F6F or F4U

[Shortround6]

The true fighter bomber was the F4U-6 which didn't show up until 1951.

Both the F4U-4 and the F4U-5 were air superiority fighters that could bomb. Both of them had night fighter versions. The F4U-5 with the 'sidewinder' engine would be a very expensive mud mover.

TWO blowers feeding a third with intercoolers are NOT what is needed in a ground pounder but gave the best performance at altitude short of a turbo-charger. While by Korea many of these planes were used as ground pounders that is NOT what they were designed for. First flight of a F4U-5 was in April 1946.

 

[bob44]

Looks like either one could have done the job.

 

[GregP]

I think you are correct Bob, either one could have done the job and either one would have been a good choice. The post-war Corsairs were better than the late model Hellcats, but that could easily have changed if the Hellcat had been updated with the same engine the late model Corsairs got. They already HAD a fix to improve the Hellcat's roll rate, but never implemented it during teh war. The fix was to eliminate the dihedral.

By the time the F4U-4 and later models were in widespread use, the war was over and the Corsair WAS a better choice. But during 1944 / 1945. the two were very close with the Hellcat being more effective at combat victories by a wide margin. It certainly was the mount of more aces than the Corsair was. It could very well be a case of better opportunity, but performance in the war is on record and it was what it was.

The Hellcat definitely comes out on top while the Corsair DID serve longer and was turned into a better aircraft in the later models. I'd love to fly either one myself but, if I were a Naval pilot in WWII in the Pacific and could choose, I'd still take a Hellcat if allowed, and I acknowledge that either one would not be a disappointment.

 

[tomo pauk]

There WAS a Hellcat with engine (R-2800-18W) from the F4U-4, the XF6F-6. It was ~15 mph slower than the F4U-4, 425mph vs 440.

 

[silence]

They already HAD a fix to improve the Hellcat's roll rate, but never implemented it during teh war. The fix was to eliminate the dihedral.

How did that work?

 

[Milosh]

By the time the F4U-4 and later models were in widespread use, the war was over and the Corsair WAS a better choice. But during 1944 / 1945. the two were very close with the Hellcat being more effective at combat victories by a wide margin. It certainly was the mount of more aces than the Corsair was. It could very well be a case of better opportunity, but performance in the war is on record and it was what it was.

No it wasn't Greg.

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

 

[GregP]

The Hellcat was awarded 5,163 kills in WWII, had 1,163 combat losses including enemy aircraft, AAA, and operational combat losses. It also had 1,298 operational losses on non-combat flights during the war.

The Corsair was awarded 2,140 kills in WWII and had 768 combat losses from all causes. It also had 856 operational losses on non-combat flights during the war.

These data were taken from Opnav–P-23V, No, A129, dated 17 June 1946, Naval Aviation Combat Statistics. It is available online if you look.

If we look at combat kills versus losses to enemy aircraft, the Hellcat is ahead at 19.1 : 1 against 11.3 : 1 for the Corsair. If we look at all combat kills to all combat losses, the Hellcat is ahead at 4.44 to 2.79 versus the Corsair. If you take all combat kills versus all losses, both action and non-action, the Hellcat is still ahead at 2.10 to 1.32 versus the Corsair.

Any way you cut it the Hellcat outperformed the Corsair in WWII when it comes to kills versus any losses. The Corsair comes out very slightly ahead if you look at loss rate per combat sortie at 1.20% versus 1.75%, but that is the only category where the Corsair comes out ahead ... unless my copy of Microsoft Excel is somehow making math errors.

 

[vinnye]

It may have been that had the USN adopted the F4u earlier than it did, the scores would have favoured this fighter?
I am aware that the RN adopted it earlier than the USN, partly as it had little in the way of competition!
It still required some "fixes" for it to be used on the smaller RN carriers. The clipped wings, bubble canopy and raised seat height, together with the curved approach all made for safer use of a fine fighter.
Did the USN adopt all of the RN mods or only some?

 

[GregP]

Hi Vinnye,

It may be that might have been the case. I think the Corsair would have done fine if adopted earlier than it was. If it had been, it is entirely possible it would have performed differently than it did.

The Corsair had excellent flight characteristics and would certainly have acquitted itself well if the opportunities had been presented.

In the end, I make judgements based on what happened, not what might have happened. Some may be inclined otherwise but, for me, the Hellcat will always be the better of the two during WII based solely on the record. That does not malign the Corsair at all. I still love the Corsair and it is definitely the better-looking of the two, but the Hellcat did the job better when it counted.

 

[Milosh]

Table 19 disagrees with you Greg.

 

[GregP]

Hi Milosh,

No it doesn't.

I am using Table 2.

Table 19 shows both enemy aircraft engaged and enemy aircraft destroyed and the calculated the ratio of enemy aircraft destroyed to own losses is based on lost plus losses AND damaged. You can do it that way if you want, but the damaged planes got home and mostly flew again. It was a useful number for getting more planes from Congress.

I don't consider a damaged aircraft a loss, and neither do most former fighter pilots but, in any case, no matter how you calculate it, the F6F was still better than the F4U and I'd still choose the F6F over the F4U.

You, of course, are free to make your own choice. If different from mine, it still wouldn't be a bad choice as both were good fighters. There are about 50 ways to calculate the numbers and no two agree, but counting the damaged as losses wouldn't be seen in most places, regardless of nationality. If we counted the damaged, how good was the Bf 109 or the Spitfire? I don't know since the numbers aren't generally available as far as I can tell. So, I tend to stick with the numbers available for other nations as well as ours.

Each to his own, I suppose. I'll still take a Hellcat, but would not kick at a Corsair.

If you go look at official US Navy numbers, you'll see the Hellcat listed at 19 : 1 against enemy aircraft in every place where it is mentioned. I don't like that calculation, but it is often used.

 

[GrumpyBadger]

...wow, for a "state your own opinion" this thread sure went a little nutso

to both of you

 

[Cave Tonitrum]

Shut the **** up Donnie.

 

[vinnye]

Thanks for the reply GregP.
I agree that both were decent fighting machines at the time. Both were getting the job done!
The F6F may also have had a benefit from it looking so similar to the F4F. A Japanese fighter pilot may have mistaken the F6F and got a nasty surprise as a result!
I believe something similar happened for a short time when the RAF began changing from the Spitfire V to IX, several LW pilots rushed into battle thinking they had advantages over the V and got a shock !

 

[jpatrick62]

I think both aircraft were excellent for differeing reasons. If I am a rookie pilot, I want the F6F simply because it is easier to fly. If I am an experienced pilot, I would opt for the Corsair because
it was a hotter ship (to paraphrase a quote of the time). Regardless of arguments made today, you'd really have to pay attention to the opinions of those who actually fought the war or flew the
planes since they uniquely have the perspective of combat in WW2. Navy tests proved the F4U to be the better performer and the 1944 fighter conference did as well. So I'd have to take their word
for it since they were actively trying to find the best weapons to fight a determined enemy. As for cost, the F6F was the cheaper plane to build. Since not all pilots at the time were experts (remember
these guys picked to go through an accelerated flight course were often regular Joes) I think it probably saved the lives of guys whose skills may not have allowed them to safely fly a F4U. On the other
hand, the better performance of the F4U was chiefly appreciated when trying to stave off kamakaze attacks later in the war and against later model Japanese fighters.