Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

[drgondog]

As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)

 

[vinnye]

I would think that the Hellcat would have been a useful addition as a ground attack aircraft, and the Corsair would have been a good fighter / fighter bomber.
Unless they were deployed in large numbers in addition to existing aircraft I do not think that they would have made a big difference. Existing types were getting thr job done!

 

[tomo pauk]

The Hellcat's combat radius was 945 statute miles and that is long enough to stand in for the P-51's. I believe the air distance is something like 570 miles. I hadn't considered that, but it might work.

The combat radius is roughly 1/3rd of the combat range (your mileage can differ ) Any fighter with R-2800 will hardly be able to achieve combat radius, or escort radius, of 570 miles with 400 gals of on-board fuel in ETO conditions (= cruise at ~25000 ft, at decently high cruise speed).

I'm not a big data guy, but I don't understand how the claim can be made that the F4U and the F6F had the same speed. The F4U-1 had a top speed of 417 mph (doesn't list an altitude), while the F6F-3 had a top speed of 376 mph at 23,400 ft. Both numbers are from Jane's. Pitot tube placement doesn't explain a difference in speed of 41 mph. And using the Planes of Fame's aircraft isn't exactly accurate either, seeing as it says on their website:

I don't know the effect of the weight difference on the top speed, but regardless using those two individual aircraft isn't accurate.

In 1943 there is no test where the F4U-1 achieved more than 400 mph, bar experiments with water injection power. With water injection, in operations from early 1944, the F4U-1 really outpaces itself from the F6F, something like 420-430 mph vs. ~380-390 mph.
See WWII Aircraft Performance , the F4U and F6F pages.

The Hellcat was certainly the safer aircraft to fly, but a better one? I'd say the US Navy choosing the F4U going forward into the post-war years is pretty telling.

Indeed, the XF6F-6 was capable for 425 mph at 25000 ft, the F4U-4 with same engine was 20 mph faster.

....
As for the particular subject at hand, it has been suggested in other threads that if the F4U had entered the European war, a version similar to the F4U-4 would likely have been seen sooner as it would have been prioritized, thus making a version that performed better above 20,000 ft.

Without C series R-2800 there is no F4U-4, and that would mean 1945 year. The P-47M was the one with C series R-2800 aboard, it took the AAF and P&W some time to iron out the bugs.

As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)

The F4U-4 was a 1944/45 machine, the comparison with 1943/44 fighters is unfair, to say at least.

 

[VBF-13]

Somebody here actually posted copies of the test between the Fw 190 and the Corsair a while back. I think you are correct that overall the report considered them rather equal. Both having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but for the most part pretty close to one another.

That may be. I never talked to anybody who flew these German fighters, and neither do we have any head-to-head track to go off of. I think both the F4U and the F6F would have given the Luftwaffe fighters some real problems, though, if, for nothing better, than for their dive-bombing aspect, and keeping them off their targets. These weren't makeshift dive-bombers, as were the Ps. They were closer to a JU and FW rolled into one.

 

[VBF-13]

On the F4Us post-war, I think that's kind of simple. There wasn't any real appreciable difference between the F4Us and the F6Fs in terms of their capacities, and, again, the F4Us were Marine planes, and the post-war was a Marine war.

 

[Catch22]

On the F4Us post-war, I think that's kind of simple. There wasn't any real appreciable difference between the F4Us and the F6Fs in terms of their capacities, and, again, the F4Us were Marine planes, and the post-war was a Marine war.

You're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. The Korean war ended up, yes, being a heavily Marine war. But we're not talking about what ended up happening. We're talking about what the Navy thought would happen, and they weren't sure about the viability of early jets on carriers so they continued with the F4U line instead of the F6F. Not to mention that there were, at the end of WWII, numerous Navy (not even counting Marine) units using the F4U, such as VF-84, VF-10, VBF-83, VBF-6, VBF-88, VBF-10, VBF-86, VF-5, VF-6, and I'm certain others. I unfortunately cannot find an entire list. Why would the entire US Navy convert to a strictly Marine plane, replacing its "Navy" plane?

 

[tomo pauk]

The F6F gave place to the F8F on the Grumman production lines (the F7F was also coming), so it's quite unlikely that Grumman would restart the F6F production. And, the F4U was always able to out-pace the F6F on same generation of engines.

 

[delcyros]

As an observation, I would doubt that the F4U-4 would be less effective against any Axis airframe than the the P-51B/D. By extension I imagine I would rather fight in the F4U-4 than any P-38 and P-47 (any D model)

Fair comment, which I would agree in. However, the F4U-4 appeared in combat squadrons only after VE-day (june 1945, IIRC) so it should be compared with P-51H / P-47N rather than P-38H/ P-47D/ P-51B, is that correct?

 

[VBF-13]

You're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. The Korean war ended up, yes, being a heavily Marine war. But we're not talking about what ended up happening. We're talking about what the Navy thought would happen, and they weren't sure about the viability of early jets on carriers so they continued with the F4U line instead of the F6F. Not to mention that there were, at the end of WWII, numerous Navy (not even counting Marine) units using the F4U, such as VF-84, VF-10, VBF-83, VBF-6, VBF-88, VBF-10, VBF-86, VF-5, VF-6, and I'm certain others. I unfortunately cannot find an entire list. Why would the entire US Navy convert to a strictly Marine plane, replacing its "Navy" plane?

No, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The Marines are a branch of the Navy. The Marine pilots went through the Navy to be Marines. Do you see this big machine behind this handsome gentleman? This is NAS Glenview, October 1947. This is the fate of many of the Navy pilots and their Hellcats, post-war. They both went Reserve. The Corsairs got the nod in the post-war for much the same reasons the Hellcats got the nod on the carriers. The nature of the post-war was a ground war, a Marine war, and the Corsairs were the Marine machines. That's just how the cards fell. You're making this much more complicated than it is, I really think.

 

[delcyros]

Yes indeed. Actually their British equivalent, Gannet Is (later Hellcat Is) and Corsair IIs. The F4U-1, although supplied to the FAA in the USA never saw combat with the FAA; the British equivalent to the F4U-1A, the Corsair II was the first to go into combat. British Corsairs were different to their US counterparts in that they had reduced wingspans to fit into British carrier hangars, which had lower ceilings.

You know, my problem with this idea is that if we have to assume F6F and F4U are operated from carriers in the North Atlantic then:

[1] it´s fairly save to assume that combat utility of these A/C is not identic to those experienced in the PTO, primarey because of different environmental conditions (flying hours per year) in North Atlantic / Barent Sea / North Sea on the one hand and Pacific on the other. We would also have to assume much bigger non-combat related loss rates in addition to combat related loss rates, which I am not going to speculate about.

[2] What effect have the then missing Fleet carriers in the Pacific theatre of operation?

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure that we need to assume that these two fighters would be operated from carriers vs. German-held assets in Europe.

 

[Catch22]

I'm well aware of the fact the Marines are a branch of the Navy, and perhaps I am missing your point, but you have now posted the same sentence 3 times without elaborating on it. How is the Navy supposed to know going forward that everything is going to be a ground war, particularly with tensions with te USSR heating up? If WWIII had started, there would of course have been large amounts of air to air combat. We all know what happened in regards to Korea etc, but at the end of WWII when orders of F4Us kept coming and Hellcats stopped, the Navy had to keep both air to air and air to ground operations in mind.

But we're going in circles and are off topic. If you'd like to elaborate more on your point, by all means, but otherwise we should continue with the subject at hand.

 

[drgondog]

Fair comment, which I would agree in. However, the F4U-4 appeared in combat squadrons only after VE-day (june 1945, IIRC) so it should be compared with P-51H / P-47N rather than P-38H/ P-47D/ P-51B, is that correct?

Yes you are.

 

[VBF-13]

I'm well aware of the fact the Marines are a branch of the Navy, and perhaps I am missing your point, but you have now posted the same sentence 3 times without elaborating on it. How is the Navy supposed to know going forward that everything is going to be a ground war, particularly with tensions with te USSR heating up? If WWIII had started, there would of course have been large amounts of air to air combat. We all know what happened in regards to Korea etc, but at the end of WWII when orders of F4Us kept coming and Hellcats stopped, the Navy had to keep both air to air and air to ground operations in mind.

But we're going in circles and are off topic. If you'd like to elaborate more on your point, by all means, but otherwise we should continue with the subject at hand.

Fair enough. Let me just answer this way. Were the post-war a sea war, a carrier war, would the Corsairs have replaced the Hellcats on the carriers? Of course they wouldn't have. And there were a number of Navy Hellcat pilots who didn't go Reserve who went Marine and Corsair, post-war. But the way events played out, the Corsairs, especially by late 1944, throughout 1945, found their fit in the Marines, off the ground. And when the carriers and their aircraft were pushed to the background, the Corsairs naturally emerged front and center, in what (forgive me for repeating yet a fourth time, lol) was essentially a ground, land-based Marine war. Our boys in the Hellcats were still ready to go, that's why they were kept on, and kept sharp. The Corsair was a fantastic bombing and fighting aircraft, too, and I'm a complete and utter fool to take anything away from it. The post-war was just its time. The Marines had the experience in them. As our main hitter, they just made sense.

 

[Catch22]

There we go! That makes sense. It wasn't so much that you had used the sentence multiple times, it's just that it lacked the framing around it that you just added. No, that makes a lot more sense now, thank you for clarifying. I certainly see your point, and to be honest hasn't considered the reserves, so I guess they didn't wholly switch over to the F4U, just with the active, front line units.

EDIT: And I hope I didn't come across as flippant at all when I mentioned how many times you had used the sentence, I just didn't know how else to phrase it to illustrate what my issue with understanding you was.

 

[wuzak]

The "marine war" started in 1950. F6F production stopped in 1945. So the decision in 1945 was to take the "marine plane" to the "marine war" that was 5 years into the future?

As Catch 22 said, there were a number of Navy squadrons operating the F4U from carriers by the end of WW2.

 

[Shortround6]

Somethings that complicates this story is that only ONE Hellcat got the the R-2800-18 engine used in the F4U-4. It was the XF6F-6.

Production of the F6F was cut way back at the end of the war with ZERO F6Fs being delivered in Sept 1945 and a total of 63 more being delivered in October and November bringing F6F production to an end.

Vought continued production of the F4U-4 although at a much reduced rate.

In 1946 the F4U-5 showed up and while it was used as a ground pounder in the Korean war that was far from it's intended use. With a service ceiling of 45,000ft and hundreds more hp at high altitudes ( 1800hp at 30,000ft military power NOT Emergency or WER) it was intended for high altitude use. About 1/2 of the production run were completed as night fighters. Defense of Marine bases or defense of the fleet?

The next version, the F4U-6 ( redesignated AU-1) was the dedicated ground pounder with a low altitude single stage engine and extra armor to protect from ground fire.

 

[CobberKane]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the Hellcat might have been a little behind the eight ball if it had been deployed as an air superiority or escort fighter over Europe. In general performance the Hellcat seems to have been similar to European fighters of circa 1942-3; Spitfire Vs Bf109Fs. By 1944 the standard was being set by Late model 109s and 190s, which required aircraft like the P 51 and Spit XIV to better them. As a fighter bomber I think the Hellcat would have done well, but as a pure fighter it would have been a year or two past its due date. The F4U would have been right up there, though.

 

[VBF-13]

The "marine war" started in 1950. F6F production stopped in 1945. So the decision in 1945 was to take the "marine plane" to the "marine war" that was 5 years into the future?

The carrier war was all but over. The need for the perfect carrier-based bomber-fighter was all but over. Who by the Summer of 1945 didn't understand that?

As Catch 22 said, there were a number of Navy squadrons operating the F4U from carriers by the end of WW2.

They were training for their emerging role over land. The F4U unlike the F6F had serious track over land. They were the perfect fit for what was coming down the road.

 

[GregP]

The F6F was a seriously good figher over land or water, and would have done just fine. Of course, that's my take on it, and it is shared by a LOT of former Navy pilots.

6Since it didn;t make it to Europe in numbers, who can say? But ... I find it very interesting that the F6F fought on after VE Day in the Pacific VERY EFFECTIVELY and yet is seen as obsolescent despite having a superior actual combat record to the very planes that people seem to think are better than the Hellcat. From one point of view, that is almost unexplainably strange.

But it IS a "what if," so there are no right or wrong answers.