Another look at the Hellcat

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

There are two reasons the Corsair is thought of as a better bomber than the F6F. The first reason is that The F4U's short landing gear could be deployed as a speedbrake in a dive bombing run. This capability was used in the Okinawa campaign. I'm not sure it was used in Korea where the Corsairs frequently carried heavier loads. The second reason is that Corsair is thought of as a plane with a 2,000 lb. bomb capacity whereas the Hellcat is considered to have a 1,000 lb. capacity. This is largely due to how the planes were used. Both planes could carry 2,000 lbs. of bombs on real missions, and both could theoretically carry more; however the Corsair as a bomber was mostly used from land, where there is more distance to take off. The Hellcat usually had to take off from a partial aircraft crrier deck.
When the F4U-1D came out in 1944, it came after the initial F4U-1 and F4U-1B had been used mostly by the Marines, and the Marines had to improvise to turn the early Corsair into a bomber. and the Marines wanted a plane more optimized as a fighter bomber. The F4U-1D was optimized as a fighter-bomber. It had the wing fuel tanks deleted. They were not armored or self-sealing so they weren't of benefit, and Marine close air support missions tend to be short-range. The 1-D had fittings for 8 x 5" rockets, two racks that could carry up to a 1,000 lb bomb and a fitting for a 160 gallon drop tank. The F6F-5 could carry 1,000 bomb under each wing and it could carry one under the center line. I have never heard of an F6F flying a mission with 3,000 lbs. of bombs though. Each of the 3 main weapon stations was plumbed for drop tanks. Theoretically the F6F could carry 3x150 gallons in external fuel (which has recently been the subject of a thread on this site). A pair of 100 gallon tanks is more typical.
 
Capt. Vick said:
Grumman did make one "duff" aircraft, the XF10F Jaguar.
Click to expand...

According to wiki most of its problems were down to the rubbish unreliable underpowered Westinghouse engine, badly fitted elecrics and some shockingly poor maintenance. The bits that were radical in the design seemed to work flawlessly.
 
That's the point of quoting Eric Brown. The Hellcat's performance WAS stellar.

It had the most wing area of any major fighter and could out turnmost of them except the Zero within the Zero's preferred range of speeds. If was tough, well-armed, had no voces in handling, and at 380+ mph, wasn't faster, but also had a good combat speed. Dogfighting didn't happen at top speed, ever. If you were at top speed, you weren't dogfighting. You might be running to one or from one, but you weren't dogfighting. WWII fighters didn;t have the excess power to be at top speed and truning hard at the same time. Come to think of it, an F-15 doesn't either. Once you are turning hard, you are losing speed until the excess power is sufficient to hold you there.

I think Eric has more experience than any of us do. I'm not altogether sure he is completely unbiased, but if he rates the Hellcat so high, you can bet it is for a good reason. That tells me that the Hellcat was a LOT better than most people think it was. It wasn't called "The Ace Maker" for nothing.

When I've spoken to the guys who fly Hellcats at out airshow, they are universally pleased with the way it flies and are without fail complimentary about it.

That was the point of this post. That Eric Brown rates it right near the top, just below the Spitfier and Fw 190. And from reading this forum for years, I doubt seriously most in here realize how good it was. At least, it hasn't shown up in the posts I've read that way.
 
Last edited:

Brown believed that the Mustang was superior to the Hellcat, just that in his final, 'greatest' list - the fact that the Hellcat had such a massive impact on its theatre of operations it was pushed into such a high spot.
 

Eric Brown had more experience than anyone at the time and I am sure in the future of carrier deck landings and flying different types. I do not believe anyone is completely unbiased but if he was "biased" it would be in favour of a great fighting aeroplane that could be fairly easily landed on a carrier, his position in the British aviation industry started with his obvious natural ability at carrier landings. I wonder about his evaluations of fighters because I dont know his experience of armament. Some pilots would sacrifice maneuverability for fire power others would sacrifice fire power for maneuverability (talking cannons in wings)
 
Last edited:
I see excuses being offered for the Hellcat being rated so high. Almost everyone in here believes the Corsair was better than the Hellcat. Eric Brown didn't think so, and he has a LOT of carrier-bird experience in WWII birds including time in the F4U.

I predicted this in my mind before I posted. We'll just have to disagree. The Hellcat's performance in the war was better and the kill-ratio, another measure of fighter effectiveness, was better. The people who don't like kill ratio make loud and long excuses, but they are whining about a what-if. If the Corsair had been there it might have done as well or better ... but it wasn't and didn't.

It's the same way with sports team. I heard one guy lament his favorite team was better, but ran out of time while they were still behind and catching up. That's the same as losing the game.

The Corsair did NOT do better in the actual war in combat; the Hellcat did by any measure that can be named. Everything the Hellcat did ... it did in less than two yeas. It was introduced in Sep 1943 and the war was over before Sep 1945.

One might also make an excuse for the Hellcat by saying the only reason it didn't sweep the skies clean all over the globe is due to the fact that it was largely deployed only in the PTO. Can't shoot down planes in the ETO if you aren't there. I suppose that's why the "best" argument will rage on indefinitely.

The people who really decide a type's legacy are the people who decide how many to buy and where they will be deployed. If they deploy it to a hot zone, it will get blooded in battle and have a chance at greatness. If they deploy it to Alaska, all it gets is mired in mud and snow since there weren't many enemy bogies over Adak unlkess you count birds.
 
The good flight characteristics on the deck and in the air seem to be the Hellcat's defining feature. Performance and firepower was good enough for what was needed but would have been rather poor without the handling advantages. (and the maneuverability as well as forgiving characteristics in extreme flight -even including things like good ability to perform an intentional, controlled spin- made it useful for veteran pilots to take advantage of as well) Good acceleration, climb, and dive characteristics helped marginalize any losses in raw speed too. (still a matter of knowing the opponent though -and whether the opponent knows the advantages of their own plane)

I'm not sure if the cockpit view was worse than the hooded F4U and if the F6F got a hooded variation as well. (but if nothing else the F6F seemed to have better forward visibility)
 
From pilot accounts - USN, Marine Corps, Fleet Air Arm and the various comparative combat trials - the one truly outstanding characteristic about the Hellcat seems to have been its flight handling. This is not something that should be underestimated.

The aircraft was nicely stable, well coordinated with minimal oscillations after control movements, gave ample warning about a stall and was docile when on the limit. It was also a steady gunnery platform. All of these combined to give pilots almost instant confidence in the aircraft, which means that they were comfortable pushing the aircraft in combat situations.

The only exception to this beautiful handling was the aircraft's lateral control. The F6F was never one of the best rollers in the sky and at high speeds, its aileron control was very heavy - similar in rate and effort to a Spitfire Mk I or Bf-109E, which were sometimes compared to having the stick stuck in concrete.

Fitting spring tab ailerons helped with both the heaviness and roll-rate. Royal Navy comparative trials with spring tab ailerons show nearly a 2 second reduction (about a 35% improvement) in time to roll 360 degrees to port and nearly a second reduction in time to roll to starboard.

I'm not sure if they made it onto production versions - perhaps on the F6F-5?
 
GregP said:
The Corsair did NOT do better in the actual war in combat; the Hellcat did by any measure that can be named. Everything the Hellcat did ... it did in less than two yeas. It was introduced in Sep 1943 and the war was over before Sep 1945.
Click to expand...

About the same time the the P-51B was being introduced and the Spitfire XIV was going into production, the USN introduced a carrier aircraft with the performance of a 1941 Spitfire V?

I don't know much about the Pacific war, or how the differences in deployment of the F6F and F4U may have contributed to their respective war records.
 
Naval fighters are never quite as good as their landbound counterparts due to the necessity of being rugged enough to withstand carrier operations. The British learned that well and truly enough with Seafires that were very delicate and didn't fare well until they were improved for Naval opertations.

But they mostly engage other Naval fighters over the ocean, so performance is relative. The orginal Corsair was a lot faster than an early Spitfire and it did just fine. It evolved into a fast, top-performing fighter in the F4U-4 that came into service in late 1944. That baby didnlt take a back seat to anything and had a climb rate over 4,500 fpm as opposed to the 2,900 fpm of the F4U-1A. Late-model Corsairs were a match or better for anything in the piston world.
 
Part of the problem with some of these comparisons is that there were two F6F-s and at least 3 war time F4Us.

The F6F was easier to fly than the F4U and had better vision. It was more stable which hurt ultimate combat maneuverability but was more reassuring to low time pilots. It also helped the night fighter versions (way more F6F night fighters built than P-61s) not only in flight but night fighter carrier planes have to do night carrier take-offs and landings. The much better landing characteristics of the F6F were a big help not only for night operations but daylight. Carriers often had to operated for several weeks with a limited supply of aircraft. The fewer lost to accidents the more they could use for combat flights later in the cruise.

Comparing aircraft "scores" to sport teams is a very bad analogy if left too basic. in depth it makes a bit more sense but may still be flawed. The F6F did NOT achieve it's victory record on it's own but as part of the Navy team. The fleet radar or search teams finding the enemy, the mechanics keeping the planes going in good condition, the supply system keeping up with fuel and ammunition demands and so on.

And to further the "sports" analogy. The US Navy by 1944 against the Japanese was like a division A school going up against a division B (or C) school. Sure the lower class team could still sack your quarterback on occasion (or score a touchdown/goal) but not often enough to win the game.

Or a Baseball style analogy. out of a 180 game season even the worst team in the league will win 60 games, the best team will loose 60 games, the difference between 1st and last place are the 60 games in the middle. Changing a few players (type of fighter) doesn't move a team from 1st to last or vice versa.
 
GregP said:
The Corsair was actually introduced earlier than the Hellcat, but failed its US carrier qualification tests. They only started flying them on carriers out of embarassment after the British deployed Corsairs successfully on British carriiers.
Click to expand...

VF-17 completed carrier qualifications prior to being ordered ashore for logistical reasons.

First carrier-based combat usage of the Corsair was with the USN, and by night fighters no less! VF(N)-101 took their F4U-2's aboard Enterprise and Intrepid (four plane groups on each boat) in January '44 and began combat operations with the fast carriers. First British combat use of carrier-based Corsairs was April '44.
 

And, in the specific case of the Hellcat during the Marianas Turkey Shoot,the role of SIGINT in aiding the direction of incoming fighters to optimally engage Japanese based on interception of communication from the Japanese mission leaders to their formations (source "And I Was There" by Layton).

For the record, I'm a fan of the Hellcat. I think it was a superb aircraft and did its job supremely well. My wife prefers the Corsair but she's an Idaho girl with a soft spot for Boyington (there's no accounting for taste...as evidenced by her marrying me!).
 
About the XF10F - see those vanes in front of the horizontal stabilator? They control it aerodynamically - there was no direct pitch control. The pilot moved those vanes, which moved the stabs. Needless to say, this did not work well.
 
The Hellcat did a great job and until Vought got the stalling and low speed handling sorted out and the bouncy landing gear the Hellcat might have had a significantly lower accident rate than the Corsair. You can't shoot the enemy down on Wednesday if you you crashed the plane landing on Tuesday. 380mph plane in the air beats a 390mph plane in the shop (or dumped over the side).
 
I have to laugh when I read Shortround's post 33. There are ZERO fighters in the world that aren't part of a service "team." That was true even in WWI. The Red Barron didn't do his own aircraft maintenance. He didn't fuel it. He didn't clean it.

Not sure what is being said there since there aren't any completly independent military aircraft.

And comparing them to sports teams is spot on. Sometimes a team is well prepared and easily overcomes the opposition, Other times they manage to lose the game. all this with the same players and caoches. Sometimes they have a lopsided win and loss to the same team in teh same season.

Fighters pilots have good days and bad days, too.
 
Last edited:
The Fighter Conference report shows that the F4U-1(C,D) was preferred over the F6F-5 for both above and below 25k' altitude (F4U-4 was rated lower for both but was not as thoroughly tested as the F4U-1, probably due to newness of the design). These were flown by AAF and contractor pilots to eliminate familiarity bias.
 
I will say that had I just graduated from pilot training, I would have preferred to go into the F6F as it was an overpoweringly good aircraft over the enemy and was, by all accounts a good and reassuring aircraft to fly. The F4U may have been better but could not have been as reassuring for a new or low time pilot. It was probably the best aircraft for Navy for this period of time when pilot training was really stepping up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

R
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
24 25 26
Replies
506
Views
24K
Juha3
J
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
572
spicmart
S
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
569
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register