Originally posted by F4UDOA
Eddiek,
I respect Corkey Meyers opinion as much as anyone but do you really expect the lead Grumman test pilot to pick anything but the F6F?
I have been trying to contact Mr.Meyer as I have several questions for him.
In the fall FJ is doing a special issue on the F4u. In general Flight Journal does not give very positive view of the F4U. In fact last year FJ did an issue where they reviewed the best WW2 fighters based on the findings of the 1944 joint fighter conferance. Barely a mention of the F4U was made even thought the pilots at the conferance voted the F4U the best carrier fighter by an overwhelming majority.
I already know without seeing the issue that it will be an "Ensign Eliminator special". It will never mention that the F4U started replacing the Hellcat in 1944 when the Navy decided it was a superior fighter A/C and suitable if not equal as a carrier qualified fighter (and it was until the early 60's in the reserves). It will not mention the superior performance of the F4U compared to the F6F or the far superior ordinance carrying capability.
In fact the F6F was a true 400MPH fighter but by the time of late 1944 the production F4U-1A had a top speed of 430+MPH. This will not be mentioned in Flight Journal.
Rant mode off 
Several things to mention.
Post war interviews of Japanese fighter pilots revealed that they considered the F6F their most dangerous foe. Not the P-38 or the F4U. Many of them believed that the Hellcat could match their late-war Zeros in maneuverability.
Even if we ignore the Japanese pilots, we can't ignore that the F6F shot down a great many Japanese aircraft than any other type, Navy, Marines or Army.
As the war progressed and Vought fixed or minimized the problems with the F4U that caused the Navy to reject it for carrier duty, they began to appear in greater numbers. Nonetheless, the primary carrier fighter remained the F6F through the end of the war. Production continued until November of 1945, albeit at a much reduced rate (just like every other military aircraft). One can easily trace the increase in F4U deployment to the Kamakazi threat. As the Kamakazis became the greater threat, the Navy increased the number of fighters deployed aboard ship. Many land based Marine squadrons were hastily carrier qualified and sent to the fleet (with this process beginning in October of 1944, with the first new deployments on 12/28/44 aboard the Essex).
F4Us could lift more weight of ordnance than the F6F, but seldom if ever did so from a carrier. There were strict rules in place for maximum loads for both deck runs and catapult launches. Virtually all Corsairs flying with very heavy loads operated from shore facilities.
When the F4U-4 appeared in February of 1945, the Corsair had finally and clearly overtaken the F6F as fighter. However, that would be short lived as the the F8F was being delivered to squadrons and would begin arriving in theater by August. In terms of fighter capability, the F8F was superior to the F4U-4 in every category except maximum speed above 20,000 feet. Oddly, nearly every publication I've seen quotes Navy numbers for the F8F where it's maximum speed is listed as 421 mph at 19,700 feet. However, these numbers came from a single aircraft, tested at full load. Grumman test data shows a maximum speed of 445 mph (exactly the same that Grumman AND the Navy list for the F7F). French Armee De l'Air data also indicates a speed in excess of 440 mph for the F8F-1.
Not to divert too much from the basic topic, let me present a few figures on the F8F
F8F-1
Empty weight: 7,070 lbs
Gross weight; 9,386 lbs
Max power: 2,100 hp
Max speed: 421 mph (yeah, sure
)
F8F-2
Empty weight: 7,690 lbs
Gross weight: 10,426 lbs
Max power: 2,250 hp
Max speed: 447 mph.
On the plus side for the F8F-2 had a slightly redesigned cowling reportedly worth 6 mph. On the down side was an increase in weight by over half a ton. The slight increase in power (just about 6%) could not completely overcome the 10% increase in weight. And, this is reflected in the reduced climb rate compared to the F8F-1. Yet, the Navy test data says the much heavier -2 is 26 mph faster. Grumman was incredulous at the time and argued that the Navy's data was flawed. It seems that they had a strong case too. Bob Hall was convinced that the Navy intentionally avoided using the water injection, just as they did when testing the prototype in 1944 and stated such in an internal Grumman memo. I don't recall the Navy Engineering officer's name who was placed in charge of the F8F project, but do recall that one was hired by United Aircraft in late 1945 (United Aircraft was the parent company of Vought). Competition between Vought and Grumman was more than keen, it was pure cut-throat. Grumman and Vought both placed employees in the rival's company and corporate spying was rampant. It wasn't uncommon for Navy and Army test pilots to be offered "special" incentives to make sure a particular aircraft performed as well as advertised, or even better in some cases.
Has anyone researched why the F8F was not available in early 1945? It seems that the powers in charge were unwilling to transition from the F6F to the F8F and suffer a short term loss of production while Grumman retooled their production line. Grumman was forced to maintain their delivery rate and build F8Fs with excess manpower and virtually no production space. Meanwhile, the F4U was being built by Vought, Goodyear and Brewster! United Aircraft had some serious pull with the War Production Board, who wouldn't even take Leroy Grumman's phone calls... Don't ya just love politics? Eastern Aircraft (GM) was more than willing to begin immediate retooling for the F8F, but once again the War Production Board felt that the FM-2 should remain in production. Not until February of 1945 was Eastern handed an order for the F3M-1 Bearcat. Even then, they were to continue building FM-2s until after the war ended.
More than a few people have claimed that the WPB killed as many American airmen as did the enemy. But what does one expect when it was loaded down with former excutives from Curtiss, United Aircraft and General Motors?
But, back to the original discussion.
Vought's F4U series were tremendous aircraft, with the F4U-4 being the best all around fighter-bomber of the war. However, as a pure fighter the F6F was marginally superior to the F4U-1 series. It had no vices. It was as rugged as anything else flying. It was a joy to fly around the ship (the F4U was decidedly NOT a joy in the pattern and especially on final). In terms of performance, the F4U-1 had a slight edge in speed at all altitudes and a significantly faster roll rate. Climb, turn rate and stability all favored the Hellcat.
When the F4U-4 arrived, it reset the high water mark, but only until the F8F-1 arrived.
I do agree that the F4U doesn't get the press it so richly deserves.
My regards,
Widewing
