraph 6(?) you have stated that the design of the Hellcat was a result of a series of consultations between Grumman, BuAer and several fighter pilots, and that the new fighter was intended to counter the A6M. Strangely enough this is said in the article, ie:

"Throughout early 1942 Roy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (abbreviated BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots,[12] to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.[13]"

So what's more do you want, apart from crediting the redesign to O'Hare alone? I am not ignorant and I and other editors do not need to be treated to a long rambling historical analysis about who said what to whom and when and why - just explain how this can be conveniently fitted into the article without turning it into a lengthy, unencyclopaedic dissertation about the history of WW 2, or how each little event connected and eventually led to the design of the Hellcat. "To make a long story short" - I invite you to do so.
You objected to the use of phrases, which did not exist in the article, such as: "The Hellcat was designed (or built) to exterminate the Zero", or the "Hellcat was specifically built to terminate the Zero", or "the Hellcat was specifically intened to kill the Zero", "the Hellcat was built to murder the Zero", and so forth... yet now, it seems, you want the article to say that the F6F was specifically designed to shoot down Zeros? A little consistency, please.
This article is about the F6F Hellcat and has nothing to do with lengthy discussions on the fighting qualities of the F4F versus A6M or the fate of the TBD-1s during the battle of Midway. I note your editing comment in the F4F article that the said "Article is about the F4F Wildcat, not the F6F Hellcat..." yet you expect to add a whole swag of information about the F4F and TBD to an article on the F6F? The word hypocrite springs to mind.
I also note that you, or others using the same IP address, have been warned or blocked several times because of disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia - should you persist in interleaving your comments with mine, in spite of being asked not to do so, the next block will be for longer. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Graff p. 24, 57
  2. ^ Francillon (photo) of Design 50 marked as an "F4F" p. 195
  3. ^ Thruelsen p. 135, 166
  4. ^ Tillman p. 11, 96
  5. ^ Ewing/Lundstrom (BlueJacket 2004) p. 155,156
  6. ^ Ewing 2004 p. 86, 182, 308
  7. ^ Faltum 1996, p. 35.
  8. ^ Thruelsen 1976, p. 135.
  9. ^ Tillman 1979, p. 11, 96.

Challenging the validity of a reference source

Recently, the following source has been challenged:

  • Barber, S.B. Naval Aviation Combat Statistics: World War II, OPNAV-P-23V No. A129

The reference source exists on the web at: <http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf> AFAIK, the figures are there in at least two locations, and are absolutely correct. If there is no more discussion of the reliability of the source (given a reasonable time for editors to contribute to this talk page), the statements will be restored. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Variants discrepancies

The article body claims that the XF6F-4 was converted from the -1 prototype and the -2 was converted from a -3. The latter seems unlikely - why would a later type be given an earlier designation? Later on the Variants section says that the -2 was converted from the -1 and the -4 converted from a -3. Someone please check the references and verify which is correct. Bthylafh (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grumman F6F Hellcat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks citations, too much POV, lacks in substance. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 16:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Quality of design & lack of changes

In 2012, User:Minorhistorian added the sentence:

"Such was the quality of the basic simple straight-forward design the Hellcat was the least modified fighter of the war, with a total of 12,200 being built in just over two years."

Now in May 2016, this claim has been contested by NiD.29, who changed the sentence into

"Such was the quality of the basic simple, straightforward design, that the Hellcat was one of the least modified fighters to see widespread service in the war, with a total of 12,200 being built in just over two years."

referring to "far more modifications than many unsuccessful types", and on the same day, after BilCat had challenged that change with a vs-tag, Nid.29 removed his modification totally, only to leave

"Such was the quality of the basic simple, straightforward design, that 12,200 were built in just over two years."

But this way the sentence doesn't make sense anymore. The number doesn't prove anything. The Germans built over 14,000 Me 109 in 1944 alone, not because of an outstanding quality of that type at the time, neither lacking substantial modifications even within that very year, but because they had to spit out everything they could. So either the original claim, citing "Kinzey 1996, p. 4." as source, is to be restored in some consense wording, or the sentence is to be cut further to

"12,200 were built in just over two years."

Opinions? --KnightMove (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing you haven't considered is that the Me 109 had been in production since the 1930s, while the F6F first flew in June 1942. That's the context of the 12,000 produced statement, and all were at one factory, IIRC. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The context of the statement was the lack of modifications of that type, explained with the basic quality of the design. If there is no more statement on a lack of modifications, there is no more meaning in stating the basic quality of the design. Of course this highly successful fighter had a good design, but the successes in combat say more about it than the production rate. --KnightMove (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You brought up another design's production numbers, and that's what I was placing in context. It might be helpful at this point to actually see what the cited source says, and then determine what is worth keeping. - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I perfectly agree with your last sentence, but still stay with the position that the sentence is not meaningful as-is. Let's wait for other contributions, especially of Minorhistorian, who has added the sentence and cited the source. --KnightMove (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Least modified fighter of the war is a pretty bold claim to make without a reference, and a quick check reveals plenty of other successful fighters that underwent minimal modifications which negate it - and the supposedly "sound original design" still underwent considerable modification before it was production ready, particularly compared to much more revolutionary types. Instead success almost always resulted in plenty of modifications to other roles or to extend the service life etc so is hardly a useful guide as to the "quality of its basic design", but rather the opposite - almost no evolution occurred because Grumman was already focused on the F8F, which resolved many of the F6F's limitations in a manner no F6F development could have, and it served for a relatively short period of time - only three years of a 6 year war. Notice also how quickly post-war the F6Fs were modified into target drones. I would go with the concise "12,200 were built in just over two years." unless you can find references for the number of man hours needed to build them so a comparison can be made to other types - I have seen numbers for the P-51, Spitfire and others and that would be be a useful addition. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@NiD.29: Thank you for your analysis. I was still waiting for a contribution from User:Minorhistorian, but it probably doesn't make sense anymore.
I'm not sure about the man hours. Parallel idea: It seems to be that the Hellcat was one of the fighters with the hightest production rates in WWII. Is this correct, and if so, maybe this might be a new frame for the production number? --KnightMove (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It had a comparable production run to the P-47 (not sure of exact number of months but both were 1942-45) of which slightly more P-47s were built. I found this paper on industry wide man-power costs, however I don't have time at the moment to decipher the math - the F6F seems to fall in the middle of the pack. - NiD.29 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Well then, let's keep it simple stupid. I'm going to shorten the sentence as suggested in the next days, unless there are further objections. --KnightMove (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grumman F6F Hellcat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grumman F6F Hellcat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Grumman F6F Hellcat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about the airplane's speed. What is to be corrected?

The part named "Specifications (F6F-5 Hellcat)", particularly the paragraph "Performance" states that the Hellcat's speed is 330 kn (391 mph, 629 km/h), which cannot be true. I open a simple convertor and find out that 330kn≠391mph=629km/h.

330 kn is 611.16 km/h or 379.84 mph (both km/h and mph differ substantially from those written in the article).

391 mph is 629.12 km/h (which is very close) = 339.7 kn (which is much closer to 340 kn).

629 km/h = 390.93 mph (which is again very close to what is written in the article) = 339.63 (which is much closer to 340 kn).

If the speed in knots – 330 kn – is correct, the speed in miles per hour and kilometres per hour is false (must be 611.16 km/h or 379.84 mph).

If the speed in miles per hour and kilometres per hour is correct (391 mph, 629 km/h), the speed in knots is false (must be 340 kn).

If this is really an encyclopaedia all three numbers must mach. --Alexandre de Labène (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grumman_F6F_Hellcat/Archive_1&oldid=1136779103"