Author Topic: F4U vs. F6F  (Read 14461 times)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #90 on: March 25, 2006, 11:11:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA


Widewing,

It is funny you should Crummp me as you did because I was going to do the same with you.

When some facts fit your needs like the 3G stall speeds of the JFC you stick with it until the death but when I say that 60% to 30% of the pilots at that conferance chose the F4U as the best Navy fighter you say the conferance was a boonedogle and has no value. You wave the NACA report in my face as proof of your point without ever reading the report that confirms my opinion in the first place.

I know you have a long service career and I am also aware from my 4 years of service as an Avionics Tech that on ships and aircraft they like to say things like "God is in the Details". But you are not a detail guy. Detail is noticing IAS vrs CAS and Clmax numbers that are way out of line or bothering to read the report you are waving like a flagCrummp!!. Also you choose selected Japanese pilot annecdotes that are turely worthless to proove a point about detailed aircraft engineering.

No matter what my opinion or your opinion this arguement was settled by the Navy in 1945 when the F4U took over as the primary carrier fighter.

I truely enjoy this discussion because it has some great points of debate. But you have got to recognize that every independant body that has ever accomplished this test has settled in one direction and not the other.


Let's clear the air a bit..

Fact: NACA 829 does not confirm your opinion. It states unequivocally that the F4U wing was an aerodynamic mess. A CLmax of 1.17 is a lot worse than 1.48.... Still notably inferior to the F6F.

Fact: The JFC was an perfect example of interservice and intercorporate rivalry. Opinions on any aircraft varied from pole to pole. It has little redeeming value beyond its novelty.

Fact: Your obvious obcession with the F4U blinds you to the fact that while it was a superb fighter, its complete absence would not have effected the outcome of the war whatsoever. However, that is not the case with the F6F. Without the Hellcat, the Navy would have had F4Fs on their carriers until 1945 as the Navy thought the F4U was not ready for CV duty. Would they have accepted it as is earlier? Maybe, but at what price in accidents? After being cleared for CV duty, its accident rate was much higher than the Hellcat's. Even as late as Korea, the F4U maintained its title of Barrier King, having a higher accident rate than the AD and even the F9F. To quote Capt. John McConnell, "When it came to carrier ops, the F6F instilled confidence in its pilots, whereas the F4U scared the crap out of them."

To quote from Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, page 37: "F6F operational loss rates were far lower than those for the FM and F4U." Note that the FMs flew from the very small decked CVEs. But even when flying from CVEs (Hellcats flew 5,426 combat sorties from CVEs), the F6F had a lower operational loss rate than the Wildcats. From that same document, page 58: "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage".

Here's their breakdown of kill ratios:



You have argued about "details". I'm familiar with the "details". Virtually every guided weapon in the US inventory has my hardware on it. Every air dropped weapon employing the FMU-139 or FMU-143 fuze has my hardware onboard. When I say "my" hardware, I mean exactly that. I designed these devices, developed them and our company manufactures them. I know about details... If my hardware malfunctions, good people die, but mastery of "details" permits six sigma reliability... and only bad guys die. So, don't lecture me about details or about engineering.

You're not really a detail guy, you are a, "fly crap in the pepper" guy. I'll wager you can't recognize the difference either.

We can quote tests till hell freezes over. They establish nothing. What does count is the combat record. In that regard, the F6F established itself as the best carrier fighter of the war. I will grant you that the late-war F4U-4 was considerably superior in performance... But, it was a new generation of fighter and would be joined by the F8F (in August of 1945), which was the superior fighter of the two, while the F4U-4 was the superior fighter-bomber. F4Us were not replacing Hellcats on carriers during the war, they were supplementing the F6F and replacing VB and VT squadrons. At the surrender, F6Fs still outnumbered the F4U aboard CVs, CVLs and CVEs.

You have made an argument that the F4U was superior to the F6F as a fighter. However, the combat record does not bear that out. Combat records show that in virtually every category of combat capability, reliability and efficiency, the F6F comes out ahead of the F4U. You can dig out "details" until they come out of your ears, but you cannot circumnavigate around the combat record.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: March 25, 2006, 11:24:27 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9368
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2006, 12:34:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Also you choose selected Japanese pilot annecdotes that are turely worthless to proove a point about detailed aircraft engineering.

Just out of curiosity, why would you say this?

- oldman

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2006, 05:52:15 PM »
Oldman,

Because I can dig out a pile of crap annecdotes from Allied and Axis pilots that say the same thing. If fact I can take them from the same books.

Except I can use names like Marion Carl, Butch O'Hare Donald Engan etc in my quotes along with the official Navy and Marine position on the subject and Widewing has to find some obscure Japanese pilot to make a point about "details" of aircraft design.

Offline SgtPappy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1174
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2006, 06:37:56 PM »
well nobody said that what enemies say about a plane shows detailed design specs. however, it's simply shows what a plane can do to a certain extent. i.e. a pilot flying a Bf109-E is less likely to fear a Gloster Gladiator more than a Spitfire Mk.IX. why? because he simply estimates and realizes that the Spit has better performance than the Gladiator. therefore, he fears the Spit more.
I am a Spitdweeb

"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth... Put out my hand and touched the face of God." -J.G. Magee Jr.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2006, 10:00:05 PM »
Widewing,

Quote
Fact: NACA 829 does not confirm your opinion. It states unequivocally that the F4U wing was an aerodynamic mess. A CLmax of 1.17 is a lot worse than 1.48.... Still notably inferior to the F6F.


I don't suppose it would surprise you if I told you that the 1.17Clmax is without a propellor installed? Of course you would had have to read the thing first. The Clmax is 1.48 with prop installed power off.

11,300lbs * 391 / 314 * 97.5^2
4418300 / 2984962.5
Clmax = 1.48 Power off clean condition from the POH

Also you said

Quote
Dean used NACA report 829 for CLmax data on the F6F and F4U... Are you saying NACA was wrong?


Wrong again huh? I guess Dean didn't use NACA data for the F6F or F4U after all.

Next

Quote
Fact: The JFC was an perfect example of interservice and intercorporate rivalry. Opinions on any aircraft varied from pole to pole. It has little redeeming value beyond its novelty.


That is not a fact it is your opinion. In your last quote you swore the Clmax numbers were facts too. I really enjoy listening to you call WW2 fighter conferances a "novelty". You also called the Navy's NAVAIR document on the F6F junk as well. Is there anything not written by Corkey Meyer or a Japanese pilot that will prove your point?

Next

Quote
You have argued about "details". I'm familiar with the "details". Virtually every guided weapon in the US inventory has my hardware on it. Every air dropped weapon employing the FMU-139 or FMU-143 fuze has my hardware onboard. When I say "my" hardware, I mean exactly that. I designed these devices, developed them and our company manufactures them. I know about details... If my hardware malfunctions, good people die, but mastery of "details" permits six sigma reliability... and only bad guys die. So, don't lecture me about details or about engineering.


Taking the ego out for a walk today:aok

Facts

Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in

FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F -   20 to 1 K/D
F4U -   20 to 1 K/D

Navy pilots on land claimed

F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D

It would seem when placed against the same circumstances the combat records seem to balance out quite nicely.

Of course there is 1,000 claimed kills in Oct 1944 by Navy F6F pilots. Is that where the F6F was fighting the best the Japanese had to offer?

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2006, 12:14:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Facts

Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in

FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F -   20 to 1 K/D
F4U -   20 to 1 K/D

Navy pilots on land claimed

F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D

It would seem when placed against the same circumstances the combat records seem to balance out quite nicely.

Of course there is 1,000 claimed kills in Oct 1944 by Navy F6F pilots. Is that where the F6F was fighting the best the Japanese had to offer?


I know this, that during that October, Hellcats were not shooting down virtually defenseless Kamikazes, but enemy aircraft intent on shooting down the F6Fs. Between early April of '45 and the end of June '45, the vast majority of F4U air to air kills were Kamikazes. Indeed, the greatest danger to Corsairs from the Kamikaze was from colliding with them. Many aircraft used for suicide attacks had their guns removed....

You certainly like to parse your facts to create a false impression. I posted the Navy's Combat Summary... Their official accounting of Naval Aviation in WWII. Anything you may offer will be "adjusted" to suit your position, as evidenced by your last post and several others in this thread.

Here's some facts from the same document.

Total Action sorties by F4Us in WWII: 64,061, total air to air kills: 2,140.
Total Action Sorties by F6Fs in WWII: 66,530, total air to air kills: 5,153.

For the F4U, that's .0334 kills per sortie.
For the F6F, that's .0774 kills per sortie, better than twice what the F4U managed.

F4Us shot down 2,140 enemy aircraft for 189 losses to Japanese aircraft.
2140/189=11.32/1 kill to loss ratio.

F6Fs shot down 5,153 enemy aircraft against 270 losses to Japanese aircraft. 5,153/270=19.09/1 kill to loss ratio.

That's directly from the Official record and you can try to twist it, distort and parse it all day long, but those numbers stand. If you cannot accept that, then the problem isn't the numbers, it's between your ears.

By the way, those "obscure" Japanese pilots, total more than 90 victories between them... In Japan, they are as well known as Carl, O'Hare and Engan are in America. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they are unknown. If you wish to know which USAAF fighter was the best in the ETO, just ask the Luftwaffe pilots. The same thing is valid as concerns the PTO or SWPA, ask the Japanese.

So, despite your best efforts to fabricate combat data, the official combat record clearly shows that the F6F was the superior aircraft and even more significantly, the F6F was the single most important fighter in the Pacific war, either Navy, Marines or Air Corps.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Balsy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 717
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2006, 07:23:38 AM »
Lets get 5 of the top  F6 pilots to go 3 rounds against 5 of the top f4u pilots ( in AH).  I think it would be a blast, and would prove absolutely nothing.

Balsy

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #97 on: March 27, 2006, 09:56:53 AM »
WW,

Unless your arguement is kill totals you have not a leg to stand on.

Every (qualified) review board that has ever looked at these two A/C has taken only one position. The only thing that is "between my ears" are facts and you are using annecdotes and spinning what little information you can provide like a clown spinning plates on a stick.

Your information (which is factual)

Total Action sorties by F4Us in WWII: 64,061, total air to air kills: 2,140.
Total Action Sorties by F6Fs in WWII: 66,530, total air to air kills: 5,153.

For the F4U, that's .0334 kills per sortie.
For the F6F, that's .0774 kills per sortie, better than twice what the F4U managed.

F4Us shot down 2,140 enemy aircraft for 189 losses to Japanese aircraft.
2140/189=11.32/1 kill to loss ratio.

Follwed by this from the same report

Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in

FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D

Navy pilots on land claimed

F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D

Why do you suppose the same Navy pilots that were so successful on ships were not on land?? And why is the same airplane on ships so much more succesful that on land? Could it be than shooting down untrained Kamikazee pilots is not as difficult as shooting down experianced pilots on the fortress Rabaul in the Solomons campaign?

Can you address this please.

And this

Total ordinance delivered in Tons

F4U - 15,621 Tons/  total losses from A/A= 553

F6F - 6.503 Tons/ Total Losses from A/A= 349

Also Total operational losses combined

F6F- 1638
F4U- 1086

So it looks like you beloved F6F was more accident prone that the F4U after all. How do you account fo this?

Here is some fodder for the new Widewing Flight simulator "Annnecdotes High"

Petty Officer Takeo Tanimizu

"P-38's at low altitude were easy prey. They were not very fast, so they usually stayed at higher altitudes. Then they'd swoop down on you fire and zoom up. Tou really had to be carefull and keep looking up. Their weakest spot was their tail. A 20MM hit and their tails would snap off. The only time you could shoot down a Sikorsky (F4U) was when it was fleeing. You had to shoot it froma certain angle (from the rear: high into the cockpit) otherwise the bullets would bounce off."

We will have to get HTC to fix that.

Also from "Aircraft Vs Aircraft" by Norman Franks.

"They (Japanese) considered the Corsair to be the top American combat fighter at any altitude , the P-38 lighting the best at highlevel and the later version of the P-40 Warhawk the best fighter at low altitude."

Maj General Marion Carl Grumman Ace and test pilot.

"The Corsair was a great mount, head and shoulders above it's contemporaries. An airplane like the Corsair only comes around occasionally. Today the Phantom is in the same category-the best flying machine of the time."

Do you think he forgot about the F6F??

Or maybe a famous P-38 pilot like Col. Rex T. Barber of Yamamoto fame.

Quote

"If the United States only had to pick one fighter/bomber to produce during the war, it should have been the Corsair".
« Last Edit: March 27, 2006, 09:59:08 AM by F4UDOA »

Offline hacksaw1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #98 on: March 27, 2006, 01:43:36 PM »
In the overall picture, I think it is significant that the F4U prototype was in the air before the Battle of Britain. Much was learned about air combat between May 1940, and June of 1942. It seems to me that Grumman's design being later, was able to capitalize from the start on available combat information and avoid the problems of "catching up" that Vought had to deal with: changing armament and hence the location of fuel tanks, thus being forced to modify the airframe.  

Excerpts from Greg Goebel's site

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf4u.html

F4U
On 1 February 1938, the US Navy issued a request for proposals for a new high-performance single-seat carrier-based fighter that would use the most powerful engine available at the time.

The US Navy ordered a prototype of the Vought design as the "XF4U-1" in June 1938. Armament was planned as two 7.62 millimeter (0.30 caliber) Browning machine guns in the top of the nose, and a single 12.7 millimeter (0.50 caliber) Browning machine gun in each wing, for a total of four guns
Vought engineers completed a full-scale mockup of the XF4U-1 in early 1939 for wind tunnel tests and Navy inspection. The initial flight of the prototype XF4U-1 was on 29 May 1940.

[The plane] demonstrated the design's performance on 1 October 1940, clocking 650 KPH (404 MPH). However, the promise of the type was balanced by continuing difficulties, including some clear handling problems, and the nasty tendency of the Double Wasp engine to catch on fire.

To compound the delays, reports coming back from the war in Europe indicated that an armament of two 7.62 millimeter and two 12.7 millimeter machine guns was too light, and so when the US Navy asked for production proposals in November 1940, heavier armament was specified. The twin 7.62 millimeter Brownings in the nose were eliminated and two 12.7 millimeter Brownings were fitted in each wing.

There was another troublesome consequence: putting all the guns in the wings meant eliminating wing fuel tankage, and so the forward fuselage was stretched by 45 centimeters (18 inches) to include a new self-sealing tank in the center of the fuselage. The fuel tank also meant moving the cockpit back by about 91 centimeters (3 feet), which made it hard for a pilot to see over the nose when taxiing, taking off, or landing. There would never be any way around the long nose, one pilot later recollecting that he used to tell himself after he lined up for the approach: "God, I hope there's nobody on that runway!"

* Formal naval acceptance trials for the XF4U-1 began in February 1941, and the initial Navy production order for 584 "F4U-1s" was placed on 30 June 1941. The type was given the name "Corsair", which had been the name of several prewar Vought aircraft. The first production F4U-1 performed its initial flight on 24 June 1942, once again with Boone Guyton at the controls.
 
The type quickly underwent a few more improvements, with the number of 12.7 millimeter Brownings in each wing increased to three, for a total of six; the addition of 70 kilograms (155 pounds) of armor around the cockpit and the oil tank, plus an armor glass windscreen and self-sealing fuel tanks; fit of shorter flaps and wider ailerons; and installation of an uprated R-2800-8 Double Wasp engine with a two-stage supercharger and 1,492 kW (2,000 HP) takeoff power to handle the aircraft's increased weight.
 
The US Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, with carrier trials beginning on the USS SANGAMON on 25 September 1942.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf6f.html
F6F
After performing wind-tunnel tests on a 16th-scale model, the US Navy ordered two G-50 prototypes on 30 June 1941. The first prototype, the "XF6F-1", was to be powered by a Wright R-2600-10 Cyclone air-cooled, two-row, 14-cylinder radial engine with 1,268 kW (1,700 HP), and the second, the "XF6F-2", was to be fitted with a turbocharged R-2600-16 Cyclone.
 
Feedback from the British, then flying the Wildcat against the Nazis, and from the US Navy suggested that a more powerful engine was required. The design team, led by Dick Hutton and under the overall direction of vice-president of engineering Bill Schwendler, settled on the Pratt & Whitney (P&W) R-2800 Double Wasp, an air-cooled, two-row, 18-cylinder radial engine in the 1,500 kW (2,000 HP) class. The R-2800 was to power both the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and the Vought F4U Corsair, but both of these machines had been delayed, and so Grumman was able to get their hands on R-2800 engines.

The initial XF6F-1 "Hellcat" prototype flew on 26 June 1942 with the Cyclone engine and test pilot Bob Hall at the controls. However, the second prototype was actually completed as the "XF6F-3", with the bigger R-2800-10 engine. Hall performed the first flight of the XF6F-3 on 30 July 1942. He had to land the machine on a Long Island farm field on 17 August due to an engine failure.

The only major problem encountered during the test flights was tail flutter, which was fixed by reinforcing the rear fuselage. The lack of major snags was fortunate, since the XF6F-3 had already been ordered into production as the "F6F-3" on 23 May 1942, even before the first flight of the XF6F-1.
 
The first production F6F-3 performed its initial flight on 3 October 1942, and service deliveries of the type began in early 1943. Following carrier trials, in March 1943 the type reached operational status with Navy fighter squadron VF-9 on the carrier USS ESSEX, with the aircraft painted Navy blue topside and white on the bottom, the standard color scheme for the fighter through the war. Within nine months of the first flight of the production machine, 15 squadrons were equipped with the type. The Hellcat was primarily a Navy machine, the Marines generally preferring the more formidable but demanding F4U Corsair.
 
Best Regards,

Cement
« Last Edit: March 27, 2006, 01:47:58 PM by hacksaw1 »

Offline SgtPappy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1174
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #99 on: March 27, 2006, 05:36:59 PM »
well, i'll just say this because it's on my mind. many people believe that only the F6F-5N possessed the ability to carry 2 X 20mm cannon and 4 X .50 cals. however, according to Grumman (F6F Walkaround - Squadrons/Signals) ALL F6F-5's could carry the mixed armament although the 20mm cannon were only reserved for night fighter units. it would be great to see an F6F-5 fitted with the new gun combo in a next installment of AH. or maybe even an upgrade system in which the player chooses what parts to give to a plane after earning points.
I am a Spitdweeb

"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of earth... Put out my hand and touched the face of God." -J.G. Magee Jr.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #100 on: March 27, 2006, 06:45:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
WW,

Unless your arguement is kill totals you have not a leg to stand on.
Your information (which is factual)


We know it's factual....
Quote


Follwed by this from the same report

Navy pilots on carriers claimed kill ratios in

FM-2 - 32 to 1 K/D
F6F - 20 to 1 K/D
F4U - 20 to 1 K/D

Navy pilots on land claimed

F6F - 5 to 1 K/D
F4U - 11 to 1 K/D

Why do you suppose the same Navy pilots that were so successful on ships were not on land?? And why is the same airplane on ships so much more succesful that on land? Could it be than shooting down untrained Kamikazee pilots is not as difficult as shooting down experianced pilots on the fortress Rabaul in the Solomons campaign?

Can you address this please.

[/b]


Easy to address...

First, here's the breakdown of kills by type and where operating from CV or land. It's broken down by year.



As you can see, your numbers don't add up to what is shown here. It seems land based F6Fs did just as well or better than the F4Us. Note also that only a tiny precentage of F6Fs operated from shore bases. Also worth noting is that during 1945, the only period during which F6Fs and F4Us both operated from CVs, the F6F had a better kill ratio. Nice try though...

Quote

And this

Total ordinance delivered in Tons

F4U - 15,621 Tons/  total losses from A/A= 553

F6F - 6.503 Tons/ Total Losses from A/A= 349
[/b]


This chart shows that the vast majority of bomb tonnage dropped by F4Us were from land based Corsairs in support of ground troops. The land based F6Fs did likewise, with the ratio of bomb weight per sortie actually favoring the F6Fs. Ditto for rockets fired.

Carrier based F6Fs were assigned different missions, such as BARCAP, escort and only to a relatively limited degree, ground attack.



When operating from CVs, F4Us were more frequently used for attack missions, with the Hellcats assigned as escorts.

Quote

Also Total operational losses combined

F6F- 1638
F4U- 1086

So it looks like you beloved F6F was more accident prone that the F4U after all. How do you account fo this?

[/B]


Considering that the vast majority of combat sorties flown by F4Us were from land bases, I'd say that the F4U safety record was rather poor.

But, here you are parsing your data again, attempting to establish via trickery what is not in evidence.

I've already posted this earlier in the thread, but apparently you missed it. From Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, page 37: "F6F operational loss rates were far lower than those for the FM and F4U." But, don't let that fact inhibit your obsession.

How about losses overall, relative to the number of combat sorties flown.



Not even the ill-handling SB2C suffered a worse loss/sortie ratio than the F4U. I don't know why that is the case, but I suspect that because the F4U did a lot of ground attack, which is inherently dangerous, that this was a major factor.

Once again the combat records have established truth....


By the way, you may be surprised to know that I agree with Barber as to the F4U as being the universal choice for fighter-bomber. But for defending the fleet, the F6F was king, especially when the F4U didn't show up on carriers until the last months of the war.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: March 27, 2006, 06:52:23 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #101 on: March 27, 2006, 07:30:06 PM »
Man, this thread is starting to get a little ugly. I'm finding myself a bunker.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline TequilaChaser

  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10171
      • The Damned - founded by Ptero in 1988
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #102 on: March 27, 2006, 07:38:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Balsy
Lets get 5 of the top  F6 pilots to go 3 rounds against 5 of the top f4u pilots ( in AH).  I think it would be a blast, and would prove absolutely nothing.

Balsy


 it would be FUN & ENTERTAINING!!! ;)  ( I'll play referee/judge rofl )
"When one considers just what they should say to a new pilot who is logging in Aces High, the mind becomes confused in the complex maze of info it is necessary for the new player to know. All of it is important; most of it vital; and all of it just too much for one brain to absorb in 1-2 lessons" TC

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #103 on: March 27, 2006, 08:52:45 PM »
Looking at the stats you are both providing, you are essentialy both doing the same thing, trying to prove that either the F4U or the F6F was the better fighter, which is not provable by those kinds of stats.

There are too many variables involved to say one was, or was not "better" or more succesfull. The opposition they faced, where they were deployed, the #s involved, the deployment schedules, the pilot experience, specific campaigns involved ect all throw too many unknowns into the mix, which is why its never really possible to quantify such things.

A clear example is the FM-2 in 1944. It had a period of very good kill-loss because of the specifics of anti-kamikaze and BARCAP work. Does that prove it was a "better" fighter? no, it does not. It proves it saw a lot of action is all. I doubt anybody in the USN said "lets replace our F6Fs and F4Us with FM-2s, look at these stats" in 1945.

Apples and oranges no matter how long you debate it. Stats will not tell you the whole story, ever. Thats the 1st thing you learn about stats.

Fact of the matter was, it probably made only a small difference wether a unit flew the F4U or F6F, it was all the other variables that made the difference. That doesn't sound as sexy, but its the truth.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
F4U vs. F6F
« Reply #104 on: March 27, 2006, 10:06:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
Looking at the stats you are both providing, you are essentialy both doing the same thing, trying to prove that either the F4U or the F6F was the better fighter, which is not provable by those kinds of stats.
(Snipped)
Apples and oranges no matter how long you debate it. Stats will not tell you the whole story, ever. Thats the 1st thing you learn about stats.


Statisical analysis is how many things get proven. However, all statistics must be analyzed within the correct context.

We have the Navy's Combat Summary, which is a compilation of war-time data. It's an invaluable document because it establishes what was done and by which aircraft. Establishing the context is what I have been trying to do. Taking stats out of their context is a common method used to attempt proving something that wasn't.

Your example of the FM-2 is a good example. Late-war Wildcats were involved in both fleet protection and patrolling over invasion beaches or islands. With respect to BARCAP, they largely engaged suicide aircraft, and their limited escorts. Plus the number of Wildcats involved and the number of kills they obtained are relatively small. Small samples often tend to skew results. Even so, when you recognize the context, you also recognize that the results were dependent upon circumstances more than the quality of the Wildcat.

With the F4U and F6F we have a very large population in the samples. However, that portion of the sample where both types operated side by side aboard fleet CVs and CVLs has a substantially different context than the events prior to that time. Again, a great many of the fighter kills in 1945 were of suicide aircraft, which were essentially, defenseless. Thus we see a swelling of the kill to loss ratios corresponding to the quality of the opposition. Virtually any fighter will score well and lose few against an enemy that has no intention to fight, but rather tries to break through the CAP and dive into ships. So, I find that 1945 is not indicative of the fighting capability of the F4U vs the F6F (and certainly not for the FM-2). I believe you have to look at an earlier period, from middle-late 1943 through middle-late 1944 to establish what might be called "trends". The downside to this approach is that the F6F and F4U fought very different wars during this time frame.

To do an analysis of these planes with any hope of accuracy, you must apply the correct historical context. What should not be done is manipulate the data to establish facts that are not in evidence. Trying to win a debate at the expense of the truth is counter-productive. It is far more honest to simply post the Navy's analysis and draw conclusions based upon the historical context. Navy statisticians had no axe to grind.

We certainly cannot establish any absolutes reviewing the stats, but we can gain insight into what were the most important needs of the Navy and which aircraft came closest to completely fullfilling those needs.

My regards,

Widewing
« Last Edit: March 27, 2006, 10:11:58 PM by Widewing »
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.