Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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. .
U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.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.
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.U.S.Navy pilots had 600 hours training, AAF pilots had 200.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
I wonder how much runway a fully loaded F6F-5 would need to get airborne?
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.