F6F or F4U

[Cave Tonitrum]

Only 51 people turned in votes for the questionnaire described above. The "division of votes" was as follows:

Army - 9
Navy - 15
British - 7
Contractors - 20

What we don't know is the breakdown of the contractors by company affiliation. We do know though that Grumman had eight representatives at the conference and Chance Vought had sixteen.

Not all 51 who participated in the voting voted in every category. For instance, with respect to "Best Fighter-Bomber," only 72% participated. And we don't know how many contractors voted as opposed to the Army / Navy / British who did or which contractors voted.

 

[GregP]

The 1944 Fighter Conference Summary is quite interesting, but not exactly a case of cooperation. What sort of statement does it make when the pilots don't vote on all the planes they flew?

It tells me there was a lot of not only nationalistic but also company bias involved. Maybe the lack of voting was a company directive? I don't really know. But the comments are interesting and generate a lot of curiosity in me. I suppose you have to read between the lines.

 

[Cave Tonitrum]

A pattern of interest -

The army seemed more interested in navy planes and the navy seemed more interested in army planes judging by the breakdown of pilots who turned in comment cards.

 

[JamesArmes]

It's a tough call to be honest. The Corsair had bad visibility on take off/landings, but had a great climb rate as did the Hellcat. The Hellcat had an advantage over the corsair though, and that was the water injection used from technology taken from a downed/captured Zero. But, I'd go with the Corsair simply because it's a really cool plane...

 

[Milosh]

Best All-Around Fighter Below 25,000ft (89% return of questionnaires)

F8F - 30%
P-51 - 29%
F4U-1 - 27%
F7F - 6%
F6F - 2%
Mosquito - 2%
F4U-4 - 2%
F2G - 2%

Best All-Around Fighter Above 25,000ft (82% return of questionnaires)

P-47 - 45%
P-51 - 39%
F4U-1 - 7%
F6F - 3%
F4U-4 - 3%
Seafire - 2%
P-38 - 1%

 

[GregP]

Yet the Hellcat shot down about 40% more enemy aircraft than the Corsair despite being introduced a bit later. Seems a strange vote, doesn't it?

Today pilots love the Hellcat when they get a chance to fly one and are mostly a bit edgy about Corsairs ... they are great in the air but have to interact with the ground when the fuel runs low. When thath happens, the Hellcat comes into its own. In the air there is little to choose between them.

 

[wuzak]

Yet the Hellcat shot down about 40% more enemy aircraft than the Corsair despite being introduced a bit later. Seems a strange vote, doesn't it?

I would put that down to opportunities.

 

[GregP]

I would, too, but it happened as it happened.

I choose the Hellcat for a good number of reasons.

Which would YOU choose and why?

 

[Milosh]

F6F Hellcats lost; 270 in aerial combat, 553 lost to anti-aircraft ground and ship-board fire

F4U Corsairs lost; 189 in aerial combat, 349y lost to anti-aircraft ground and ship-board fire

In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons of bombs.

In the ground attack role, Corsairs dropped 15,621 tons of bombs.

F6F - 13:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero

F4U - 12:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero

So despite dropping 2.5 times as much bomb tonnage as the F6F, the F4U had almost the same `kill`ratio as the F6F. Who would have thought that!

 

[GregP]

Hi Milosh,

F6F was 19.1 : 1 against aircraft. 5,163 kills against 270 lost to enemy aircraft. I have quoted the report on at least 10 occasions.

F4U was 11.3 : 1 against aircraft. 2,140 kills against 189 lost to enemy aircraft.

These are US Navy numbers, not mine, iI have NOTHING i this hunt. AAA losses are not counted since there is NO way to avoid an explosion, even today. The losses count but overall including aircraft, AAA, and operational losses, the Hellcat stands at 4.44 and the Corsair stands at 2.79. A CLEAR win for the Hellcat by a WIDE margin in WWII.

I can post the entire data set, but you already know and are just baiting. Stop it, please.

 

[Milosh]

Now you can keep on going on and on about the total claims for the F6F Greg but when it comes right down to it, there wasn't much difference in the a/c.

enemy a/c engaged

carrier based
F6F - 1878 (B), 6888(F)
F4U, FG - 200(B), 1026(F)

land based
F6F - 76(B), 482(F)
F4U, FG - 462(B), 3617(F)

total
F6F - 9324
F4U, FG - 5305

enemy a/c destroyed per own loss

carrier based
F6F - 20.8
F4U, FG - 17.0

land based
F6F - 8.3
F4U, FG - 10.1

average
F6F - 14.55
F4U, FG - 13.55

aerial combat, percentage of own a/c engaging, lost

carrier based
F6F - 3.7
F4U, FG - 3.3

land based
F6F - 6.4
F4U, FG - 6.9

average
F6F - 5.05
F4U, FG - 5.1

 

[JtD]

Which of the two was cheaper?

 

[drgondog]

Which of the two soldiered on after WWII was over and how does that reflect the value the USN placed on the Corsair?

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know how long each was kept in service but the F6F certainly didn't get the improved engines the F4U did late/post war.

Only two F6F-6s were built with the R-2800-18 that the F4U-4 got let alone the R-2800-32W sidewinder engine. These were the planes (+ the F4U-6/AU-1) used in Korea.

 

[JtD]

Which of the two soldiered on after WWII was over and how does that reflect the value the USN placed on the Corsair?

The question of the OP is the use in the Pacific War, not the use after WW2. In that sense, I wouldn't hold it against the F6F that Grumman went with a completely new design, the F8F, where Vought went with an upgraded F4U.

Does no one know the unit cost of F4U and F6F, preferably in comparable condition? I'm thinking that both aircraft were very similar in the sum of their capabilities, each having its own weak and strong points, but overall there's little to chose, so maybe the price is something to go by?

Did the F4U come in a night fighter variant, if not, would it have been as good at it as the F6F, had it been tried?

 

[wuzak]

Did the F4U come in a night fighter variant, if not, would it have been as good at it as the F6F, had it been tried?

Yep.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konabish/7748065508/


And the F6F night fighter version

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/F6F-3N_NAS_Jax_1943.jpg

 

[Rufus123]

Just questions, not facts or opinions on my part.

Lets say that the Corsair is considered the better plane.

1. Was there anything that Japanese had that could have had better than 50% success with the pilots average of pilots available against the Hellcat?

2. Even if the Corsair is better and if the Hellcat is better than anything the Japanese can throw at it is it possible that both can be equally good against the Japanese even if the Corsair is slightly better?

3. Could being carrier qualified first be what gives the Hellcat the nod over the Corsair and was doing well enough that there was not pressure to replace it as quickly once Corsairs had been worked out for carrier duty?

4. How important was easier to fly at the point in the war that Hellcats started to be added in number? Was in a material advantage when both the Hellcat and Corsair could exert dominance over Japanese types?

The reason for the questions is someone posted the Hellcat was cast aside and the Corsair continued after WW2. It had me wondering if the Hellcat even if inferior to the Corsair was the right plane at the right time for the job at hand and that can overcome qualitative differences?

 

[Shortround6]

There were F4U night fighters.

The F8F wasn't really a replacement for the F6F. It carried (in the -1 version) 2/3 the guns, 1/2 the ammo and 3/4 the fuel ( and the initial concept had even less).
Development of the F8F was started when Roy Grumman became uneasy with the reliance the company was placing on twin engine aircraft for carrier operations. He was afraid that the big twins would prove to be too big for many carriers so he wanted a fighter that could, without question, operated from ANY carrier the US navy had. In that sense it may be a replacement for the F6F on the companies production line/s and while it had more speed low down it might have had a problem at higher altitudes (solved as better versions of the R-2800 were introduced) and with radius of action.
Much is made of the number of Hellcat pilots who made ace in a day and rightly so. Replacing their aircraft with one that carried 1/2 the ammo?

 

[VBF-13]

I don't know how long each was kept in service but the F6F certainly didn't get the improved engines the F4U did late/post war.

Only two F6F-6s were built with the R-2800-18 that the F4U-4 got let alone the R-2800-32W sidewinder engine. These were the planes (+ the F4U-6/AU-1) used in Korea.

Yeah. I think it's especially naive to draw inferences off the 4Us going on to what was for the most part Marine business. Had it still been carrier-to-carrier business I don't think there's any question the 4Us would have still been warming the runways on the islands. That to me says nothing about the relative competency of these bombing-fighting heavyweights.

 

[GregP]

The service life after WWII is irrelevant to WWII actions. They chose the Corsair post-war based on both the need to provide second-line ground support since the darling new jets were supposed to take over fighter duties and on the relative spares available. Hellcats went to the Naval reserve squadrons.

In WWII, the two planes were quite equal and very complementary to one another.

I'll take a Hellcat any day, but would certainly not be disappointed with a Corsair except for the difficulty of getting into the plane at my age. I can DO it and have, recently, but it is certainly a stretch to get into a Corsair. The Hellcat is easy by comparison. Which means nothing in WWII ...