# F6F or F4U



## bob44 (Oct 16, 2013)

If we could have only have one of these two aircraft in the Pacific War with the US Navy/Marines, which one would we choose?
This includes on carriers and land. As a fighter, bomber, attacker.


----------



## KeithA0000 (Oct 16, 2013)

I'm a bit biased-- I love the Corsair-- it was a heavy hitter, and could carry more air-to-ground, had a bit better range, was a bit faster than the Hellcat. The Hellcat was a superb and dominant fighter, but the fact is that the Wildcat did most of the heavy fighting up to and including Midway. I think the fact that the Corsair's career was longer than that of the Hellcat pretty much answers the question.


----------



## alneal (Oct 16, 2013)

They shared the P&W R-2800 engine. Corsairs were a bit spongy for carrier landings, and consequently, had more accidents.
The "hose nose" Corsair had really poor forward visibility on the ground. If you're going to fight with it, you have to take off, and land. Both aircraft were excellent fighters.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2013)

I'd choose the Hellcat hands down. Easy to fly, hits the same, better turning ability, and very similar performance except slower roll for the Hellcat. But in the Pacific, the primary opponents were ALSO slow rolling.

Last, the Hellcat shot diwn the most enemy aicraft despite being in service for almost the exact same length of time. It also has the best air-to-air kill ratio against enemy aircraft of any fighter in the US inventory. In my mind, no comparison, The service length awas more of a choice of which piston was in a better position to be supported for some time ongoing after the war than of which was more effective in a particular role.

The Hellcat tooki off and landed shorter, turned better, was slower rolling, and had not quite the same climb. Later, the very late-war Corsairs had a powerplant that made a big difference in speed and climb. If the Hellcat had the same engine and prop as the Corsair, as they did early on, the change in performance for the Hellcat would have been as great, too.

In point of fact, since the jet age was dawning, the Corsair was probably a better choice for support of ground missions than the Hellcat. For an air superiority fighter, that is no insult, and the Hellcat could have done a credible job the same as the Corsair did in Korea and onward for a time.

Give me a Hellcat any day.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2013)

When you are basically the only a/c taking on enemy a/c one would expect a better a2a kill ratio.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2013)

Hi Milosh, 

What exactly does that mean? I don't understand what you were trying to say. Versus enemy aircraft, the Hellcat was the best the USA had in WWII. What more can you ask than being the best?

Not trying to fight, just to understand what your post meant. There was not any verified better kill ratio for aircraft versus aircraft. The Finns operated less than 10% of all Buffalos and were VERY good, but highly atypical. A less than 10% sample is NOT a good sample. 60+% is and they were awful when looked at in that manner. The Hellcats, on the other hand, were excellent when looked at with a 75%+ sample. 

The Finnish Buffalos flying against obsolete and udertrained Soviet pilots and planes represented less than 10% of the Buffalos. Taken as group the Buffalos were abysmal and the Finns are not representative of the type in normal combat. A turkey shoot doesn't tell much about the victor ... it tells a lot about the ambush.

Later in the war, the Finnish Buffalos would have been meat on the table to the Soviet pilots of 1944 - 1945 in Yak-3/9 or La-5/7 aircraft.


----------



## Cave Tonitrum (Oct 17, 2013)

Naval Air Combat Statistics (NACS) states that "The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit."

The report continued, finding that "The F6F was slightly superior to tie F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of itsgreater ability to survive damage."

The data paints the Corsair as being 57% more likely not to return after suffering AA damage. There has been speculation that the different oil cooling layout of the Corsair is to blame.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 17, 2013)

I always think that they were both, in different ways, very good planes (though you have compare like to like, ie the later Corsairs vs the Hellcat).

The choice would have to depend on 'what you wanted them to do'?

Overall, I'd pick the Corsair as having the better overall design with the longer design lifespan. But that is overall, in many areas of combat you would pick the Hellcat.

So both good planes, close but not quite the epitome of the US radial engined fighters (that took the later Bearcat).


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2013)

What was the only fighter a/c on the American carriers for a long time Greg?
How many F4Us were at the Turkey Shoot?



> A turkey shoot doesn't tell much about the victor ... it tells a lot about the ambush.



It sure does and that would be the F6F taking on the Japanese naval air force.

To quote Wiki,
U.S. Navy and Marine F6F pilots flew 66,530 combat sorties and claimed 5,163 kills (56% of all U.S. Navy/Marine air victories of the war) at a recorded cost of 270 Hellcats in aerial combat (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1 based on claimed but not confirmed kills).[39] The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a claimed 13:1 kill ratio against the A6M Zero, 9.5:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, and 3.7:1 against the Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war.[40] The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 305 Hellcat aces. The U.S. successes were not only attributed to superior aircraft, but also from 1942 onwards, *they faced increasingly inexperienced Japanese aviators as well as having the advantage of increasing numerical superiority*.

Now what were you saying about the Soviet Air Force vs the Finns?

In the Continuation War 25 June 1941 – 19 September 1944:

Finland lost 21 Messerschmitts in air combats but Finnish Messerschmitts shot 663 enemy airplanes down. 31:1
Finland lost 19 Brewsters in air combats but Finnish Brewsters shot 447 Russian airplanes down. 24:1
Finland lost 2 Fiat G50 fighter planes in air combats and Finnish Fiats shot 88 Russian airplanes down. 44:1

The biggest battle for Finnish Brewsters ever was in 21st of April 1943 over the Gulf Of Finland, when sixteen Brewsters combatted 35 Soviets. Four LaGG-3's, four La-5's and eleven Yak-1's were brought down against the loss of two Brewsters. Not a bad score vs obsolete Soviet a/c.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 17, 2013)

"...Now what were you saying about the Soviet Air Force vs the Finns?"



You tell 'em !


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2013)

Greg also goes on about the Bf109, yet, the Luftwaffe in the early part of the Great Patriotic War was flying against obsolete and undertrained Soviet pilots and was the only fighter for awhile and the predominate fighter, in numbers, on the Eastern Front.


----------



## Barrett (Oct 17, 2013)

In the 1944 joint fighter conference (at Eglin Field, Florida, I believe) military and industry pilots flew one anothers' aircraft and filled out detailed forms with their impressions. Subjects ranged from cockpit layout to all performance parameters plus personal opinions. The overall winner for fighter-bomber was the Corsair. I knew Col. Rex Barber, best known for the Yamamoto mission, and he joined the majority in favoring the F4U. And that's from a devoted P-38 pilot (but every P-38 pilot I ever knew was devoted!)

But...

As noted previously, the Corsair was a handful until tamed in 1943-44, and even then it didn't deploy on carriers beyond 2 night fighter detachments until the end of 44. The Hellcat destroyed Japanese aviation--nothing else came close. In fact, F6Fs were credited with nearly as many aerial kills as all AAF fighters in both the Pacific and CBI theaters.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2013)

America's One Hundred Thousand review results from all the AAF, USN, USMC, RAF and manufacturer reps (October 1944)
F4U-1D vs F6f
F6F best (of all tested) 'all around stability' followed by F4U
F4U better 'dive stability'
F4U best Production carrier based fighter (F8F eliminated), F6F next
F6F best gear and flap controls (followed by F4U and P-51)
F4U best Fighter bomber, followed by P-47D and then F6F and P-51D
F4U better all around fighter above 25,000 feet (behind P47 and P-51)
F4U better all around fighter below 25000 feet (behind 'best' P-51)
F4U better cockpit canopy than F6F (P-47 Best, then P-51)
F6F better all around visibility (P-51 best followed by P-47) 
F6F best 'all around cockpit' followed by F4U and P-51
F4U better ailerons at 350mph (P-51 best)
F6F best ailerons at 100mph (followed by F4U and P-51)

Other factors 
F4U acceleration better than F6F - about same as P-63 and much less than P-38, P-47 and P-51D
F4U dive acceleration better than F6F - P-38 best, P-51 and F4U tied for second)
F6F limit dive speed better than F4U but P-38, F6F and F4U were well behind P-47/P-51 tied 1st, P63, P-40, P-39..
F6F turn far superior to F4F
F6F range on internal fuel better than F4U-1D but far inferior to F4U-1, -1A, -1C.
F4U (all models except F4U-1D) have shorter take off run - F6F-5 nudged out the F4U-1D
F4U-4 far faster than all models of F6F
F4U (all) had about 6% less drag than F6F

America's One Hundred Thousand didn't post climb comparisons but the F4U should out perform the F6F.

Superior F4U speed, acceleration, roll, dive acceleration versus F6F better turn -- almost sounds like an F6F to A6M comparison, doesn't it? 

I would give a heavy nod to the F4U


----------



## pattle (Oct 17, 2013)

I am not an expert on either the Hellcat or the Corsair but from what I do know about the Corsair it was not in a position to replace the Wildcat at the time the Hellcat did. To add to this the Wildcat needed to be replaced urgently and it is hard to believe that the Corsair could have done any better job than the Hellcat judging by the results that the Hellcat delivered. I think that it would have been a big risk and a mistake to have chosen the Corsair over the Hellcat before the Corsair's use from carriers was perfected because there was to much at stake. I understand that a lot of the Corsairs early problems were not with the aircraft itself but the way in which it was operated from carrier decks 
After the Corsair was perfected it does sound like a better fighter bomber than the Hellcat to me and I think that the fact that it was the design chosen to be retained by the post war authorities is the strongest argument there is to back this opinion up. 
I know even less about the Bearcat than I do the Hellcat, but wouldn't the Hellcat have been replaced by the Bearcat had the war continued, I have always assumed that replacing the Hellcat was the goal of the Bearcat?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2013)

Thanks for the effort to sublime and type the comparison, Bill. 
The AHT gives 'times to climb' chart at pg. 597, and the F4U-1D is a tad better when using normal power, than the F6F-5 using military power. No doubt because it weighted some 500 lbs less (weights from the chart); less drag will help, too. Some 10 min will use the F4U-1D to climb to 20000 ft, vs. 12 min for the F6F-5, both using normal power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2013)

pattle said:


> I have always assumed that replacing the Hellcat was the goal of the Bearcat?



The Bearcat was more of a replacement for the Wildcat. The FM-2 Wildcat being continued in production for use on smaller, slower carriers than the F6F was used from. The F8F was designed to offer higher performance than the FM-2 while still being small enough (same wingspan and length as the FM-2) to fit/operate from the smaller carriers. The first prototype flew on 31 August 1944 which means design work started _well_ before the Kamikaze threat came up. The Kamikaze threat may have speedded up acceptance and priority though.


----------



## GrumpyBadger (Oct 17, 2013)

This is a good discussion, and I've enjoyed reading it. I've been fortunate enough to be around both these old warbirds recently, and even had the opportunity to sit in their cockpits.

If I had to choose one plane or the other for *both* the Navy and the USMC during WWII, I'd choose the Hellcat. A pilot needs to be able to take off and land to be able to have him and his plane survive. By all accounts I've read the Corsair was a pain on a carrier deck, _but_ she also had a better time in the dirt than the Hellcat.

But, then again, that may be why most Marine squadrons flew the Corsair and most Navy flew the Hellcat. Both are excellent planes and I think they both did their jobs fine.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Oct 17, 2013)

A pure F4U Navy would be a strong challenge.. for the Americans ! 
Doing away with the forgiving and rooky-friendly Hellcats, would run into difficulties at least for standards for pilot training. And produce a lot of accidents nonetheless, 'attritions' that would play the ennemy's hand.
The US-Navy without Hellcats 1944 onwards would be a weaker arm. (!)
But a winning one certainly .
Most importantly, a superior one, to the the Japanese...

I think the 'Corsair comfort' is mendatory, it has to be the driving force for the American way of waging war against Japan in the later stages. I think comes 1st rank. Let the Wildcats and Dauntless bear the load of the difficult times... Then swich gear.

I wouldn't like to be a rooky pilot thrown in hot battles though, operating from '2nd class aircraft carriers' despite all the good training homeland... I mean even B-29 pilots crashed upon landings, at the end of long nerve stirring missions... There would have been a lot attritions in a pure F4U Corsair USNavy.

The question then would be : would there be enough real large carriers in that era to fullfil alone, the historical role of the USN in 1944-1945 ? 
The rest, small 2nd ranking carriers, would become lesser characters in the game.. I would suspect also a strong F-4F end of career in this scenario...

Besides, is it possible, to hypothese an iddle Grumman 'new technology' effort at all?
Is it possible to imagine USNavy's staff overlooking any such one ?
There had to be a Grumman back-up, at the very least.

So in this difficult yes-no question I would choose the pure F4U option, despite the fine opposition. 
Because in this late stage war action, what would really work would be, was, *an American superiority in every fields, especially quality wise.* Exactly what the Japanese cannot stand.
They would have stood anything else.

So, B-29s and Mustangs for the USAAF, Corsairs for the USN. This is the way America settles the matter in the Pacific.

And best regards for the sacrified American youngsters smacking old decks.., and 'kudos' for those late-mark F4F, Avengers, obviously producing much back-up and much presence, much bombing and rockettery and Nip's bashing in a opposition-free environnement.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2013)

Hi again Milosh,

Not sure what your points are above.

I said the Finns were fighting against a woefully undertrained foe and their sucess would seem to solidify that view. The Finnish Buffalos are not even a 10% sample of Buffalos, so they simply count for the quality of the Finns versus their opponents in my mind, and don't say anything about the Buffalo in general. Take any random 50+% sample and see what you get.

About the kil ratio, I specified in the US inventory when I mentioed the Hellcat.

For a real kill ratio, I would not take less than a sample of at least 40% of the total production. For the US numbers about the Corsair and Hellcat, we have 85+% of the population, so I believe their numbers are quite valid for drawing conclusion about the aircraft in general.

I personally care much more about the performance of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 as a type than I do small numbers of Bf 109's in Finnish or any other service. I'm one of the guys who wants a good cross section of the plane's missions on which to base an opinion of the aircraft as a whole, not some specific small sample. That probably comes from an engineering background that includes inferential statistics.

As to the Finns specifically, they certainly showed their training and skill level were head and shoulders better than their opponents. Good job, Finland! But their good performance with the Buffalo is so atypical of the type as to be almost an abberation that might well be due as much to badly-trained Soviet opposition as much as to the prowess of the Finns ... I don't know. The Finns certainly showed good pilot quality in any case.

They made somewhere around 580 Buffalos, Take any random sample of any 300 of them and you can get an idea of the real potential of the Buffalo. Random means random, not "just the Fins" or even "include all the Finns." The big problem, at least to me, is really getting the data together, not anayzing it.

That, of course, applies to the way I think. You are certainly entitled to feel otherwise and yours may well be a more popular view, and that's fine.

If you want to talk specific numbers, the US Navy's kill ratio versus enemy aircraft was compiled by flying 66,530 combat sorties. That is not sorties, that is COMBAT sorties and is a pretty darned good sample on which to based combat effectiveness. Lest you think the Corsair is getting the bad end, the US Navy flew 64,051 combat sorties in the Corsair over about the same time period, so their combat sorties are nearly identical, and the Hellcat comes out on top by a wide margin. It shot down more than twice as many enemy aircraft.

So you can some to any conclusions you want and it doesn't change the fact that the Hellcat was a verifiably better performer in combat situations. Pilots of the two types in US service got exactly the same training. The one thing we CAN'T say is what percent of "combat sorties" involved no contact with enemy aircraft but were rather anti-ship or ground attack missions only.

As I stated above, give me a Hellcat any day. If I can have my choice, you certainly can, too. So give Milosh whatever mount he wants, and good luck to him. It's all fantasy anyway, so I'll assume we win the fight and celebrate with a good, cold beer after we land.


----------



## silence (Oct 17, 2013)

Which one took up less space on a carrier? If the difference is significant, that could be an important consideration.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2013)

You know, I never measured it even though we have a Corsair and many Hellcats come through. I was always under the impression tat the hangar space and deck space could take the same number of WWII fighter of any type if both had the same number of engines. That is, a Tigercat would take up more space, but a carrier fighter wing was a certain number of single-engine fighters.

To know if that made a real difference, we'd also have to know the hangar deck size of a WWIIc arrier and how many planes were in the hanger and also on deck.

That is an interesting question! Of course, I'd take Hellcats anyway, but your premise is quite interesting.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2013)

It is pretty simple Greg. 

If you are the only fighter fighting an inferior and out numbered enemy you are going to have a good kill ratio. In Europe, the F6F would not have faired as well as it did vs the Japanese.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 17, 2013)

pattle said:


> After the Corsair was perfected it does sound like a better fighter bomber than the Hellcat to me and I think that the fact that it was the design chosen to be retained by the post war authorities is the strongest argument there is to back this opinion up.


Here's another plausible inference. It ended up in the Marines in the Pacific because the Navy didn't need it in those carrier-to-carrier operations; it ended up in Korea because that was a Marine war and it was what Ted Williams and those boys just happened to have been flying.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2013)

So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.

Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

And the Bearcat was a Hellcat replacement, not an F4F replacement. That's according to former Grumman employees at several presentations given at our museum. You can believe them or not, but new developments were invariably the replacement for the current product if they were of the same type (say, single-engine Naval fighter). Possibly not if different types.


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 18, 2013)

A little reality check. These aircraft, both bombing-fighting aircraft from the get-go, were very similar. The fact the 4U went onto Korea doesn't change that. The fact the 6F got the nod in the Pacific doesn't change that. A little personal opinion. We'd have let either of these two loose in Europe they'd have kicked the crap out of the Luftwaffe as easily as they did the Japanese.


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

The Hellcat and Corsair would have given a good account of themselves anywhere and anytime (asuming after they were developed at the time) in WWII if flown by well-trained pilots and maintained / supplied well.

The Me 262 was a complete dud if flown by a rookie fresh out of pilot training and the Buffalo was pretty good if flown by a well-trained and experienced Finn. One simply wonders what the Finns would have done with, say, 150 Hellcats or Corsairs and some decent spare parts logistics ...


----------



## snelson (Oct 18, 2013)

wouldn't you say that the Hellcat faced better pilots on average than Corsair? weren't they flying earlier in the war than the Corsair, so they would have seen more planes with better pilots. to me that makes the kill ratio even more impressive


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2013)

Corsair went into combat inearly 1943, vs. late 1943 for the Hellcat.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

snelson said:


> wouldn't you say that the Hellcat faced better pilots on average than Corsair? weren't they flying earlier in the war than the Corsair, so they would have seen more planes with better pilots. to me that makes the kill ratio even more impressive



Means they also had more opportunities to shoot down the enemy.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Corsair went into combat inearly 1943, vs. late 1943 for the Hellcat.



Corsair in early for the USMC. But early 1944 for the USN?

Also, Greg stated earlier that the *USN* had ~66,000 combat sorties for the F6F and ~64,000 combat sorties for the F4U.

btw, is a combat sortie one which is part of a mission, or one where the enemy is encountered?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.
> 
> Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> And the Bearcat was a Hellcat replacement, not an F4F replacement. That's according to former Grumman employees at several presentations given at our museum. You can believe them or not, but new developments were invariably the replacement for the current product if they were of the same type (say, single-engine Naval fighter). Possibly not if different types.



The F6F wasn't going to be escorting any American bombers to Berlin, be sure.



> Lest you think the Corsair is getting the bad end, the US Navy flew 64,051 combat sorties in the Corsair over about the same time period, so their combat sorties are nearly identical, and the Hellcat comes out on top by a wide margin.



How many of those combat sorties were moving mud sorties and how many were a2a sorties?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

It is worthwhile mentioning that F6F's got to defend the high value targets - the fleet - that the Japanese expended many resources to attack. The analogy for ETO is that the Germans retreated from heavy force projection within range of the P-47, leaving the Mustang the opportunity to defend when the LW put heavy forces in the air to attack the bombers at Berlin, Merseburg, Leipzig, Brux, etc.

In other words the Mustang had fewer sorties than P-47 and P-38, yet dominated air to air victory credits with lowest losses.

There was a reason the USN kept making Corsairs and scrapped Hellcats after the war. Ditto Mustang vs P-38 and P-47 for AAF


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi again Milosh,
> 
> Not sure what your points are above.
> 
> ...



How nice 'to give Milosh what he wants'.. but it is only a debate. Having said that, what say you to the Fighter Conference survey which included majority USN/USMC pilots that ranked the F4U as consistently the better as far as combat operations attributes? Do you feel that the pilots were unqualified with respect to your engineering and analytical skills and failed miserably with their professional judgment?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

GregP said:


> So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.
> 
> Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> *Yo Greg, run the numbers with a fact based mission profile and you will see that it WILL be "facts in evidence" that the Hellcat could never perform a standard round trip escort from 25 to 30K with only 250 gallons of internal fuel - and actually only the F4U-1, -1A and -B had the internal fuel to match a P-47 - and the P-47 had 22% More internal fuel than the Hellcat. But you keep boldly soldiering on with your emotional arguments.. *



Greg - so far several knowledgeable members have dragged operating fuel consumption vs power settings in the operating stages of a mission following SOP for ETO bomber escort. Each displayed more data and knowledge than you regarding application to a mission plan escort profile to protect bombers at 30,000 feet rather than flying alone at 15000 feet and 200 mph. All of them agree that internal fuel remaining to fight and return at the long range target location is the key. 

Your condescension (Spellcheck correction) toward Milosh is somewhat humorous since you have so far not even attempted to apply your engineering and analytical mind to present your solution with a fact base to support it.. sounds to me like an opinion versus fact based approach. You declared victory and walked from the stage when you had a chance to show us why we have no idea what we are talking about.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Your condensation toward Milosh is somewhat humorous since you have so far not even attempted to apply your engineering and analytical mind to present your solution with a fact base to support it..



Is this Greg's condensation toward Milosh?







More likely it is this:


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

Hi Dog and Milosh,

This thread is about F6F versus F4U, not escort to Berlin which I still say can be done by a Hellcat and you are still nay-sayers (boy am I surprised ...). 

Following the thread title, I choose the F6F, 1944 Fighter Conference notwithstanding. It really shouldn't bother you why. Choose whichever plane you want in this thread, with no comment from me at all. Either is a good choice anyway.

Horsepuckey back at you, Bill. Let's say I sometimes, but not all the time, doubt your assertions as much as you doubt mine. I live in Southern California where condensation is rare indeed and I remian dry. 

I have not been condescending, if that is what you meant. If you think I have, then you are mistaken. A condescending attitude is way more of the attitude I read in your replies to me. I am trying not to rise to the constant bait. Why not stop it? It would be appreciated and I'm not going away.

Believe it or not, when I reply to a thread, is to address the thread, not "how can I piss off Bill or Milosh?" Your replies to me seem to constantly try to make things personal. They're NOT. Maybe you could believe that. Most of my replies for awhile have been to other posters, not to you two, unless as a response to a bait. 

Possibly it is the fact that we think quite differently from one another. In the real world, people do that and there is nothing wrong with it. Whether or not I prefer a Hellcat to a Corsair would seem like something that would not affect YOU in any way at all, especially considering that I can't afford one. 

So rest easy ... I probably won't be buzzing your house in a Hellcat anytime soon. It should seriously not give you, Bill nor you, Milosh any sleepless nights whichever plane I choose. So please make you own choice any way you want it. Hell, make it into a poll if you like.

This is beginning to be not fun.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

Ah Greg - I accept full responsibility for the misspelling - I've been done in before and expect to again. You have been done in by 'faux' logic - (did I get that right??).

Of Course you ignore pilots brought in from far and wide to the fighter Conference - many of which were combat vets and 'theoretically' knew what they were doing? Oops I keep forgetting that when you are getting clobbered with facts You draw on the vets that visit POF as a mysterious trump card. Right?

So what is it Greg - facts regarding attributes backed up by opinions of professionals - or 'feelings' on your part?

I assume you will go by 'feelings' - a true engineering approach to problem definition and solution..

And, ultimately you are wrong about my attitude toward you - it isn't condescension, its irony mixed with some degree of dismissal because you talk the talk but don't back it up with some assembly of facts and logic - whether discussing lineage of P-51 from P-40Q, or Hellcats capable of ETO escort profile in ETO. 

I've been wrong before but I don't double down when the facts are gently or brutally placed under my snout.. you, on the other hand??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2013)

Lets not let this get out of hand...


----------



## drgondog (Oct 18, 2013)

no problem..


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

Hi Bill,

I don't ignore the pilots from the 1944 Fighter Conference ... I prefer the Hellcat due to combat record and comments from pilots who fly the planes today. EVERYBODY who flies a Hellcat loves it ... in my experience. It is a personal preference and, as I stated, should cause you no sleepless nights. I have no need to defend my choices to you nor you to me. We'll likely never meet and become acquaintences and if we do, we might find we have some common ground.

Even the authoritative R-2800 Pratt Whittney's Dependable masterpiece by Graham White lists the range for the Hellcats as being within the ETO escort distance from London to Berlin. If it just happened to be the only option available, I think it could and WOULD have been done ... unless you were the CO. Then the bombers would be on their own I suppose.

I already stated it wasn't an optimum choice and wasn't ever done in real life. C'mon, this WAS a "what if," and you have NO trouble getting into "what-ifs" of other sorts, but just can't understand that if the Hellcat were the only option, they would have figured a way. In real life, it was never a necessity, so you and I are simply on different sides of the equation. It will NEVER be answered in combat and I doubt our lives will depend on it in any case except in a really bizzare set of circumstances.

Either let it go or I'll begin to suspect you are stalking me. You won't convince me it can't be done and I obviously won't convince you it can, but I bet we both enjoy a good flight or airshow anyway. So please, stick with the thread title and not me as a subject. I am at the point of rejecting anything you say about this subject and perhaps others, and that is bad because you obviously have a good deal of knowledge about the general subject. Stop with the personal arguments and maybe we can coexist in here and even agree on many things. Stranger things have happened.

When I make a choice in here on a question or when YOU do, it is a personal choice, not an engineering statement for argument or justification. Make your own choices and be happy with them. I may well disagree, but won't turn it into a personal attack on every post you make. Please reciprocate. I think we've all acknowledged that "the best fighter" or whatever type depends on the mission, and there are many correct answers. 

Can't I have the leeway to make my choices like you do without argument along every step of the way? Hey, I don't see you arguing with the guys who like the Buffalo. Why not extend that courtesy to me? I'll do the same.


----------



## Cave Tonitrum (Oct 18, 2013)

Only 51 people turned in votes for the questionnaire described above. The "division of votes" was as follows:

Army - 9
Navy - 15
British - 7
Contractors - 20

What we don't know is the breakdown of the contractors by company affiliation. We do know though that Grumman had eight representatives at the conference and Chance Vought had sixteen. 

Not all 51 who participated in the voting voted in every category. For instance, with respect to "Best Fighter-Bomber," only 72% participated.  And we don't know how many contractors voted as opposed to the Army / Navy / British who did or which contractors voted.


----------



## GregP (Oct 18, 2013)

The 1944 Fighter Conference Summary is quite interesting, but not exactly a case of cooperation. What sort of statement does it make when the pilots don't vote on all the planes they flew?

It tells me there was a lot of not only nationalistic but also company bias involved. Maybe the lack of voting was a company directive? I don't really know. But the comments are interesting and generate a lot of curiosity in me. I suppose you have to read between the lines.


----------



## Cave Tonitrum (Oct 19, 2013)

A pattern of interest - 

The army seemed more interested in navy planes and the navy seemed more interested in army planes judging by the breakdown of pilots who turned in comment cards.


----------



## JamesArmes (Oct 19, 2013)

It's a tough call to be honest. The Corsair had bad visibility on take off/landings, but had a great climb rate as did the Hellcat. The Hellcat had an advantage over the corsair though, and that was the water injection used from technology taken from a downed/captured Zero. But, I'd go with the Corsair simply because it's a really cool plane...


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

Best All-Around Fighter Below 25,000ft (89% return of questionnaires)

F8F - 30%
P-51 - 29%
F4U-1 - 27%
F7F - 6%
*F6F - 2%*
Mosquito - 2%
F4U-4 - 2%
F2G - 2%

Best All-Around Fighter Above 25,000ft (82% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 45%
P-51 - 39%
F4U-1 - 7%
*F6F - 3%*
F4U-4 - 3%
Seafire - 2%
P-38 - 1%


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

Yet the Hellcat shot down about 40% more enemy aircraft than the Corsair despite being introduced a bit later. Seems a strange vote, doesn't it?

Today pilots love the Hellcat when they get a chance to fly one and are mostly a bit edgy about Corsairs ... they are great in the air but have to interact with the ground when the fuel runs low. When thath happens, the Hellcat comes into its own. In the air there is little to choose between them.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yet the Hellcat shot down about 40% more enemy aircraft than the Corsair despite being introduced a bit later. Seems a strange vote, doesn't it?



I would put that down to opportunities.


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

I would, too, but it happened as it happened.

I choose the Hellcat for a good number of reasons.

Which would YOU choose and why?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

F6F Hellcats lost; 270 in aerial combat, 553 lost to anti-aircraft ground and ship-board fire

F4U Corsairs lost; 189 in aerial combat, 349y lost to anti-aircraft ground and ship-board fire

In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons of bombs.

In the ground attack role, Corsairs dropped 15,621 tons of bombs.

F6F - 13:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero

F4U - 12:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero

So despite dropping 2.5 times as much bomb tonnage as the F6F, the F4U had almost the same `kill`ratio as the F6F. Who would have thought that!


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

Hi Milosh,

F6F was 19.1 : 1 against aircraft. 5,163 kills against 270 lost to enemy aircraft. I have quoted the report on at least 10 occasions.

F4U was 11.3 : 1 against aircraft. 2,140 kills against 189 lost to enemy aircraft.

These are US Navy numbers, not mine, iI have NOTHING i this hunt. AAA losses are not counted since there is NO way to avoid an explosion, even today. The losses count but overall including aircraft, AAA, and operational losses, the Hellcat stands at 4.44 and the Corsair stands at 2.79. A CLEAR win for the Hellcat by a WIDE margin in WWII.

I can post the entire data set, but you already know and are just baiting. Stop it, please.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 19, 2013)

Now you can keep on going on and on about the total claims for the F6F Greg but when it comes right down to it, there wasn't much difference in the a/c.

enemy a/c engaged

carrier based
F6F - 1878 (B), 6888(F)
F4U, FG - 200(B), 1026(F)

land based
F6F - 76(B), 482(F)
F4U, FG - 462(B), 3617(F)

total
F6F - 9324
F4U, FG - 5305

enemy a/c destroyed per own loss

carrier based
F6F - 20.8 
F4U, FG - 17.0

land based
F6F - 8.3
F4U, FG - 10.1

average
F6F - 14.55
F4U, FG - 13.55

aerial combat, percentage of own a/c engaging, lost

carrier based
F6F - 3.7
F4U, FG - 3.3

land based
F6F - 6.4
F4U, FG - 6.9

average
F6F - 5.05
F4U, FG - 5.1


----------



## JtD (Oct 19, 2013)

Which of the two was cheaper?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 19, 2013)

Which of the two soldiered on after WWII was over and how does that reflect the value the USN placed on the Corsair?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

I don't know how long each was kept in service but the F6F certainly didn't get the improved engines the F4U did late/post war. 

Only two F6F-6s were built with the R-2800-18 that the F4U-4 got let alone the R-2800-32W sidewinder engine. These were the planes (+ the F4U-6/AU-1) used in Korea.


----------



## JtD (Oct 19, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Which of the two soldiered on after WWII was over and how does that reflect the value the USN placed on the Corsair?


The question of the OP is the use in the Pacific War, not the use after WW2. In that sense, I wouldn't hold it against the F6F that Grumman went with a completely new design, the F8F, where Vought went with an upgraded F4U.

Does no one know the unit cost of F4U and F6F, preferably in comparable condition? I'm thinking that both aircraft were very similar in the sum of their capabilities, each having its own weak and strong points, but overall there's little to chose, so maybe the price is something to go by?

Did the F4U come in a night fighter variant, if not, would it have been as good at it as the F6F, had it been tried?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 19, 2013)

JtD said:


> Did the F4U come in a night fighter variant, if not, would it have been as good at it as the F6F, had it been tried?



Yep.







http://www.flickr.com/photos/konabish/7748065508/


And the F6F night fighter version






http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/F6F-3N_NAS_Jax_1943.jpg


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 19, 2013)

Just questions, not facts or opinions on my part.

Lets say that the Corsair is considered the better plane.

1. Was there anything that Japanese had that could have had better than 50% success with the pilots average of pilots available against the Hellcat?

2. Even if the Corsair is better and if the Hellcat is better than anything the Japanese can throw at it is it possible that both can be equally good against the Japanese even if the Corsair is slightly better?

3. Could being carrier qualified first be what gives the Hellcat the nod over the Corsair and was doing well enough that there was not pressure to replace it as quickly once Corsairs had been worked out for carrier duty?

4. How important was easier to fly at the point in the war that Hellcats started to be added in number? Was in a material advantage when both the Hellcat and Corsair could exert dominance over Japanese types?

The reason for the questions is someone posted the Hellcat was cast aside and the Corsair continued after WW2. It had me wondering if the Hellcat even if inferior to the Corsair was the right plane at the right time for the job at hand and that can overcome qualitative differences?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2013)

There were F4U night fighters. 

The F8F wasn't really a replacement for the F6F. It carried (in the -1 version) 2/3 the guns, 1/2 the ammo and 3/4 the fuel ( and the initial concept had even less). 
Development of the F8F was started when Roy Grumman became uneasy with the reliance the company was placing on twin engine aircraft for carrier operations. He was afraid that the big twins would prove to be too big for many carriers so he wanted a fighter that could, without question, operated from ANY carrier the US navy had. In that sense it may be a replacement for the F6F on the companies production line/s and while it had more speed low down it might have had a problem at higher altitudes (solved as better versions of the R-2800 were introduced) and with radius of action. 
Much is made of the number of Hellcat pilots who made ace in a day and rightly so. Replacing their aircraft with one that carried 1/2 the ammo?


----------



## VBF-13 (Oct 19, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know how long each was kept in service but the F6F certainly didn't get the improved engines the F4U did late/post war.
> 
> Only two F6F-6s were built with the R-2800-18 that the F4U-4 got let alone the R-2800-32W sidewinder engine. These were the planes (+ the F4U-6/AU-1) used in Korea.


Yeah. I think it's especially naive to draw inferences off the 4Us going on to what was for the most part Marine business. Had it still been carrier-to-carrier business I don't think there's any question the 4Us would have still been warming the runways on the islands. That to me says nothing about the relative competency of these bombing-fighting heavyweights.


----------



## GregP (Oct 19, 2013)

The service life after WWII is irrelevant to WWII actions. They chose the Corsair post-war based on both the need to provide second-line ground support since the darling new jets were supposed to take over fighter duties and on the relative spares available. Hellcats went to the Naval reserve squadrons.

In WWII, the two planes were quite equal and very complementary to one another.

I'll take a Hellcat any day, but would certainly not be disappointed with a Corsair except for the difficulty of getting into the plane at my age. I can DO it and have, recently, but it is certainly a stretch to get into a Corsair. The Hellcat is easy by comparison. Which means nothing in WWII ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2013)

The true fighter bomber was the F4U-6 which didn't show up until 1951.

Both the F4U-4 and the F4U-5 were air superiority fighters that could bomb. Both of them had night fighter versions. The F4U-5 with the 'sidewinder' engine would be a _very_ expensive mud mover. 







TWO blowers feeding a third with intercoolers are NOT what is _needed_ in a ground pounder but gave the best performance at altitude short of a turbo-charger. While by Korea many of these planes were used as ground pounders that is NOT what they were designed for. First flight of a F4U-5 was in April 1946.


----------



## bob44 (Oct 20, 2013)

Looks like either one could have done the job.


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

I think you are correct Bob, either one could have done the job and either one would have been a good choice. The post-war Corsairs were better than the late model Hellcats, but that could easily have changed if the Hellcat had been updated with the same engine the late model Corsairs got. They already HAD a fix to improve the Hellcat's roll rate, but never implemented it during teh war. The fix was to eliminate the dihedral.

By the time the F4U-4 and later models were in widespread use, the war was over and the Corsair WAS a better choice. But during 1944 / 1945. the two were very close with the Hellcat being more effective at combat victories by a wide margin. It certainly was the mount of more aces than the Corsair was. It could very well be a case of better opportunity, but performance in the war is on record and it was what it was. 

The Hellcat definitely comes out on top while the Corsair DID serve longer and was turned into a better aircraft in the later models. I'd love to fly either one myself but, if I were a Naval pilot in WWII in the Pacific and could choose, I'd still take a Hellcat if allowed, and I acknowledge that either one would not be a disappointment.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2013)

There WAS a Hellcat with engine (R-2800-18W) from the F4U-4, the XF6F-6. It was ~15 mph slower than the F4U-4, 425mph vs 440.


----------



## silence (Oct 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> They already HAD a fix to improve the Hellcat's roll rate, but never implemented it during teh war. The fix was to eliminate the dihedral.



How did that work?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 20, 2013)

GregP said:


> By the time the F4U-4 and later models were in widespread use, the war was over and the Corsair WAS a better choice. But during 1944 / 1945. the two were very close with the *Hellcat being more effective* at combat victories by a wide margin. It certainly was the mount of more aces than the Corsair was. It could very well be a case of better opportunity, but performance in the war is on record and it was what it was.



No it wasn't Greg.

enemy a/c destroyed per own loss

carrier based
F6F - 20.8
F4U, FG - 17.0

land based
F6F - 8.3
F4U, FG - 10.1

average
F6F - 14.55
F4U, FG - 13.55


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

The Hellcat was awarded 5,163 kills in WWII, had 1,163 combat losses including enemy aircraft, AAA, and operational combat losses. It also had 1,298 operational losses on non-combat flights during the war.

The Corsair was awarded 2,140 kills in WWII and had 768 combat losses from all causes. It also had 856 operational losses on non-combat flights during the war.

These data were taken from Opnav–P-23V, No, A129, dated 17 June 1946, Naval Aviation Combat Statistics. It is available online if you look.

If we look at combat kills versus losses to enemy aircraft, the Hellcat is ahead at 19.1 : 1 against 11.3 : 1 for the Corsair. If we look at all combat kills to all combat losses, the Hellcat is ahead at 4.44 to 2.79 versus the Corsair. If you take all combat kills versus all losses, both action and non-action, the Hellcat is still ahead at 2.10 to 1.32 versus the Corsair.

Any way you cut it the Hellcat outperformed the Corsair in WWII when it comes to kills versus any losses. The Corsair comes out very slightly ahead if you look at loss rate per combat sortie at 1.20% versus 1.75%, but that is the only category where the Corsair comes out ahead ... unless my copy of Microsoft Excel is somehow making math errors.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 20, 2013)

It may have been that had the USN adopted the F4u earlier than it did, the scores would have favoured this fighter?
I am aware that the RN adopted it earlier than the USN, partly as it had little in the way of competition!
It still required some "fixes" for it to be used on the smaller RN carriers. The clipped wings, bubble canopy and raised seat height, together with the curved approach all made for safer use of a fine fighter.
Did the USN adopt all of the RN mods or only some?


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

Hi Vinnye,

It may be that might have been the case. I think the Corsair would have done fine if adopted earlier than it was. If it had been, it is entirely possible it would have performed differently than it did. 

The Corsair had excellent flight characteristics and would certainly have acquitted itself well if the opportunities had been presented.

In the end, I make judgements based on what happened, not what might have happened. Some may be inclined otherwise but, for me, the Hellcat will always be the better of the two during WII based solely on the record. That does not malign the Corsair at all. I still love the Corsair and it is definitely the better-looking of the two, but the Hellcat did the job better when it counted.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 20, 2013)

Table 19 disagrees with you Greg.


----------



## GregP (Oct 20, 2013)

Hi Milosh,

No it doesn't.

I am using Table 2.

Table 19 shows both enemy aircraft engaged and enemy aircraft destroyed and the calculated the ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed to own losses is based on lost plus losses AND damaged. You can do it that way if you want, but the damaged planes got home and mostly flew again. It was a useful number for getting more planes from Congress.

I don’t consider a damaged aircraft a loss, and neither do most former fighter pilots but, in any case, no matter how you calculate it, the F6F was still better than the F4U and I’d still choose the F6F over the F4U.

You, of course, are free to make your own choice. If different from mine, it still wouldn’t be a bad choice as both were good fighters. There are about 50 ways to calculate the numbers and no two agree, but counting the damaged as losses wouldn't be seen in most places, regardless of nationality. If we counted the damaged, how good was the Bf 109 or the Spitfire? I don't know since the numbers aren't generally available as far as I can tell. So, I tend to stick with the numbers available for other nations as well as ours.

Each to his own, I suppose. I'll still take a Hellcat, but would not kick at a Corsair.

If you go look at official US Navy numbers, you'll see the Hellcat listed at 19 : 1 against enemy aircraft in every place where it is mentioned. I don't like that calculation, but it is often used.


----------



## GrumpyBadger (Oct 22, 2013)

...wow, for a "state your own opinion" this thread sure went a little nutso 



to both of you


----------



## Cave Tonitrum (Oct 22, 2013)

Shut the **** up Donnie.


----------



## vinnye (Oct 22, 2013)

Thanks for the reply GregP.
I agree that both were decent fighting machines at the time. Both were getting the job done!
The F6F may also have had a benefit from it looking so similar to the F4F. A Japanese fighter pilot may have mistaken the F6F and got a nasty surprise as a result!
I believe something similar happened for a short time when the RAF began changing from the Spitfire V to IX, several LW pilots rushed into battle thinking they had advantages over the V and got a shock !


----------



## jpatrick62 (Oct 22, 2013)

I think both aircraft were excellent for differeing reasons. If I am a rookie pilot, I want the F6F simply because it is easier to fly. If I am an experienced pilot, I would opt for the Corsair because 
it was a hotter ship (to paraphrase a quote of the time). Regardless of arguments made today, you'd really have to pay attention to the opinions of those who actually fought the war or flew the
planes since they uniquely have the perspective of combat in WW2. Navy tests proved the F4U to be the better performer and the 1944 fighter conference did as well. So I'd have to take their word
for it since they were actively trying to find the best weapons to fight a determined enemy. As for cost, the F6F was the cheaper plane to build. Since not all pilots at the time were experts (remember
these guys picked to go through an accelerated flight course were often regular Joes) I think it probably saved the lives of guys whose skills may not have allowed them to safely fly a F4U. On the other
hand, the better performance of the F4U was chiefly appreciated when trying to stave off kamakaze attacks later in the war and against later model Japanese fighters.


----------

