F6F vs F4U, insurance policy?

The problem with the Hellcat backup theory, is that the F6F was in the works since 1938 as an in-house successor to the F4F.

The F4U was a response to the Navy's fighter request in 1938, for both a twin and single engined fighter, the Navy signing the contract for Vought's proposal in mid-'38.

It wasn't until June 1941, that a contract was signed between the Navy and Grumman for the F6F, at which time, the Hellcat became a priority.

Both designs originated at the same time, one was a priority (Corsair) the other (Hellcat) was not, so their development had a much different pace between the two. Also, when the Hellcat came under contract, there were changes made (engine, etc.) that set back it's completion, too.

So I suppose, if a person wants to assume the Hellcat was a backup to the Corsair, it look like that, but circumstances and the timeline don't bear this theory out. And if a person wants to look for a back-up theory, then the F8F project may fit the bill, as the F8F was conceived in mid-'42.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the F6F and F4U weren't the only types being developed - when the Navy contract XF6F was signed in June of '41, the Navy also signed a contract with Grumman for the XF7F and Curtiss for the XF14C.
In regards to the Navy's afore-mentioned single/twin request of early 1938, only three contracts were awarded out of five respondants: Grumman for the XF5F twin-engined fighter, Vought for the F4U and Bell for the XFL Airobonita (navalized P-39).

Just asking, but if the F6F was considered as a backup to the F4U, then wouldn't the F6F contract be after the F4U contract? Wouldn't any backup contract be executed after the original?
Are you saying that to be a backup both contracts need to be executed at the same time?

I'm saying that the F6F was being developed at the same time as the F4U.

The F6F was an in-house project by Grumman as a potential successor to the F4F and wasn't a priority until 1941, because Grumman had contractual aircrcraft that needed to be built or developed for Navy contracts between 1938 and 1941: F4F, XF5F/XP-50, J2F, TBF, G-21 and so on. Since the F6F was an in-house project and not under a Navy contract until 1941, it's development wasn't prioritized until 1941.

But the fact remains that the F6F AND the F4U were being developed at the same time. Typically, a back up will come into consideration after a type is seen to be having issues for whatever reason.

FLYBOYJ said:

But meantime at the FAA...

Click to expand...

What most tend to forget is that the FAA F4U squadrons received their airplanes at US naval air stations in the US, received their training in F4Us from USN aviators, and carrier qualified under USN supervision aboard USN aircraft carriers . . . who would have thought.

R Leonard said:

What most tend to forget is that the FAA F4U squadrons received their airplanes at US naval air stations in the US, received their training in F4Us from USN aviators, and carrier qualified under USN supervision aboard USN aircraft carriers . . . who would have thought.

Click to expand...

Glad to see you back!!!!

P-39 Expert said:

Just asking, but if the F6F was considered as a backup to the F4U, then wouldn't the F6F contract be after the F4U contract? Wouldn't any backup contract be executed after the original?
Are you saying that to be a backup both contracts need to be executed at the same time?

Click to expand...

If you wait until the prefered aircraft is having trouble in trials/early deployment your backup is already too late.

Several things delayed the development of the F4U, like the Navy requesting hundreds of changes to the prototype. The Corsair was also the last Navy fighter that had to do terminal velocity dive tests and pass the old Navy Spin test. It was during those tests that it was realized the trying to apply tests that could be passed by a biplane were dangerous and nearly useless in figuring out the limits of a high speed monoplane.

The old terminal velocity test was to take the plane up, put it into a dive and keep diving until the plane just didn't go any faster due to drag.
Now with a biplane (or even a Devastator torpedo bomber) they never came anywhere near compressibility limits when doing this. Not so with the Corsair.
The Navy spin test was to put the plane into a spin to the right, do ten full turns and then recover. Climb back up and then do ten full turns to the left and recover.
Large, heavy, highspeed monoplane fighters needed way more altitude to do this than the older planes. The loss of altitude during ten turn spins was so great that save recovery was a very iffy thing.

Maybe the F6F would have passed, I don't know, but the F6F didn't have to pass in order to be accepted.

I don't know if the two stage R-2800 was really production ready in 1940-41 or if P & W needed more time to straighten it out. Don't forget, the Navy only decided to put the R-2800 in the F6F on June 3rd 1942.