Too Much Performance for the job?

[Ivan1GFP]

I guess I am searching for a possible explanation for why the Hellcat has a better kill ratio than the Corsair yet the Corsair is considered a better plane.

It was the only thing I could grasp onto. I find it confusing that the Hellcat is 19:1 vs the Corsair with 11:1. That is a huge difference in %'s.

There were lots of other reasons why the Hellcat did better than the Corsair. Besides their top speeds, (which were not really all that far apart), the Corsair had a few rather nasty habits that kept them off US carriers for a while. Strangely, it didn't keep them off the British carriers. At low speeds, the Corsair had horrible visibility forward and very poor lateral control. It was even called the "Ensign Eliminator" at one point. The Hellcat didn't have those vices. The Corsair also didn't have all the performance advantages: The Hellcat generally climbed a bit better.

Basically, it wasn't the speed difference that was the issue. Against each other, the Corsair was believed to be the superior fighter though not by much (David McCampbell).

- Ivan.

 

[swampyankee]

I understand that more modern will lead the way, I was wondering about special cases.

Would the Blenheim been a little better against the low level bombers launching V1's?

The Hellcat supposedly had a 19:1 kill ratio while the Corsair was at 11:1. Was it the situation or other factors or was it possibly the Hellcat was a better tool against Japanese naval aircraft at the time?

Reportedly, the Hellcat had better high AoA handling, better departure characteristics, and possibly better ergonomics. It's not so much that it was slower than the Corsair -- it wasn't that much slower -- but it was, in some ways, a better airplane, especially for relatively inexperienced pilots.

 

[nuuumannn]

Strangely, it didn't keep them off the British carriers.

The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm had been operating Corsairs from carrier decks for almost a year before the US finally decided the F4U could go to sea. The British had a real need for effective carrier based aircraft and when the Corsair was received via Lend Lease crews were trained in carrier ops from the outset. The Corsair II, anglicised version of the F4U-1A, was the first FAA Corsair to see combat. British Corsairs had clipped wingtips for clearance in British carrier hangars, which had lower clearance than their American counterparts; British ships adopting armoured hangars and decks. The clipping of the Corsair's wingtips improved their sink rate on landing and partially eliminated the tendency of the type to float on round out. 2012 Corsairs were operated by the FAA, more than any other type; there were 1263 Hellcats, at first named the Gannet in FAA service but officially changed to 'Hellcat' in 1944, in FAA service.

Throughout the entire war the FAA logged some 455 aerial claims, of which more than a third were American fighters; the Martlett/Wildcat was highest with 67, the Corsair next with 52.5 and the Hellcat with 52. Although both the Hellcat and Corsair were used in top cover ops for FAA air strikes in the ETO as well as in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, both were also used as ground attack aircraft. The Corsair's combat debut was close support against the Tirpitz.

 

[swampyankee]

I think that one of the reasons the FAA was willing to operate Corsairs off its carriers than the USN was that it had a more scheme for aircraft operations.

 

[OldSkeptic]

The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm had been operating Corsairs from carrier decks for almost a year before the US finally decided the F4U could go to sea. The British had a real need for effective carrier based aircraft and when the Corsair was received via Lend Lease crews were trained in carrier ops from the outset. The Corsair II, anglicised version of the F4U-1A, was the first FAA Corsair to see combat. British Corsairs had clipped wingtips for clearance in British carrier hangars, which had lower clearance than their American counterparts; British ships adopting armoured hangars and decks. The clipping of the Corsair's wingtips improved their sink rate on landing and partially eliminated the tendency of the type to float on round out. 2012 Corsairs were operated by the FAA, more than any other type; there were 1263 Hellcats, at first named the Gannet in FAA service but officially changed to 'Hellcat' in 1944, in FAA service.

Throughout the entire war the FAA logged some 455 aerial claims, of which more than a third were American fighters; the Martlett/Wildcat was highest with 67, the Corsair next with 52.5 and the Hellcat with 52. Although both the Hellcat and Corsair were used in top cover ops for FAA air strikes in the ETO as well as in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, both were also used as ground attack aircraft. The Corsair's combat debut was close support against the Tirpitz.

What also helped was their experience with Seafires, which was very 'floaty' on landing and with had visibility problems. Quill's book goes into this in depth. He was largely responsible for developing a different landing approach that largely sorted it out. This was a curved approach, with the plane initially coming parallel to the carrier (in the opposite direction to the ship's travel), then curving around into approach. This meant the pilot could see the deck easily through the majority of the approach and made it much easier to set up speed and height properly.

Applying that method to the Corsair made it much easier to land.