Was the hellcat only a naval plane?

[spitfire101]

I know the F6F hellcat was used mostly in overseas fighting with the navy but i saw it said they did some ground missions, but which ones?

Anyother info you have on the hellcat would be nice to.

 

[mkloby]

Hellcats were the backbone of the USN's fighter squadrons, but she was also used by the Marines, flown off navy escort carriers. Marines also used F6F-3 and 5Ns for night fighter ops. Hellcats were fitted w/ bomb racks and also could launch 5" rockets for CAS.

 

[twoeagles]

And what a shame they also made such lovely aerial target drones for
gunnery practice, or we'd have more of them to enjoy today!

 

[timshatz]

A better question was why was the Corsair only a Navy/Marine Aircraft when USAAC aircrews were screaming for a long range escort in Europe. It would've solved a problem out there a good 6 months to a year before the Mustang arrived in force.

Anybody?

 

[Matt308]

Why do I think that answer will not be technical...

 

[timshatz]

Why do I think that answer will not be technical...

Talk about nailing it in one sentence!

 

[Jank]

I don't think the early Corsair had much of a range advantage over the Thunderbolt.

 

[timshatz]

Possible, I honestly don't know. I had heard it was political (Navy builds their aircraft and generally stays out of Army projects, also vice versa). But there could be a technical point as well.

 

[Matt308]

One's typically silver. The other blue.

 

[Twitch]

Come on, interservice rivalry would never have let that happen.

 

[mkloby]

The army did adopt the dauntless as the A-24 I think it was...

 

[twoeagles]

Correct - the Army flew them out of Wheeler Field, I believe, but they were
not widespread. The services had different specs to meet and it usually
meant trade-offs, ie. Navy/Marines traded off added weight (and fuel) to
gain the structural strength for carrier operations. But the bottom line truly
was and remains that the Army and Navy had two seperate procurement
bureaucracies. So how did USAAF and Navy and Marines all get to
fly the F4 Phantom? That's a good story for the non-WW2 thread...

 

[timshatz]

I think the F4 was a combination of recognized good aircraft and McNamara's efficiency push.

But back to the thread. There were a few other aircraft that jumped service boundries. The B26 did some time in the Navy, as did a B24 variant with a straight tail. Think the B25 might have gone both ways too (don't quote me on that one). But by and large, two eagles has it right. As one General in the Army said during the war, "We need to win this war so we can get back to fighting our real enemy- THE NAVY".

It wasn't all tongue in cheek.

 

[V-1710]

Yes, the B-25 had an extensive career as the PBJ with the Marine Corps, who used it with great success in the South Pacific. The Navy also flew the B-24 as the PB4Y-1 patrol bomber, which was the basis for the single-tailed PB4Y-2 Privateer which saw service as a maritime patrol and spy plane after the war.

 

[Matt308]

Correct - the Army flew them out of Wheeler Field, I believe, but they were
not widespread. The services had different specs to meet and it usually
meant trade-offs, ie. Navy/Marines traded off added weight (and fuel) to
gain the structural strength for carrier operations. But the bottom line truly
was and remains that the Army and Navy had two seperate procurement
bureaucracies. So how did USAAF and Navy and Marines all get to
fly the F4 Phantom? That's a good story for the non-WW2 thread...

Multiple response - McNamara and fly off against crappy F-106.

 

[wmaxt]

The Corsair never had the range of the P-38, P-47 (D-25 and later) or the P-51. The area of the wings large enough for fuel tanks was occupied. While it had huge spaces in the fusalage that could have been used for fuel they were all outside the required CG limits except for the tank they already had.

wmaxt

 

[V-1710]

Multiple response - McNamara and fly off against crappy F-106.

The F-4 (F4H) Phantom started as a Navy plane (successor to the F3H Demon) but performed so well it attracted the interest of the Air Force. And, the F-106 was anything but crappy (probably the best bomber interceptor that will ever be developed). As for the Corsair, I think the Army Air Force didn't want another fighter in inventory in Europe (the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were enough to cause logistics problems). That is supported by the fact tht they were not interested in the P-63, a plane that had the potential to outperform the P-51D.

 

[timshatz]

The Corsair never had the range of the P-38, P-47 (D-25 and later) or the P-51. The area of the wings large enough for fuel tanks was occupied. While it had huge spaces in the fusalage that could have been used for fuel they were all outside the required CG limits except for the tank they already had.

wmaxt

Would that include drop tanks?

 

[timshatz]

The F-4 (F4H) Phantom started as a Navy plane (successor to the F3H Demon) but performed so well it attracted the interest of the Air Force. And, the F-106 was anything but crappy (probably the best bomber interceptor that will ever be developed). As for the Corsair, I think the Army Air Force didn't want another fighter in inventory in Europe (the P-38, P-47, and P-51 were enough to cause logistics problems). That is supported by the fact tht they were not interested in the P-63, a plane that had the potential to outperform the P-51D.

My understanding of the P63 is it was a very short ranged bird. Did have the potential to be a great fighter, but only in a tactical role. The P51 had the leggs to go the distance to Berlin, fight and come back.

By the time the 63 was ready, the need for a point based interceptor was gone. Air Superiority was the name of the game. Searching out and destroying the Luftwaffe over their home bases. The 63 did not have the leggs to accomplish that mission.