F6F vs F4U Research

[Ack-Ack]

this makes me want to do a report on the P38 compairable to the P47 seeing as how both were used in all theaters. 51 didnt arrive in the PTO till late in the war. but the P47 didnt have the numbers in the Pacific like the 38s did...


anyways have you tried to find any pilots of these aircraft to interview?? weather they be combat pilots from the war or just people who have flow them at airshows or restored them?

The P-51 didn't arrive that late in the war in the PTO.  The 23rd "Flying Tigers" Fighter Group from the 14th AF were flying their P-51As in November of 1943 from bases in China and the 311st FG (15th AF) flew their first missions in A-36s in late 1943 from bases in India.  They just weren't used in as large numbers as they were in the ETO with Mustangs only 279 kills recorded in the PTO.

ack-ack

[Butcher]

P-47's really wern't in much demand of the PTO either, its short range was an issue - 5th AF however wanted every P38 it could get its hands on.

[Squire]

Not to disagree with the historical points above there but the CBI is really a different theater of ops than the PTO despite the opposition being the same (Japanese). Mustangs arrived in the Phillipines in 1945 shortly before hostilities there ended with the next deployment of that a/c to Iwo Jima as a B-29 escort. It did have a fairly short career in the PTO compared to the P-47 and P-38. That being said it made its presence felt over Japan. The Burma point is a valid one although the P-51 never engaged the IJAAF and the IJN in the same kind of #s that the PTO based fighters did.

As for comparing types in any way its always apples and oranges which makes it difficult. You cannot fairly compare completely different time frames and opposition in one theater of ops to another as so many things change. There are a lot of variables. Kill-loss comparisons are one stat only they do no tell the whole story. The fighting in the Solomons in 1943 is not the same as the fighting in the Phillipine Sea in 1944. Tunisia in 1943 is not the same as over Germany in 1943. Burma in 1943 is not the same as Okinawa in 1945. There is no way a kill-loss quote devoid of any other info "proves" anything one way or the other really. It can be an indication of an underlying reality of the fighting that it took part in but that would need to be investigated further and any study needs a lot more context. Not saying it means nothing but its just one stat.

The Hellcat produced the most US Aces in WW2 (307) than any other fighter plane. There is a story in there of opportunity, length of combat service , and quantity of fighting in as much as the technical merits of the aircraft itself.

[Ack-Ack]

Not to disagree with the historical points above there but the CBI is really a different theater of ops than the PTO despite the opposition being the same (Japanese). Mustangs arrived in the Phillipines in 1945 shortly before hostilities there ended with the next deployment of that a/c to Iwo Jima as a B-29 escort.

Mustangs started to fly over the Philippines in 1944 when the 3rd Air Commandos started doing ground attack missions there as well as flying fighter sweeps and escort missions over Formosa.

ack-ack

[Shuckins]

My take so far:
-The F6F was superior in terms of operational attrition (better around the boat) which is in keeping with the known handling characteristics of both aircraft.
-The high end performance away from the boat worked in the F4U's favor at a time when Grumman was able to produce the F8F (obviating need to upgrade the F6F with the R-2800-18W).  In other words this was a contracting issue apart from strict combat performance. 

I'm still having trouble explaining the significant disparity between the F4U's 11-1k/d vs. the F6F's 19-1k/d.  The same standards for recording of a kill were in place for pilots of both aircraft.  This would have been easier to explain away if comparing say, the P-47's performance in the ETO vs the F4U's.  It is known that a greater proportion of F4U sorties were flown from land bases, especially earlier in the war, but still can't find an explanation in the numbers or anywhere else for that matter.  I can buy the notion that the F6F was the better aircraft for the job at hand but that much better?  To accept that is to turn the thesis on its head...   

Letalis,  High end performance of Hellcat and Corsair was much closer than some are willing to admit.  The Corsair was indeed 20 knots faster at low levels because of the differences in the placement and operations of the main-stage blowers of both aircraft.  The intake for the Corsair's blower was on the wing just outboard of the juncture between wing and fuselage, where it got the benefit of ram air effect.  The Hellcat's main stage blower drew air from the compartment behind the engine where the air was warmer but no ram air effect was available.  While the Wildcat had a system similar to that of the Corsair, Grumman made the conscious decision to abandon that system on the Hellcat because in winter time conditions it led to problems with carburetor icing and subsequent engine failure in the landing approach.  (It would be interesting to view any statistics on operational losses in the North Atlantic of these two aircraft because of this particular problem.)

At the Corsair and Hellcat's best rated altitudes, which was the same, the difference between top speeds could be measured in single digits.  In 1944 the NAS at Patuxent, Maryland (if memory serves) conducted performance tests between the -5 Hellcat, F4U-1D and a late model Zeke.  Top speed differences for the aircraft resulted in a 75mph superiority of the Hellcat over the Zeke and an 80mph top speed advantage over the Zeke by the Corsair.  Outright top speeds for the Hellcat and the Corsair were 409mph and 415 respectively.  Performance for the two was sufficient close for them to fly close formation with similar power settings.

[bangsbox]

Letalis,  High end performance of Hellcat and Corsair was much closer than some are willing to admit.  The Corsair was indeed 20 knots faster at low levels because of the differences in the placement and operations of the main-stage blowers of both aircraft.  The intake for the Corsair's blower was on the wing just outboard of the juncture between wing and fuselage, where it got the benefit of ram air effect.  The Hellcat's main stage blower drew air from the compartment behind the engine where the air was warmer but no ram air effect was available.  While the Wildcat had a system similar to that of the Corsair, Grumman made the conscious decision to abandon that system on the Hellcat because in winter time conditions it led to problems with carburetor icing and subsequent engine failure in the landing approach.  (It would be interesting to view any statistics on operational losses in the North Atlantic of these two aircraft because of this particular problem.)

At the Corsair and Hellcat's best rated altitudes, which was the same, the difference between top speeds could be measured in single digits.  In 1944 the NAS at Patuxent, Maryland (if memory serves) conducted performance tests between the -5 Hellcat, F4U-1D and a late model Zeke.  Top speed differences for the aircraft resulted in a 75mph superiority of the Hellcat over the Zeke and an 80mph top speed advantage over the Zeke by the Corsair.  Outright top speeds for the Hellcat and the Corsair were 409mph and 415 respectively.  Performance for the two was sufficient close for them to fly close formation with similar power settings.

didnt the fu4 see action first. also if being used mostly by marines they would be sent on riskier missions with less aircraft.

[bozon]

F4U saw action much before the F6F. However, in the PTO, if you were not on a carrier, or alternatively had the range of the P-38, you were out of the major action. F4U started development nearly two years before the F6F and was sent to the front much before the F6F, considered the "better" fighter - and yet, it ended up as an F6F dominated theater of operations.

Practicality beats over-engineering

[xJUGGOx]

I keep seeing the mention of the oleo strut, where I am pretty sure the Britts were using the F4U on the Carrier longer and more proficiently. From what I read was that the oleo strut length was extended to prevent (dampen) the bounce for touch down on the deck. They got the idea from the Britts who already implemented it in their F4Us.

[bangsbox]

F4U saw action much before the F6F. However, in the PTO, if you were not on a carrier, or alternatively had the range of the P-38, you were out of the major action. F4U started development nearly two years before the F6F and was sent to the front much before the F6F, considered the "better" fighter - and yet, it ended up as an F6F dominated theater of operations.

Practicality beats over-engineering

well wouldnt earlier service and better jap pilots at the time make sense of the k/d ratio disparity

[bozon]

well wouldnt earlier service and better jap pilots at the time make sense of the k/d ratio disparity

It would have had they got to meet in combat.


... in significant number, before someones jumps to mention some Marine F4u shooting a plane down.

[Letalis]

Done with paper.  As it turns out, Bangsbox got it right. 

Previous to this assignment I'd not realized the disparity in Navy F4U sorties and Marine F4U sorties was so large. 
Three details immediately surface in examining the numbers. 

-First is the fact that 93.8% of Hellcat sorties were flown from carriers while 84.9% of Corsair sorties were flown from land with a corresponding split between Navy carrier sorties for the F6F (62,240) and Marine land sorties for the F4U (52,852). 

-Next is the disparity in total aircraft kills between the two types with the F6F claiming 5,153 kills (over 70% of USN carrier aircraft kills in the Pacific) while the F4U claimed only 2,140 kills (or 41% of the Hellcat total) despite flying 95.8%  of the Hellcat’s action sortie total.  Navy carrier Hellcats averaged one kill for every 10.5 action sorties vice one in 18 for Navy carrier Corsairs and 37.75 for Marine F4Us respectively.  Given that the aerial kill to death loss ratio as mentioned before was 19 versus 11 to one in favor of the Hellcat, it still appears the Hellcat was the more efficient killer. 

-The third detail to surface quickly is the bomb tonnage dropped: 15,621 tons by the Corsair, 2.4 times the 6,503 tons delivered by the Hellcat.  Interestingly, the Hellcat’s aerial kill total is 2.4 times that of the Corsair, this displays a near-perfect inverse relationship in mission roles.  The two aircraft were fighting different wars. 

-Evidence does indicate the Hellcat was the tougher of the two, was a better turnfighter and had better mx rates.

-The Hellcat was safer around the boat.  1 in 135 Corsair CV sorties would result in an operational loss.  (The Hellcat was 1 in 195) 


Also, from the Navy report:

"(There was a) superior record of carrier-based planes over land-based planes in destroying enemy aircraft: over twice as many in air combat, 18 times as many on the ground and 4 times as many in total. The ruling factor here was the mobility of the carrier forces, their ability to penetrate deep into enemy territory, concentrating overwhelming force in surprise strokes against large sectors of the enemy’s secondary air defenses." 

The Hellcat had mass and surprise going for it.  In its first 4 months of combat the F6F had a 230:30 record despite greater superiority in performance over Japanese models than later in the war.  F4U-1Ds and F6F-5s were only operating off of Navy flattops with any sort of parity from the spring of 1945 when enemy air activity had dropped off substantially. In 1942, 25% of Navy sorties resulted in contact in the enemy with a 5% loss rate to enemy aircraft. In 1945 contact was down to 4% with a .12% loss rate.  The Corsair did not have the time or exposure to equalize the record but did gain a 20:1 k/d from Navy carriers overall, an interesting stat.   

[Letalis]

Naval Aviation Combat Statistics Report here:

www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

Tons of good data to be mined here on many fronts to include interesting things like the definition of an "action sortie."

[icepac]

Sweet.......

I wonder if there weren't enough enemy fighters near the end of the war to make a valid comparison as well.

Of course, that could swing the numbers either direction.

[Rich46yo]

Almost all the quotes from surviving  IJN pilots Ive heard have been they feared the Corsair the most of any fighter in the theater.

[icepac]

Sakai said the f6f was the best fighter he faced.