F6F vs F4U Research

[Letalis]

Gents: I'm doing a research paper for a masters class per excerpts below.

Issue:  "The F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were two U.S. aircraft powered by the same engine, used by the same services and employed against the same enemy in the PTO.  Despite holding key technical advantages, the Vought F4U Corsair series emerged from the conflict with an 11:1 kill to death ratio while the F6F garnered an even more impressive 19:1 ratio.  This despite the fact the Corsair was aggressively developed during the conflict while general production Hellcats remained virtually unchanged with respect to operational performance through the end of the war."

Tentative Thesis Statement:  “During the quest for air superiority in the Pacific Theater of Operations, doctrinal, logistical and operational factors combined to mask considerable technical advantages held by the F4U Corsair over the F6F Hellcat.”

The jury is actually still out on this one.  I've got some great sources so far but I'm pretty sure this community knows of useful nooks and crannies in the interwebz I don't.  I'm also interested in possible political factors behind why the F4U continued production so far beyond the F6F.  There's a line of thought out there that states the choice was not merely that the F4U managed a higher speed with a given engine, but that the navy gave Vought the contract merely to increase competition.
 

[Butcher]

Make it simple, the more dynamic you make it the worse it will be.

Opening statement.
3 reasons why.
Closing argument.

For example:
Issue:  "The F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were two U.S. aircraft powered by the same engine, used by the same services and employed against the same enemy in the PTO.  Despite holding key technical advantages, the Vought F4U Corsair series emerged from the conflict with an 11:1 kill to death ratio while the F6F garnered an even more impressive 19:1 ratio.  This despite the fact the Corsair was aggressively developed during the conflict while general production Hellcats remained virtually unchanged with respect to operational performance through the end of the war."

Something simple would be like "Despite the fact the F4u Corsair was aggressively changed during development during World War 2 the F6F Hellcat remained unchanged during production.
Now you leave your examples to why, make them brief and to the point.

[Guppy35]

I get a bit wary of the kill ratio as a comparison.  Seems like too many other things contribute to that. 

Comparing the two birds is a bit like comparing Spits to Hurricanes.  I'm not sure how much more then Hellcat could have been developed, much like the Hurricane, where the F4U had room to grow a bit more like the Spitfire.

[Greebo]

Grumman developed the F6F-6 and built 1 or 2 prototypes IIRC. This had essentially the same engine as the F4U-4 and a four bladed propeller. However the Navy decided to go with the F4U-4 and Grumman then concentrated on the F7F and F8F.

[Noir]

wasn't the lack of bubble canopy on the F6F a factor for its discontinuation?

[bozon]

Plane performance is highly overrated. It is only important till a point of advantage over then enemy beyond which "more" performance gain you little. The advantages of the F4U over the F6F simply did not contribute much to the existing superiority of the F6F. The F6F on the other hand had advantage in almost any category that is not included in typical fighter comparisons.
The F6F was (in no particular order):
1. Cheaper
2. Safer
3. Easier to maintain (due to the plane itself and due to a Navy full of Grumman)
4. Folds smaller in storage.
5. Ready for carrier operations before the F4U
6. Manufactured a hell of a lot faster than the F4U

The last two points are critical and often ignored. A plane has 0 performance if it is not in the war zone. F6F got there first (despite nearly 2 years head start of the F4U) and Grumman broke production records in order to fill squadrons with Hellcats. By the time Vought qualified the F4U to carrier operations and got around to produce more than a handful to arrive on carriers in numbers, they missed all the critical battles of the war. The F4U is the superior plane that was not there. It still got lots of glory though and more than the F6F.

[Citabria]

right place at the right time.

f4 wildcats killed off many of the japanese aces and were mauled in the process.

when f6f came on it went against the japanese often with superior numbers and superior pilots vs the hastily trained japanese replacement pilots.

when words like turkey shoot are thrown around things like 19/1 kill ratios start happening and a whole bunch of people become aces on one side and the other poorly trained and ill equipped other side becomes a statistic and then after that mess the japanese stop bothering to train their replacements and instead tell them to fly into stuff and die with what a shame based society calls honor.

from what can be gleamed in game the f6f has one large advantage over the f4u. it has far superior over the nose field of view that allows much easier deflection shooting as well as much more safety in takeoff and landing on pitching carriers. clear fields of fire are a big deal in aerial gunnery. if you have to shoot blind under the nose it can be done and done repeatedly but your kill probability is higher when you keep the enemy aircraft in view.

the f6f wasnt the fastest but it was fast enough and was mission built to kill japanese aircraft using wingman tactics and energy fighting and survive heavy battle damage.

[Guppy35]

Greebo hit on it.  The Spit Hurri comparison again fits. 

The Hurri became Tiffie became Tempest.  The Wildcat became Hellcats became Bearcat.

That was the development instead of continuing to stretch the one airframe like the Spit or Corsair.

[Letalis]

-I am looking for sources.  Something par with the level of detail offered by "America's Hundred Thousand" or better, preferably online.

-Yes,  I definitely intend to hit on operational factors and the Spit/Hurri comparison.  I'll also be touching on Finnish operational experiences vs. USSR as well.

-The fact remains that the Navy went with an aircraft that had barely half the kill ratio, was not competitive in terms of operational losses. Yes there was a higher top speed, better roll, but I've yet to find the Navy source that states "this is why we're going forward with the Corsair" etc.  

[hyzer]

If you come up empty on the sources, use the old standby.  Follow the money.

[Letalis]

I've got some good material to work with, the problem is what they're telling me:  According to the postwar survey the F6F had a big edge in A-A k/d, an operational loss rate only 60% that of the Corsair (huge), and a significantly lower loss rate in air to ground missions of comparable profile.  Also, it seems the F6F was a little better in mx requirements though this is still a loose end requiring more sources before going "airtight." 

This brings me three different thoughts:
1. How does one define "technical superiority" in the first place?  Operational capability or operational effectiveness?
2. The Corsair does seem to have had more room for development but there is not as much weight here as first thought. This brings me to point
3. How much did contract politics play into the Navy's choices?  If the F8F was so great, why did the Corsair continue developing alongside that Grumman as well?

[Devonai]

If the F8F was so great, why did the Corsair continue developing alongside that Grumman as well?

Because an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare.

[Oldman731]

Tentative Thesis Statement:  “During the quest for air superiority in the Pacific Theater of Operations, doctrinal, logistical and operational factors combined to mask considerable technical advantages held by the F4U Corsair over the F6F Hellcat.”

Search these forums some.  Make certain you go back at least six or eight years.  There have been some very detailed, very informative, very animated discussions of the Hellcat v. Corsair success stories over the years.  Because of the adversarial nature of those discussions the participants cited many sources that you may use (and some of which you are unlikely to ever find on your own).  Add "Widewing" to your search criteria.  I wish I could remember the name of the guy who so valiently, and often effectively, took the Corsair's side of the dispute, but I think you're bound to find him during your search.

- oldman

[Widewing]

Add "Widewing" to your search criteria.  I wish I could remember the name of the guy who so valiently, and often effectively, took the Corsair's side of the dispute, but I think you're bound to find him during your search.

- oldman

That would be F4UDOA.... Good guy, albeit a bit bit strident at times... Still a good guy nonetheless....

[Devil 505]

Letalis,
The answer has nothing to do with Hellcat vs. Corsair performance wise. Grumman stopped production of the F6F to focus on the F8F Bearcat.
The Bearcat is an air superiority fighter, with little or no ground attack capability.  By the end of the war the navy decided that the next fighter design will be jet powered. F8F production was cut short to begin development for the F9F Panther. A jet attacker at this stage would have not been effective because of poor range and small bomb load. So the decision was made to continue production of the corsair as a stop gap fighter-bomber, as the airframe had show its ability to excel in both roles during WW2. Even then the Corsair's days were numbered as the A-1 Skyraider entered service as an attacker with unparalleled range and bomb load, and jet fighters soon became the standard for fighter squadrons.