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

[strider190]

The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.

No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.

People eaither love the P-47 (like me) gushing about its toughness, firepower, number of kills, number of sorties (most in Europe), realiability (mission ready %), and dive speed. Or they hate it because it was no dogfighter, turning like a city bus and only fit for the climb and dive.

The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft, though many would say this would not have been the case that the F4U not been only barely carrier capable due to dangerous landing qualities.

Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .

 

[Kevin J]

I

Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .

By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I

By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.

U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.

 

[Kevin J]

U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.

Quite likely, there aren't many piloting jobs out there where you have to take off from a pitching, rolling runway returning by means of a controlled crash. It's just that us Brits perfected the controlled crash on the Seafire before you guys did with Corsair. With these two fighters you couldn't see the carrier deck before you landed.

 

[IdahoRenegade]

Definitely not. Ho, ho, ho.

do you have a machine gun?

 

[Dawncaster]

Actually, the poor carrier landing qualities (and take off) was fixed later in the war by mods to the tail wheel and shocks in the main gear though the F4U still had the rep as a bad carrier plane, I think by pilots who didnt fly it and armchair pilots. .

Agree. As certified in the comparison of 1944, dash one 'D' type Corsairs had good carrier capabilities. It was even comparable to Hellcats.

I

By the time the Corsair arrived on carriers the USN had lots of experienced pilots. When the Hellcat arrived, the pilots too were straight off the production line. In the FAA, it was more of an elitist force, first you joined the RAF and if you were really good, the FAA.

As noted in many references, the proficiency of Corsair pilots were not so high for average as Hellcats. by the time, late 1944 ~ early 1945, the carrier squadrons for the F4U type began to be organized, pilots from seaplanes, big boats, torpedo bombers and dive bombers were more involved than Hellcat squadrons. During 1944, the Navy used only a small number of Corsairs on aircraft carriers, and Marines used land based ground attackers mostly. However, the Hellcat squadrons were superior in terms of average pilot skill, organization and understanding of fleet operations due to their far superior experiences with the fast carrier task force.

 

[windswords]

F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt

F6F = MacIntosh

P-47 = Red Delicious

Question: Which one do you like?
Answer: I like apples!

 

[windswords]

The Cat is cited as being the highest scoring plane in the war. That's an easy boast considering most of its adversaries were new inexperienced pilots woefully untrained to take on the sheer weight of numbers the Navy threw at them. So, I don't take the Cat's kill ratio into consideration when contrasting types.

The same could be said for the P-51 after March 1944, or certainly by June 1944. By then the Luftwaffe was thoroughly compromised and was not the force it once was. The best Thunderbolt aces (who were still leading scorers after the war ended) like Johnson and Gabby were rotated home (Gabby would have been if he had not flown that last mission!) or like Zemke were assigned elsewhere.

Even so there were still a significant number of experienced enemy pilots, at least in the beginning when these 2 planes came on-board, just not for long. Despite those meaningful (IMO) caveats you still have to admire what both the F6F and P-51 did, you just have to put them into their proper context.

 

[DarrenW]

With the comparison above, the P-47D outclimbs and outruns the F6F-5 at all altitudes. Notice that this is a 56" boost P-47, which is far worse than a 70"boost P-47D near the end of the war. A P-47D with 70" boost, 2700rpm and improved water injection significantly outruns and outclimbs the P-47D with 56" boost, especially at lower altitudes.

From what I've gathered through official test reports and anecdotal evidence, with similar horsepower ratings and configuration (with wing pylons or without) there wasn't a whole lot of difference in speed between the two types at moderate altitudes. And you have to remember that 56" of boost is while using water injection. You must compare it to an F6F-5 that is using water injection as well or it's not a fair comparison (the added boost can have a noticeable affect on both top speed and climb rate).

One more inconsistency with your comparison is that the F6F-5 is configured with wing pylons/rocket launchers while the P-47D in question is in a "clean" condition. By the spring of 1944 it was common practice to operate the P-47D with wing pylons. This would obviously reduce the maximum speed of the aircraft in your example (I've read that the P-47D would have a loss of at least 15 mph with these rather large pylons installed). According to NAVAER documents the dual pylon and rocket launcher combo on the F6F-5 reduced attainable speeds anywhere between 11-16 mph, depending on altitude.

Here are graphs that specify the maximum speed and climb of a typical P-47D with wing pylons installed. The line to the far left in each graph is the performance of the aircraft without water injection (52" Hg). There's a definite performance drop. In fact, the F6F-5 from your example out climbs the P-47D up to 20K feet and speeds are much closer at low altitude:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg

Using these same graphs compare the performance of the P-47D with 56" boost (second line from the left on the graphs) to an F6F-5 in "combat" power (water injection). Both of these airplanes utilize wing pylons, with the Hellcat having an additional six wing-mounted rocket launchers (this was a very common service configuration for the F6F-5). Once again the Hellcat out-climbs the Thunderbolt up to medium altitudes and has similar speeds up to 10,000 ft. Even with the P-47D at 64" Hg (no water injection/150 octane fuel) the Hellcat will out-climb it low down but does begin to lag in speed somewhat. To remain competitive at this point the F6F-5 would have required similar water jet modifications that were applied to the P-47D (or the higher octane fuel) in order to achieve similar boost pressures. Be aware that figures for the F6F-5 are in knots so they must be converted to mph:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5.pdf

One other thing to consider is that if the Hellcat were tasked to regularly operate in European skies it would have most assuredly been supplied 150 octane fuel. The resultant increase in allowable boost would have further improved speed and climb of the Hellcat below 18,000 feet (it's normal critical altitude while at war emergency MP). However in the Pacific theater 130 octane fuel was deemed sufficient for the job at hand because Japanese aircraft performance wasn't on par with their European counterparts. The use of this higher octane fuel w/water injection by the Hellcat would have allowed for a more honest comparison between the maximum attainable performance of these two airplanes.

It's difficult to directly compare the value of these two airplanes. The Hellcat was a carrier-based airplane that would have had a difficult task escorting Flying Fortresses at 25,000 ft, while the Thunderbolt could never operate effectively as a carrier fighter. Outside of roll performance the Hellcat was far more maneuverable at medium altitudes, but that all changes as the airplanes climb to higher altitude. Only then can a Thunderbolt use it's superior performance against the Hellcat and prevail in a dogfight. Two very different missions for two very different aircraft.

 

[DarrenW]

I wonder how much runway a fully loaded F6F-5 would need to get airborne?

According to America's Hundred-Thousand (Dean), in an OVERLOAD condition (12,483 lbs) and with zero wind the take-off distance was 780 ft but I've seen it as low as 650 ft in NAVAER documents so I think his figure is conservative.

Under the same set of circumstances the P-47D-25 in a COMBAT condition (14,411 lbs) has a take-off run of 2540 ft.

 

[Shortround6]

One other thing to consider is that if the F6F were tasked to regularly operate in European skies it would have most assuredly been supplied 150 octane fuel. The resultant increase in allowable boost would have further improved the lower altitude speed and climb of the Hellcat. However in the Pacific theater 130 octane fuel was deemed sufficient for the job at hand because Japanese aircraft performance wasn't on par with their European counterparts. The use of this higher octane fuel would have allowed for a more honest comparison between the maximum attainable performance of these two airplanes at moderate altitudes.

The difference is not as much as you might think. Air cooled engines don't get quite the same benefit as liquid cooled engines. SO compare the P-47 and the F6F using 100/130 with water injection, P-47 was allowed 64in of boost with 100/130 and water injection, the 100/150 fuel was cleared for 70in with water injection in the summer of 1944. The use of large amounts of water injection only proceeded the use of 100/150 fuel by a matter of weeks. The Initial use of water injection at lower flow rates was much earlier.

 

[DarrenW]

The difference is not as much as you might think. Air cooled engines don't get quite the same benefit as liquid cooled engines. SO compare the P-47 and the F6F using 100/130 with water injection, P-47 was allowed 64in of boost with 100/130 and water injection, the 100/150 fuel was cleared for 70in with water injection in the summer of 1944. The use of large amounts of water injection only proceeded the use of 100/150 fuel by a matter of weeks. The Initial use of water injection at lower flow rates was much earlier.

Ok , let's stay with 100/130 fuel then and run the R-2800-10W at even higher water flow rates, just like with the P-47. In order to be fair the F6F should get modified water jets too:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-2535hp.jpg

The US Navy was actually experimenting with different water jets on F6F-3s for an entire year starting in February 1944 and ran tests up to 64" Hg, in order to find out the maximum practical power for the Hellcat while using WEP. Critical altitude decreased somewhat as expected but overall performance improved dramatically at moderate altitudes:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42633-b.pdf

I'm fairly positive that these mods in their final stage would have eventually ended up on production Hellcats and as kits, if they had been pressed into environments where they were outclassed by enemy aircraft. This never occurred in the Pacific where they primarily operated but if it did the F6F most likely would have been cleared for up to at least 64" Hg in WEP to improve it's performance. The engine could certainly handle it for short periods of time.