F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt (1 Viewer)

glennasher · Aug 27, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
The F6F is not overshadowed by the F4U, if not the opposite. The F6F is remembered as the plane that defeated the Zero (the P-38 as well), and the F4U is remembered as a fighter-bomber if known at all.

Really? The F4U has a cult following like you wouldn't believe, and folks barely remember the F-6F. Did anyone make a show about a squadron flying the F6F on broadcast TV? Did the Navy/Marine Corp keep the F6-F after the war? No? Go to a big airshow, how many Hellcats do you see flying in comparison to Corsairs?
I don't have anything against the Hellcat, but in popular lore, and apparently in the mind of the Navy, the Corsair survived, the Hellcat did not, at least in US hands.

michael rauls · Aug 27, 2019

One thing that would be interesting in this comparison of the F6f and Thunderbolt is a comparison of how they were to fly.
From what I have read the Hellcat had quite a good reputation for being stable and easy to fly and though ive never read any specific complaints from pilots about the p47s handling I don't know if it was similar in this regard.
Its worth noting that they had similar wieghts, engine, and if the p47 is the razor back version even look similar to a degree.

glennasher · Aug 28, 2019

michael rauls said:
One thing that would be interesting in this comparison of the F6f and Thunderbolt is a comparison of how they were to fly.
From what I have read the Hellcat had quite a good reputation for being stable and easy to fly and though ive never read any specific complaints from pilots about the p47s handling I don't know if it was similar in this regard.
Its worth noting that they had similar wieghts, engine, and if the p47 is the razor back version even look similar to a degree.

I know the owner of "Big Ass Bird" a P-47D-25, who always said that the Jug flew like a Cadlillac compared to his Mustang, and he liked it a lot better. He also said it was a LOT faster, but I don't know if that was because they took it pretty easy with the Mustang, and the Jug had the turbocharger, or not.

soulezoo · Aug 28, 2019

glennasher said:
I know the owner of "Big Ass Bird" a P-47D-25, who always said that the Jug flew like a Cadlillac compared to his Mustang, and he liked it a lot better. He also said it was a LOT faster, but I don't know if that was because they took it pretty easy with the Mustang, and the Jug had the turbocharger, or not.

That's an interesting take. I would love to hear more about his thoughts between the two.

glennasher · Aug 28, 2019

soulezoo said:
That's an interesting take. I would love to hear more about his thoughts between the two.

Sadly, I've lost track of him, he's probably passed away by now. He owned several warbirds at the time, some of them were "under construction", but he had the P-47, the P-51D, an F4U, a Trojan, and an F-86. naval variant, stuck on a pole outside his hangar. I heard him speak a few times, though, and he favored the Jug over the others by a wide margin.

tomo pauk · Sep 2, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
Several reports on wwiiaircraftperformance.org didn't agree with each other, but F6F mostly had a range around 1200mi, some above and some below by as much as 200mi, all in clean condition with droptanks. P-47D with droptanks has a combat radius of 600mi and the P-47M which couldn't carry droptanks had a combat radius of 400mi consistently on that website. ~~Nobody offered P-47 range or F6F combat radius so oof~~

Cheers,
The P-47M carried a centreline drop tank as-is (= 400 mile radius), and IIRC it was retrofitted with wing drop tanks once in UK.

IdahoRenegade · Nov 24, 2019

I'm a '47 fan, and really somewhat ambivalent about the F6F. But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war. And the time to get long-range capability (wet wings and FINALLY sorting out big drop tanks) was unacceptably long-those needs were identified in '42 at least-and not rectified until '45 (and after VE day IIRC). In many ways it was a better fighter even than the '51B+ (faster, great roll rate, outstanding dive, ruggedness, firepower). Had it been available with long-range capability the '51 would have been far less critical.

The F6F couldn't fight high-performance German fighters at high altitude. But-it didn't have to-and that's not what it was built for. When you can bring the airfield to the enemy, range is a lot less of an issue, and it was more than good enough to take on Japanese aircraft at moderate altitudes. And most importantly it could fly off a carrier...

THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.

tomo pauk · Nov 24, 2019

IdahoRenegade said:
...
But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war
...
THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.

Requirement, that materialized in the P-47B and later, didn't include long range escort job.

MIflyer · Nov 25, 2019

Interestingly enough, the F6F did a P-47 style job in the invasion of southern France, Operation Dragoon. There were two escort carriers equipped with F6F's and they ranged through the area, attacking ground targets the same way P-47's did over Normandy. The article is attached.

pinehilljoe · Nov 26, 2019

glennasher said:
Really? The F4U has a cult following like you wouldn't believe, and folks barely remember the F-6F. Did anyone make a show about a squadron flying the F6F on broadcast TV? Did the Navy/Marine Corp keep the F6-F after the war? No? Go to a big airshow, how many Hellcats do you see flying in comparison to Corsairs?
I don't have anything against the Hellcat, but in popular lore, and apparently in the mind of the Navy, the Corsair survived, the Hellcat did not, at least in US hands.

In The Flying Leathernecks, John Wayne's squadron starts flying Hellcats (standing in for Wildcats) and transitions to Corsairs during the ending Act of the Movie. Still a good movie for its aerial scenes.

GregP · Nov 30, 2019

I think the P-51 having more ground kills was very much a case of a LOT more opportunity. There are a LOT of airfields around Europe compared with the ones lying around in the Pacific Ocean. Since the Pacific is mostly water, the opportunity for ground kills, say, on the way home from a mission, was slight to nonexistent. That being said, had the two planes been reversed in use, I'm sure the F6F in Europe would have had a lot of ground kills, but maybe fewer at high altitude since it wasn't a high-altitude fighter.

I am not much for "which one is better" arguments, normally, but I think the F6F was to the US Navy what the P-51 was to the USAAC / USAAF, a top pick that proved it's worth many times over. The P-47 was very probably our best very-high altitude fighter, but the P-51 wasn't too far off, even there. No WAY the F6F was going to compete at 35,000 feet but, at 10,000 feet, I'd pick the Hellcat for dogfighting.

AlfaKiloSierra · Dec 13, 2019

IdahoRenegade said:
I'm a '47 fan, and really somewhat ambivalent about the F6F. But looking at it objectively-the P-47 was not capable of doing one of it's primary jobs (long range escort fighter) throughout most of the war. That is a significant failure, and one that cost a lot of aircrews their lives when the 8th had settled on it as their primary fighter early in the war. And the time to get long-range capability (wet wings and FINALLY sorting out big drop tanks) was unacceptably long-those needs were identified in '42 at least-and not rectified until '45 (and after VE day IIRC). In many ways it was a better fighter even than the '51B+ (faster, great roll rate, outstanding dive, ruggedness, firepower). Had it been available with long-range capability the '51 would have been far less critical.

The F6F couldn't fight high-performance German fighters at high altitude. But-it didn't have to-and that's not what it was built for. When you can bring the airfield to the enemy, range is a lot less of an issue, and it was more than good enough to take on Japanese aircraft at moderate altitudes. And most importantly it could fly off a carrier...

THe F6F did a better job of meeting the requirements of the job it had to perform than the '47, and for that I'd consider it the better fighter.

The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.

P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.

MIflyer · Dec 13, 2019

The F6F was designed to be easy to fly, and pilots have said that it practically landed itself. Inexperienced pilots flying off carrier decks needed an airplane like that, and not the Corsair.

The F6F used round head rivets rather than flush riveting; that was cheaper, stronger, and easier/faster to build. That produced more drag, but not enough to matter when fighting the Japanese.

Grumman said that the USN gave them a F4U and told them that the USN only wanted one fighter type, and to get the Hellcat performance up to that of the F4U. Grumman's tests showed that the F4U was faster down low because it did not have the provisions to prevent icing that they considered to be essential. Their high altitude tests showed that most of the speed advantage of the F4U at altitude was due to airspeed indicator error!

By the way, the F4U had some odd structural features for an airplane in its performance class. Part of the outer wings were covered with fabric and the ailerons were made out of wood.

AlfaKiloSierra · Dec 13, 2019

MIflyer said:
The F6F was designed to be easy to fly, and pilots have said that it practically landed itself. Inexperienced pilots flying off carrier decks needed an airplane like that, and not the Corsair.

The F6F used round head rivets rather than flush riveting; that was cheaper, stronger, and easier/faster to build. That produced more drag, but not enough to matter when fighting the Japanese.

Grumman said that the USN gave them a F4U and told them that the USN only wanted one fighter type, and to get the Hellcat performance up to that of the F4U. Grumman's tests showed that the F4U was faster down low because it did not have the provisions to prevent icing that they considered to be essential. Their high altitude tests showed that most of the speed advantage of the F4U at altitude was due to airspeed indicator error!

By the way, the F4U had some odd structural features for an airplane in its performance class. Part of the outer wings were covered with fabric and the ailerons were made out of wood.

Because they used the same engine, if one is faster at a certain altitude, then it is faster at all altitudes. Testings done by NACA also used true airspeeds instead of what is read from the airspeed indicator (they either corrected that value for instrumentation error and converted it to true airspeed or measured it from the ground, either way it is +-2mph accurate). Those can be found on wwiiaircraftperformance.org. They invariably show the F6F slower and slower-climbing at all altitudes. The F6F's only advantage over the F4U is the superior low-speed handling, which is significant enough to let it into the Navy. If I am given the option I'll fly the F6F. However, it is indisputable that the F4U's performance is superior at all altitudes.

FLYBOYJ · Dec 13, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing.

Not true - the F6F was well on its way by June 1941(contract signed), the XF6F-1 flew in June 1942, the first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942. The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight a on 24 June 1942. The Navy was intent on purchasing both aircraft, just research when contracts were signed and the quantity of aircraft purchased. Not denying the Corsair had the performance edge, the carrier landing issues with the Corsair seemed to have no effect on the F6Fs that were on order and being built during the same time period. Don't forget foreign sales of the F6F as well.

syscom3 · Dec 13, 2019

"It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. ". If that is true, why was there a USMC carrier qualified Corsair group prior to the Brits getting their first Corsairs?

Shortround6 · Dec 13, 2019

syscom3 said:
"It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. ". If that is true, why was there a USMC carrier qualified Corsair group prior to the Brits getting their first Corsairs?

never let truth get in the way of a good story----journalism 101

Most British F4U pilots qualified in the US, in Rhode Island I believe. Doesn't mean that all of the instructors were american though

michael rauls · Dec 13, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.

P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.

As much as I am a p47 fan I think it must be kept in mind that the p47 and the F6f were designed with different goals in mind. If what you mean by better performance is speed then yes the p47 has a decided advantage. If the performance is performing landings carrier or otherwise with lowest posible incident rate( and I can't think of anything more important to me if I'm landing on a carrier the 1st time) then the F6f has better performance.
They were designed to fill different bills and there flight caracteristics reflect that.

IdahoRenegade · Dec 14, 2019

AlfaKiloSierra said:
The F6F exists only because the F4U initially was a failure. It couldn't land on a carrier until the British devised ways to do so. If the F4U was able to land on a carrier the moment it entered service, the Navy would've rejected the Hellcat, since the F4U was not only superior in every aspect of dogfighting performance (speed, climb, turn and roll) but also was more suited for dive bombing. The early P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin, but starting from the D-25 model it could compare to the P-51D in terms of range when carrying external fuel, although still less. The design of F6F can be looked at as garbage, having the worst performance among all the R-2800-powered fighters.

P-47 offered many advantages that the P-51 didn't have, namely strong firepower and protection for the pilot. By September 1944, when the 150 octane fuel was introduced, P-47 was faster at most altitudes, and climbs better up high. In comparison to the Bf 109 G-14 and Fw 190 A-8, it is faster at all altitudes aside from sea level. It also has the advantage of rate of roll, according to Robert S. Johnson it could out-roll the Fw 190 (I would trust him on that, but in general the Fw 190 rolls better than the P-47. Robert S. Johnson's strength was above average, and this meant his plane rolled better at high speed, where stick force is a serious issue for most pilots but not him). Not a single flight manual mentioned the g limit for P-47s, which implies it is so great that it is impossible to reach (indeed, at sea level it has a top IAS speed of three times the stall speed, meaning it can pull 9g, any higher it will stall while attempting to do so). There are no accounts of P-47s breaking up in flight due to excessive aerodynamic forces. If I will ever fly a mission at 25000ft, I will choose the P-47 if given the options of P-47, Tempest, P-51D and Spitfire XIV.

Regarding the '47-we've said basically the same thing-it was a superior fighter to the P-51 in a number of areas. But, sadly, it lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy throughout most of the war, and especially when it was desperately needed. A long range '47 by summer of '43 would have been a great escort fighter to have available. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be, the Jugs turned back, leaving the bombers undefended (at least until October when a few '38s became available-with new pilots, inexperienced commanders, etc). By mid-late '44 when it finally got big drop tanks (correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get 165 gallon Lockheed tanks?) the '51 was available in large numbers and filling that role. Why did it take 2 years to get what the '38 had in early '42? Much of the war it was nearly as neutered as the Spitfire was with limited range and somewhat irrelevant. At least the '47 finally did rectify that problem, even though very late.

Kevin J · Dec 14, 2019

IdahoRenegade said:
Regarding the '47-we've said basically the same thing-it was a superior fighter to the P-51 in a number of areas. But, sadly, it lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy throughout most of the war, and especially when it was desperately needed. A long range '47 by summer of '43 would have been a great escort fighter to have available. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be, the Jugs turned back, leaving the bombers undefended (at least until October when a few '38s became available-with new pilots, inexperienced commanders, etc). By mid-late '44 when it finally got big drop tanks (correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it get 165 gallon Lockheed tanks?) the '51 was available in large numbers and filling that role. Why did it take 2 years to get what the '38 had in early '42? Much of the war it was nearly as neutered as the Spitfire was with limited range and somewhat irrelevant. At least the '47 finally did rectify that problem, even though very late.

That's still a lot faster than it took for Hurricanes and Spitfires to get drop tanks.

F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt (1 Viewer)

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman 1st Class

Creator of Interesting Threads

1st Lieutenant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads