F6F or F4U

[GregP]

You know, I never measured it even though we have a Corsair and many Hellcats come through. I was always under the impression tat the hangar space and deck space could take the same number of WWII fighter of any type if both had the same number of engines. That is, a Tigercat would take up more space, but a carrier fighter wing was a certain number of single-engine fighters.

To know if that made a real difference, we'd also have to know the hangar deck size of a WWIIc arrier and how many planes were in the hanger and also on deck.

That is an interesting question! Of course, I'd take Hellcats anyway, but your premise is quite interesting.

 

[Milosh]

It is pretty simple Greg.

If you are the only fighter fighting an inferior and out numbered enemy you are going to have a good kill ratio. In Europe, the F6F would not have faired as well as it did vs the Japanese.

 

[VBF-13]

After the Corsair was perfected it does sound like a better fighter bomber than the Hellcat to me and I think that the fact that it was the design chosen to be retained by the post war authorities is the strongest argument there is to back this opinion up.

Here's another plausible inference. It ended up in the Marines in the Pacific because the Navy didn't need it in those carrier-to-carrier operations; it ended up in Korea because that was a Marine war and it was what Ted Williams and those boys just happened to have been flying.

 

[GregP]

So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.

Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

And the Bearcat was a Hellcat replacement, not an F4F replacement. That's according to former Grumman employees at several presentations given at our museum. You can believe them or not, but new developments were invariably the replacement for the current product if they were of the same type (say, single-engine Naval fighter). Possibly not if different types.

 

[VBF-13]

A little reality check. These aircraft, both bombing-fighting aircraft from the get-go, were very similar. The fact the 4U went onto Korea doesn't change that. The fact the 6F got the nod in the Pacific doesn't change that. A little personal opinion. We'd have let either of these two loose in Europe they'd have kicked the crap out of the Luftwaffe as easily as they did the Japanese.

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat and Corsair would have given a good account of themselves anywhere and anytime (asuming after they were developed at the time) in WWII if flown by well-trained pilots and maintained / supplied well.

The Me 262 was a complete dud if flown by a rookie fresh out of pilot training and the Buffalo was pretty good if flown by a well-trained and experienced Finn. One simply wonders what the Finns would have done with, say, 150 Hellcats or Corsairs and some decent spare parts logistics ...

 

[snelson]

wouldn't you say that the Hellcat faced better pilots on average than Corsair? weren't they flying earlier in the war than the Corsair, so they would have seen more planes with better pilots. to me that makes the kill ratio even more impressive

 

[tomo pauk]

Corsair went into combat inearly 1943, vs. late 1943 for the Hellcat.

 

[wuzak]

wouldn't you say that the Hellcat faced better pilots on average than Corsair? weren't they flying earlier in the war than the Corsair, so they would have seen more planes with better pilots. to me that makes the kill ratio even more impressive

Means they also had more opportunities to shoot down the enemy.

 

[wuzak]

Corsair went into combat inearly 1943, vs. late 1943 for the Hellcat.

Corsair in early for the USMC. But early 1944 for the USN?

Also, Greg stated earlier that the USN had ~66,000 combat sorties for the F6F and ~64,000 combat sorties for the F4U.

btw, is a combat sortie one which is part of a mission, or one where the enemy is encountered?

 

[Milosh]

So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.

Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

And the Bearcat was a Hellcat replacement, not an F4F replacement. That's according to former Grumman employees at several presentations given at our museum. You can believe them or not, but new developments were invariably the replacement for the current product if they were of the same type (say, single-engine Naval fighter). Possibly not if different types.

The F6F wasn't going to be escorting any American bombers to Berlin, be sure.

Lest you think the Corsair is getting the bad end, the US Navy flew 64,051 combat sorties in the Corsair over about the same time period, so their combat sorties are nearly identical, and the Hellcat comes out on top by a wide margin.

How many of those combat sorties were moving mud sorties and how many were a2a sorties?

 

[drgondog]

It is worthwhile mentioning that F6F's got to defend the high value targets - the fleet - that the Japanese expended many resources to attack. The analogy for ETO is that the Germans retreated from heavy force projection within range of the P-47, leaving the Mustang the opportunity to defend when the LW put heavy forces in the air to attack the bombers at Berlin, Merseburg, Leipzig, Brux, etc.

In other words the Mustang had fewer sorties than P-47 and P-38, yet dominated air to air victory credits with lowest losses.

There was a reason the USN kept making Corsairs and scrapped Hellcats after the war. Ditto Mustang vs P-38 and P-47 for AAF

 

[drgondog]

Hi again Milosh,

Not sure what your points are above.

I said the Finns were fighting against a woefully undertrained foe and their sucess would seem to solidify that view. The Finnish Buffalos are not even a 10% sample of Buffalos, so they simply count for the quality of the Finns versus their opponents in my mind, and don't say anything about the Buffalo in general. Take any random 50+% sample and see what you get.

And the USN was fighting same type pilot skill as Finns but Japanese had more competitive aircraft in A6M. Further the AAF and USMC were fighting tough IJN pilots and equal a/c in 1943, then the Marines more or less ran out of targets as airfields were taken and Japanese consolidated to areas where only the Fleet could attack.

About the kil ratio, I specified in the US inventory when I mentioed the Hellcat.

For a real kill ratio, I would not take less than a sample of at least 40% of the total production. For the US numbers about the Corsair and Hellcat, we have 85+% of the population, so I believe their numbers are quite valid for drawing conclusion about the aircraft in general.

Horsepucky. Not to mention that Japanese published losses were far less than USN victory credits (and AAF VC's also). There is a lot of evidence that claims in the PTO did not undergo the same rigor as the ETO with respect to Encounter Reports, witness requirements and a Review Board to parse the claim vs evidence.

I personally care much more about the performance of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 as a type than I do small numbers of Bf 109's in Finnish or any other service. I'm one of the guys who wants a good cross section of the plane's missions on which to base an opinion of the aircraft as a whole, not some specific small sample. That probably comes from an engineering background that includes inferential statistics.

The same background that enabled to 'perform an aerodynamic study on a P-51 canopy in undergrad school as you claimed on the other forum? Or the same rigor as using your statistical sampling regarding the mud mission opponent for USMC versus Fleet defense for USN? or the 'assumption that USN Claims matched Japanese actual losses?

As to the Finns specifically, they certainly showed their training and skill level were head and shoulders better than their opponents. Good job, Finland! But their good performance with the Buffalo is so atypical of the type as to be almost an abberation that might well be due as much to badly-trained Soviet opposition as much as to the prowess of the Finns ... I don't know. The Finns certainly showed good pilot quality in any case.

Could there be a comparable analogy with F6F vs Val and A6M?

They made somewhere around 580 Buffalos, Take any random sample of any 300 of them and you can get an idea of the real potential of the Buffalo. Random means random, not "just the Fins" or even "include all the Finns." The big problem, at least to me, is really getting the data together, not anayzing it.

That IS a problem for everybody, so you should apply the same rigor here and understand that a/c and pilot combination in one theatre and time in the war isn't applicable to pilot skill dissimilarities and opponents in another?

That, of course, applies to the way I think. You are certainly entitled to feel otherwise and yours may well be a more popular view, and that's fine.

HIS view may be more fact based than yours based on the logic you have posed so far. You just slapped his analytical capabilities and trumped with your self perceptions of your own?

If you want to talk specific numbers, the US Navy's kill ratio versus enemy aircraft was compiled by flying 66,530 combat sorties. That is not sorties, that is COMBAT sorties and is a pretty darned good sample on which to based combat effectiveness. Lest you think the Corsair is getting the bad end, the US Navy flew 64,051 combat sorties in the Corsair over about the same time period, so their combat sorties are nearly identical, and the Hellcat comes out on top by a wide margin. It shot down more than twice as many enemy aircraft.

And because the F-86 had 'only' victory credits of 800 plus, it's clear that the F6F is better? Or conversely worse than Me 109 or FW 190?

So you can some to any conclusions you want and it doesn't change the fact that the Hellcat was a verifiably better performer in combat situations. Pilots of the two types in US service got exactly the same training. The one thing we CAN'T say is what percent of "combat sorties" involved no contact with enemy aircraft but were rather anti-ship or ground attack missions only.

If you are going to compare Combat effectiveness between the two, don't you think that might be an 'interesting datum' for the serious engineering analytical mind? Not to mention aforementioned differences in opponents skills?

As I stated above, give me a Hellcat any day. If I can have my choice, you certainly can, too. So give Milosh whatever mount he wants, and good luck to him. It's all fantasy anyway, so I'll assume we win the fight and celebrate with a good, cold beer after we land.

How nice 'to give Milosh what he wants'.. but it is only a debate. Having said that, what say you to the Fighter Conference survey which included majority USN/USMC pilots that ranked the F4U as consistently the better as far as combat operations attributes? Do you feel that the pilots were unqualified with respect to your engineering and analytical skills and failed miserably with their professional judgment?

 

[drgondog]

So you say, Milosh. I simply disagree ... shock.

Since the Hellcat never got to Europe in numbers, I don't know and neither do you. One of us is probably wrong and it will never be settled by facts in evidence. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yo Greg, run the numbers with a fact based mission profile and you will see that it WILL be "facts in evidence" that the Hellcat could never perform a standard round trip escort from 25 to 30K with only 250 gallons of internal fuel - and actually only the F4U-1, -1A and -B had the internal fuel to match a P-47 - and the P-47 had 22% More internal fuel than the Hellcat. But you keep boldly soldiering on with your emotional arguments..

Greg - so far several knowledgeable members have dragged operating fuel consumption vs power settings in the operating stages of a mission following SOP for ETO bomber escort. Each displayed more data and knowledge than you regarding application to a mission plan escort profile to protect bombers at 30,000 feet rather than flying alone at 15000 feet and 200 mph. All of them agree that internal fuel remaining to fight and return at the long range target location is the key.

Your condescension (Spellcheck correction) toward Milosh is somewhat humorous since you have so far not even attempted to apply your engineering and analytical mind to present your solution with a fact base to support it.. sounds to me like an opinion versus fact based approach. You declared victory and walked from the stage when you had a chance to show us why we have no idea what we are talking about.

 

[wuzak]

Your condensation toward Milosh is somewhat humorous since you have so far not even attempted to apply your engineering and analytical mind to present your solution with a fact base to support it..

Is this Greg's condensation toward Milosh?

More likely it is this:

 

[GregP]

Hi Dog and Milosh,

This thread is about F6F versus F4U, not escort to Berlin which I still say can be done by a Hellcat and you are still nay-sayers (boy am I surprised ...).

Following the thread title, I choose the F6F, 1944 Fighter Conference notwithstanding. It really shouldn't bother you why. Choose whichever plane you want in this thread, with no comment from me at all. Either is a good choice anyway.

Horsepuckey back at you, Bill. Let's say I sometimes, but not all the time, doubt your assertions as much as you doubt mine. I live in Southern California where condensation is rare indeed and I remian dry.

I have not been condescending, if that is what you meant. If you think I have, then you are mistaken. A condescending attitude is way more of the attitude I read in your replies to me. I am trying not to rise to the constant bait. Why not stop it? It would be appreciated and I'm not going away.

Believe it or not, when I reply to a thread, is to address the thread, not "how can I piss off Bill or Milosh?" Your replies to me seem to constantly try to make things personal. They're NOT. Maybe you could believe that. Most of my replies for awhile have been to other posters, not to you two, unless as a response to a bait.

Possibly it is the fact that we think quite differently from one another. In the real world, people do that and there is nothing wrong with it. Whether or not I prefer a Hellcat to a Corsair would seem like something that would not affect YOU in any way at all, especially considering that I can't afford one.

So rest easy ... I probably won't be buzzing your house in a Hellcat anytime soon. It should seriously not give you, Bill nor you, Milosh any sleepless nights whichever plane I choose. So please make you own choice any way you want it. Hell, make it into a poll if you like.

This is beginning to be not fun.

 

[drgondog]

Ah Greg - I accept full responsibility for the misspelling - I've been done in before and expect to again. You have been done in by 'faux' logic - (did I get that right??).

Of Course you ignore pilots brought in from far and wide to the fighter Conference - many of which were combat vets and 'theoretically' knew what they were doing? Oops I keep forgetting that when you are getting clobbered with facts You draw on the vets that visit POF as a mysterious trump card. Right?

So what is it Greg - facts regarding attributes backed up by opinions of professionals - or 'feelings' on your part?

I assume you will go by 'feelings' - a true engineering approach to problem definition and solution..

And, ultimately you are wrong about my attitude toward you - it isn't condescension, its irony mixed with some degree of dismissal because you talk the talk but don't back it up with some assembly of facts and logic - whether discussing lineage of P-51 from P-40Q, or Hellcats capable of ETO escort profile in ETO.

I've been wrong before but I don't double down when the facts are gently or brutally placed under my snout.. you, on the other hand??

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Lets not let this get out of hand...

 

[drgondog]

no problem..

 

[GregP]

Hi Bill,

I don't ignore the pilots from the 1944 Fighter Conference ... I prefer the Hellcat due to combat record and comments from pilots who fly the planes today. EVERYBODY who flies a Hellcat loves it ... in my experience. It is a personal preference and, as I stated, should cause you no sleepless nights. I have no need to defend my choices to you nor you to me. We'll likely never meet and become acquaintences and if we do, we might find we have some common ground.

Even the authoritative R-2800 Pratt Whittney's Dependable masterpiece by Graham White lists the range for the Hellcats as being within the ETO escort distance from London to Berlin. If it just happened to be the only option available, I think it could and WOULD have been done ... unless you were the CO. Then the bombers would be on their own I suppose.

I already stated it wasn't an optimum choice and wasn't ever done in real life. C'mon, this WAS a "what if," and you have NO trouble getting into "what-ifs" of other sorts, but just can't understand that if the Hellcat were the only option, they would have figured a way. In real life, it was never a necessity, so you and I are simply on different sides of the equation. It will NEVER be answered in combat and I doubt our lives will depend on it in any case except in a really bizzare set of circumstances.

Either let it go or I'll begin to suspect you are stalking me. You won't convince me it can't be done and I obviously won't convince you it can, but I bet we both enjoy a good flight or airshow anyway. So please, stick with the thread title and not me as a subject. I am at the point of rejecting anything you say about this subject and perhaps others, and that is bad because you obviously have a good deal of knowledge about the general subject. Stop with the personal arguments and maybe we can coexist in here and even agree on many things. Stranger things have happened.

When I make a choice in here on a question or when YOU do, it is a personal choice, not an engineering statement for argument or justification. Make your own choices and be happy with them. I may well disagree, but won't turn it into a personal attack on every post you make. Please reciprocate. I think we've all acknowledged that "the best fighter" or whatever type depends on the mission, and there are many correct answers.

Can't I have the leeway to make my choices like you do without argument along every step of the way? Hey, I don't see you arguing with the guys who like the Buffalo. Why not extend that courtesy to me? I'll do the same.