This is my first post/reply, guys, so be kind!
An adequate response to some of the statements in these posts
about the Hellcat's "low performance" would require a 10,000
word dissertation! Many of the opinions about the F6F are based
on erroneous data or assumptions. Unfortunately, when an air-
craft gains a certain "reputation" early in its developmental period
it never shakes it
The Corsair and the Hellcat were built to meet the performance of
the same Navy contract. They had roughly the same gross weights, wingspan, Pratt & Whitney engine, propeller, and com-
bat range. The Navy desperately wanted the Corsair to be its
main carrier fighter, but the design possessed deadly handling
characteristics that caused it to be pulled from carrier operations
3 times during WW II. The Hellcat's low-speed handling and stall
characteristics, as well as its' excellent forward visibility when
landing, made it a much more forgiving aircraft for the young, in-
experienced Navy pilots coming out of flight school during the war.
Had the Navy not had the Hellcat design to fall back on it would
have been in serious trouble.
Nevertheless, Grumman was under considerable pressure by the
Navy to improve the Hellcat's roll rate and speed. In an article
in FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine, (Dec. 1998 issue), Corky Meyer
relates Grumman's attempts meet these requirements. They were given an F4U-1D to study and orders to improve the F6F's
top speed by 20 knots and improve the roll rate. Everyone who
flew both aircraft "knew" the Corsair was 20 knots faster. But
when flight testing began, Corky found that, when the two were
flown side by side with similar power settings, their level flight
speeds were identical. However, the Corsair's ASI consistently
read 20 knots faster, even when the two aircraft were in closely
stabilised flight.
It turned out that the Hellcat's AIS system's static and dynamic
orifices gave a different reading because they were mounted on
a single boom, whereas the Corsair's static orifice was on the
fuselage. Grumman engineers copied the Corsair's AIS location
and then got a similar reading.
The Corsair was 20 knots faster than the Hellcat below 5,000 feet
because of the way it's supercharger got ram air for its main-stage blower. But from 5,000 feet to their respective service
ceilings the two aircraft had almost exactly the same speed.
The Hellcat's low roll rate proved much harder to solve. The Cor-
sair's exceptionally low lateral stability, the very thing that made
it so tricky to land aboard a carrier, gave it's ailerons great power
and contributed to a fabulous roll rate. The Hellcat lateral stability, by contrast, was exceptionally high, making it a delight
to land aboard a carrier, but giving a low roll rate.
A complete redesign of the Hellcat's wing was out of the question
during wartime. Grumman eventually solved the problem by in-
corporating NACA spring tab ailerons to lower the stick forces.
The tabs closed the rolling performance gap, allowing the pilot
to get full aileron deflections at speeds of more than 100 knots
faster than had been previously possible.
These changes were incorporated into the F6F-5 production line.
The -5 was more than 10 mph faster than the -3. The -5's top
speed at 21,600 feet was 409 mph.
Despite these "fixes," the Hellcat never overcame it's "low perfor-
mance" reputation. Many sources routinely repeat the "pre-fix"
performance statistics, giving the F6F-5's top speed as 386 mph.
A 20 knot differential translates into 23 mph. Add that to the
erroneous figure and you get 409.
Unfortunately for flight sim fans, the lower figure appears to be
the one routinely used to program the flight model for the F6F-5.
And THAT is a shame!
Respectfully, Shuckins
