JoeB,
I think the problem with comparing Hellcat vs. Corsair vulnerability/survivability in the air to air context is that the performance differences in the two planes is quite significant while the performance differences between the two planes in the air to ground realm really isn't.
I know that most fighters that were shot down never saw it coming but once the rounds start whizzing by, the Corsair probably had a good edge in evasive manuevering that exceeded the Hellcat with its markedly superior roll and dive performance.
Assuming the very large differential in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat from AA was the result of the oil cooling design, do you think that design also presented a significant source of vulnerability for the Corsair in the air to air context which was not shared by the Hellcat? It would seem that a plane attacking from behind and above could reach the oil cooling aparatus with strikes at the leading edges of the wings where a cooling arrangement at the bottom of the cowling could not be reached at all. With the system spread from the leading edges of the wings to the engine, it would also seem to present at least a bigger kill zone to a plane attacking from behind and below too.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
We'd have to guess almost completely about effect of vulnerability on air-air results, in sharp contrast to the cut and dried figures on AA vulnerability. Maybe buried somewhere, or constructed from individual combat reports, we could find stats on what % of F4U and F6F hit by enemy *aircraft* fire returned, and at what rate each was hit on sorties encountering enemy a/c. But even if we had those stats, air-air has the whole other dimension of offensive effectiveness. To take an easier case, there seems little doubt (except among Thunderbolt true believers) that the P-51D was better at shooting down enemy a/c than the P-47D was, but surely less able to absorb their counter fire. It's still very difficult to quantify those two offsetting factors, though.
To review, F4U's and F6F's showed similar claimed kill ratio's v enemy fighters in all the side by side cases we know. IMO that's probably mainly just because individual pilot capability and other human factors (morale, leadership, tactics) dominated WWII fighter combat results when the a/c were at all similar in capability, and those two a/c were flown by very similar or the same air arms, and just not different *enough* in air combat performance to make any noticeable difference in air combat result. But perhaps an F4U offensive advantage offset a F6F hit taking advantage? could be I guess, just seems hard to prove. The F6F also had the advantage of better visibility over the nose for deflection shooting (as well as carrier landing), there could many subtle factors that all offset one another.
Another USN stat I'd throw in is from Alfred Price "WWII Fighter Conflict" p.59, for the same period as the NASC stats (though I don't see it in that document), where they calculated that across all USN types 85% of those where it could be determined* they'd suffered combat damage in the oil system, did not return. The %'s were generally high for all key systems and the pilot, v just 11% for hits on structure resulting in losses.
*how could they determine it? a source of possible speculation contained in the stats but still interesting IMO.
Joe