Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Letalis on July 11, 2012, 10:47:59 PM
-
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.
:salute
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
wasn't the lack of bubble canopy on the F6F a factor for its discontinuation?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-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.
-
If you come up empty on the sources, use the old standby. Follow the money.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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....
-
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.
-
A few useful and entertaining sources...
My friend Barrett's books...
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PADYY564L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41FF37VDNSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Does anyone know that the Navy tasked Grumman with fixing the F4U's oleo bounce problem? Grumman engineered new valving that reduced the over-damping and tamed the Corsair's bouncing. Corky Meyer was the project test pilot. Grumman did extensive flight testing of F4Us, and Vought flew many Hellcats.
The F6F series (-3 and -5) were preferred on the carriers for several reasons. The Hellcat was far superior around the boat. Easier to fly, better stall characteristics. That was a major advantage in the Navy's view. Performance wise, the F4U was faster at low level due to direct carb air ram. The F6F brought in carburetor air through the accessory section... No RAM. At altitude, there was little difference in speed. All major tests show the F6F-5 being capable of over 400 mph at critical altitude. Most commonly found data tests show either Normal Power or MIL power speeds. The F6F-5 could manage 391 mph at 23,100 feet in MIL Power, 409 mph at 21,600 feet in WEP (TAIC Report 17). From the same test report, in comparison, the F4U-1D could attain 413 mph at 20,400 feet.
See the report here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf)
There's much test data for both types here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/)
Post war analysis deemed the survivability of the F6F to be slightly better than the F4U. The F4U-4 was a major improvement over the F6F-5, except in range. However, both Grumman and the Navy elected to drop the competing XF6F-6 program for the far more capable F8F-1. As fighters go, the F4U-4 was one of the best, if not truly the best fighter to see combat during the war. The F8F-1, which missed combat by no more than a week, was on another plateau altogether. It out-performed the F4U-4 in every category of air to air combat, and did so with considerable margin. However, the F4U-4 was the better fighter-bomber. As Korea would show 5 years later, fighter-bombers were of greater importance, especially when the fleet fighters were then jets (F9F and F2H). F8Fs saw no combat in Korea, but the mighty F4U-4s (-4 and -4B) were in from almost day one, and gave outstanding service until replaced with later models.
As to your paper... The primary advantage the F6F held over the F4U in combat was that the F6F was in the thick of it all of the time after July of 1943. Before the F4U went aboard ships in numbers (F4U-2 night fighters were flying from carriers in 1943), they were generally confined to land bases. That restricted access to the enemy. On the other hand, the F6F was brought to the enemy... That must not be overlooked as it is a critical factor in the F6F's domination as the premier carrier fighter until early 1945.
-
The primary advantage the F6F held over the F4U in combat was that the F6F was in the thick of it all of the time
This is probably the basic conclusion of your paper.
- oldman
-
Does anybody know why the British kept developing the Seafire after the F6F and F4U became available to them? The Seafire never seemed like a great idea, just an understandable one when it was the best thing they could get. I would have thought, particularly due to its horrible ship handling problems, that the Seafire should have been phased out ASAP once the F6F and F4U were made available to the Royal Navy, instead it seems they almost doubled down on the Seafire with 1200 of the contemporary Mk IIIs and even postwar development ending with the Mk 47.
Why? It seems stupid.
-
Does anybody know why the British kept developing the Seafire after the F6F and F4U became available to them? The Seafire never seemed like a great idea, just an understandable one when it was the best thing they could get. I would have thought, particularly due to its horrible ship handling problems, that the Seafire should have been phased out ASAP once the F6F and F4U were made available to the Royal Navy, instead it seems they almost doubled down on the Seafire with 1200 of the contemporary Mk IIIs and even postwar development ending with the Mk 47.
Why? It seems stupid.
Probably because it was a British plane.
-
Probably because it was a British plane.
Perhaps, but it isn't like they didn't use lots of American built aircraft on their carriers. It seems like it would have been significantly better to have standardized on the F4U or F6F, both of which were used by the Royal Navy and both of which are significantly superior to anything British until the Sea Fury.
That said, humans are not always rational.
-
Perhaps, but it isn't like they didn't use lots of American built aircraft on their carriers. It seems like it would have been significantly better to have standardized on the F4U or F6F, both of which were used by the Royal Navy and both of which are significantly superior to anything British until the Sea Fury.
That said, humans are not always rational.
During the war is one thing, after the war is another. Peacetime sharing of aircraft was not as common then as it is now. Even during the war, the British were extremely concerned with their economy after the war, especially with regard to employment. They had a great fear that after the war they'd return to extremely high unemployment.
They may also have felt, as the U.S. Navy did, that the piston engine propeller driven fighter had reached its twilight, so if they were going to buy some obsolete fighters, they might as well buy them from a British company.
-
Who needs the F4U when you have the seafire 47.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lEtkuz8ScYM/TNALsUnid7I/AAAAAAAAD6s/YFZogAOak8Q/s1600/HMS+Triumph+8.jpg)
-
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?
:airplane: Don't forget to remember one of the big problems with the F4U series of aircraft was the difficulty of landing on carriers! One of the problems was the "oleo" struts which the landing gear was assembled with. The first ones had way to much bounce in them, as it was originally designed to operate off of ill prepare runways in the SW Pacific, so they stiffen them up, by changing the relief valves in the oleo system, as pointed out in another answer in this thread correctly pointed out. Then the Korean conflict came along and the F4U's could carry a lot of ords into the Korean conflict, operating off carriers close to shore. As the "Sandy"(Skyraider), wasn't yet developed to its full potential, and a large inventory of F4U's were on hand, time and history had something to do with the length of life of the "Corsair". Politics, in my view, played a part the way things happend, because of the exploits of "Richard Bong". With the American public yearning for good news from the "war", It was a lot easier for the "politicans" in Washington to vote to extend the production life of the "Corsair". Another point to remember, while the Navy flew F4U's, it was primarily a Marine aircraft, which could operate off of rough runways on the Islands in the Pacific, better than the F6F.(my opinion). The reason I say that is the length of the fuseledge of F4U series made for better handing on rough runways than the shorter F6F.
-
I thought the French used F6F Hellcats and F4U-7 Corsair, well into post-war on their carrier 'Arromanches'. Might be good to check out their use of the Hellcat and the Corsair - probably used them pre-US involvement in the IndoChina war and against the Viet Minh regime.
-
I thought the French used F6F Hellcats and F4U-7 Corsair, well into post-war on their carrier 'Arromanches'. Might be good to check out their use of the Hellcat and the Corsair - probably used them pre-US involvement in the IndoChina war and against the Viet Minh regime.
again that needs checking, but I'm not sure we fielded F6F's, only F4U's
-
nevermind a quick wiki check proved me wrong
The French Aéronavale was equipped with F6F-5 Hellcats and used them in Indochina.
-
Does anybody know why the British kept developing the Seafire after the F6F and F4U became available to them? The Seafire never seemed like a great idea, just an understandable one when it was the best thing they could get. I would have thought, particularly due to its horrible ship handling problems, that the Seafire should have been phased out ASAP once the F6F and F4U were made available to the Royal Navy, instead it seems they almost doubled down on the Seafire with 1200 of the contemporary Mk IIIs and even postwar development ending with the Mk 47.
Why? It seems stupid.
maybe there wasn't enough production to supply the british and the US in the same time? Also weren't regular spitfires able to be converted to carrier operation?
-
maybe there wasn't enough production to supply the british and the US in the same time? Also weren't regular spitfires able to be converted to carrier operation?
No, the Mk III, by far the most common Seafire with 1200 built during the war, was a dedicated carrier plane with folding wings and arrester gear. Only the Seafire Mk Is were converted from Spitfire Mk Vs.
It is really those 1200 Mk IIIs that don't make a lot of sense to me. 1200 is a fairly large number for a carrier fighter and during that entire time the F4U and F6F were available.
-
I prefer the assessments of two test pilots when comparing Hellcat to Corsair. Corky Meyer and Cpt. Eric Brown of the Royal Fleet Air Arm both have vast experience in test flying aircraft, with Brown having no dogs in the hunt when comparing two different American aircraft. Widewing's assessments on these boards pretty much mirror theirs.
Corky and other Grumman test pilots, at the Navy's insistence, flew the F6F-3 and F4U-1D in side-by-side comparisons to assess the apparent differences between the two aircraft. Chance-Vought's test pilots were also provided with a -3 Hellcat to compare it to the Corsair.
Corky states that the Navy wanted them to study the Corsair's design to find ideas to help correct two faults in the Hellcat's design: an indicated speed difference of 20 knots less airspeed at nearly all altitudes; and a loss in roll-rate from 70 degrees a second at low to moderate airspeeds to about 40 degrees at speeds in excess of 300 knots. Chance-Vought had to study the Hellcat to help rectify the Corsair's horribly stiff oleo landing gear and abysmal low-speed stall characteristics.
While the Corsair proved to be 20 knots faster at low-level in the main-stage blower, as Widewing stated, the air-speed indicator of the Corsair showed that it was 20 knots faster than the Hellcat even at both aircraft's rated altitude, even when they were closely stabilized in flight (read "identical" air-speeds). As it turned out, the positioning of the Hellcat's static and dynamic orifices consistently read 20 knots slower than that of the Corsair even when their flight speeds could be seen to be identical. A repositioning of the orifices to the same positions that they were in on the Corsair solved the problem.
Capt. Brown flew the Hellcat and Corsair extensively. While he considered the Corsair to be a fine aircraft, he preferred the Hellcat when it came time to mix it up with the enemy. His book "Duels in the Sky" contain some interesting one-on-one comparisons of Allied naval aircraft with their Axis opponents. In a comparison between the Corsair and the FW-290 A4 he states that the FW could not be bested by the Corsair while the Hellcat was a better matchup for the German aircraft.
-
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 was not there only if you consider "there" to be on carrier decks only. The F4U saw combat six months before the F6F did and flew about the same number of combat sorties during the war. Arguably the most critical air battles of the war after Midway were those of the Solomons Campaign, since that's when the IJNAF and IJAAF were chewed to pieces and lost all their veteran pilots. The F4U played if anything a greater role than the F6F in those battles. The deployment of F4Us was far more than "a handful" in 1943 and 1944 when they were operating almost exclusively from land. IIRC in Tom Blackburn's The Jolly Rogers he says that the Navy's reasons for keeping the F4U off carriers so long were more due to institutional than technical factors; in late 1943 he had trained his squadron to land on and take off from carrier decks with little difficulty and they did so without a single accident on one combat mission where they refueled on USS Bunker Hill.
The two planes racked up similar kill ratios against first-line enemy fighters (12:1 for the F4U and 13:1 for the F6F against the A6M, for example). Given that fact, I expect the main reason for the different overall kill ratios was that the F6F's earlier carrier deployment gave it more opportunities to intercept vulnerable bombers and to kill second-rate aircraft in raids on less active areas of the Pacific. So I would amend the last sentence above to "By the time the Navy deployed F4Us on carriers in numbers, they had missed the best chances to rack up easy kills against large numbers of more-or-less helpless opponents". At that point the primary mission for the F4U became ground support, at which it excelled.
-
Arguably the most critical air battles of the war after Midway were those of the Solomons Campaign, since that's when the IJNAF and IJAAF were chewed to pieces and lost all their veteran pilots. The F4U played if anything a greater role than the F6F in those battles.
Agreed that Guadalcanal was where the great Japanese navy pilots died (the P-38s in New Guinea got the Japanese Army pilots). The Wildcat was responsible for that, though. By the time the Corsair appeared in any kind of numbers in the Solomons the critical battles were over. You might almost say that by the time the Marines deployed F4Us into the Solomons in numbers, they were just in time to rack up easy kills against more-or-less helpless opponents.
Or something like that.
- oldman
-
Did Sakai's "one A6M5 vs fifteen F6F Hellcats" fight really happen?
-
Agreed that Guadalcanal was where the great Japanese navy pilots died (the P-38s in New Guinea got the Japanese Army pilots). The Wildcat was responsible for that, though. By the time the Corsair appeared in any kind of numbers in the Solomons the critical battles were over. You might almost say that by the time the Marines deployed F4Us into the Solomons in numbers, they were just in time to rack up easy kills against more-or-less helpless opponents.
Or something like that.
- oldman
I think in the early period in the Solomons (1942-1943), it was a mix of Navy Wildcats, USAAF P-40s, P-39s, P-38s and Commonwealth P-40s that broke the backs of the IJN and IJAF. Remember, those IJN pilots that took part in the Guadalcanal campaign were mostly land based naval squadrons stationed at Rabaul and other satellite bases in New Britain.
-
I think in the early period in the Solomons (1942-1943), it was a mix of Navy Wildcats, USAAF P-40s, P-39s, P-38s and Commonwealth P-40s that broke the backs of the IJN and IJAF. Remember, those IJN pilots that took part in the Guadalcanal campaign were mostly land based naval squadrons stationed at Rabaul and other satellite bases in New Britain.
Agreed. I have never come across references to P-40s based on Guadalcanal, though. Or Australians either, for that matter.
Flying F4Fs (not to mention P-39Ds) against A6M2s in this game makes you appreciate what those guys were up against.
- oldman
-
Agreed. I have never come across references to P-40s based on Guadalcanal, though. Or Australians either, for that matter.
Flying F4Fs (not to mention P-39Ds) against A6M2s in this game makes you appreciate what those guys were up against.
- oldman
I have quite a few references of P-40s and P-400s at guadalcanal, not sure entirely "who" was stationed there - already ran across one book I have that has to many flaws in the book - i.e confusing P-39D with P-400 was a major pester, but does anyone know
if P-40s were actually stationed at Guadal? Reason I say one book for example took direct interviews from the pilots themselves on one particular mission - coming from James E. Swett also VMF-221 has a few pilots that count P-40s taking off during the early periods.
Although on one mission for example - a flight of 4 P-40s were shot down, but 4x P-400s managed to shoot down a few val dive bombers before getting bounced, this was taken from Swett's comments, he him self dove on the Val's and lost the rest of his flight.
-
The F4U was first deployed on Guadalcanal in February, 1943, at which time the air war was still very much at issue. Granted that the darkest days were behind, but Japanese air strength was by no means broken at that point.
-
Did Sakai's "one A6M5 vs fifteen F6F Hellcats" fight really happen?
I have no reference to indicate it didn't happen. Maybe Widewing or Oldman has something on it?
-
Did Sakai's "one A6M5 vs fifteen F6F Hellcats" fight really happen?
Sakai's 1v15 is covered in his book Samurai! Sakai used the fact the Hellcat pilots were "green" and a repeated rolling maneuver (something hard for a F6F to follow) to survive his ordeal. Despite the fact I've never seen an American corroboration, given Sakai's documented skill and character I am very much inclined to take him at his word.
BreakBreak: Found the old F6F vs F4U slugfest between Widewing and F4, good stuff indeed:)
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... :headscratch:
-
You also have to look at the question of wartime industry. Grumman and Chance Voight (and Goodyears) factories were all producing the planes at a high tempo and its likely that it was thought that both a/c were good designs and between the USN, USMC, and foreign use (like the Royal Navy) there was ample room and need for both types to be produced in their 1000s. Retooling the factories to produce just one type perhaps was viewed as a needless delay in wartime.
Also the F4U was not cleared for USN CV ops untill 1945...well the USN can't just sit and wait for that while flying Wildcats there is no time for that. They needed a great many new fighters for the Fast Carrier Task Forces in 1943-44 and so the orders went out to Grumman to deliver Hellcats to the USN. By the time the Corsair proved itself from the decks of CVs the USN was already operating many F6Fs. There isn't time in war to sit back and endlessly tinker with things (if it ain't broke don't fix it). The Hellcat was doing very well, it was being built in very large quantities altready and there was little point in discontinuing it. In the meantime the Corsair was being sent to the USMC and the USN as well and making its contribution felt.
The same can be said for the P-47, P-38 and P-51s of the USAAF. There was a need to produce fighters in the 1000s asap, and so designs that worked were not discontinued. There was no time to sit back and delay industry over what may or not have been the absolute best fighter. If it worked it was produced. Types that were not deemed usefull were either phased out or production or scaled back or sent as Lend-Lease (P-39, P-40, F4F). Gradually some types did start to gain supremacy; the P-51 was eventually starting to becoming the dominant USAAF fighter by late 1944 and had the war continued the F6F would have been eclipsed more than it was by Grummans F8F and F7F designs, and perhaps more Corsairs in naval service but the war abruptly ended in August of 1945.
Botom line re the Corsair and Hellcat they were both needed.
-
Sakai's 1v15 is covered in his book Samurai! Sakai used the fact the Hellcat pilots were "green" and a repeated rolling maneuver (something hard for a F6F to follow) to survive his ordeal. Despite the fact I've never seen an American corroboration, given Sakai's documented skill and character I am very much inclined to take him at his word.
I have read US corroboration...somewhere.... although, as you would expect, the Americans didn't see the fight quite the way Sakai did. Can't recall the source though.
Beware anything with Martin Caiden's name on it. I think Sakai and Robert Johnson kept him fairly honest, but one should always be skeptical.
- oldman
-
I have read US corroboration...somewhere.... although, as you would expect, the Americans didn't see the fight quite the way Sakai did. Can't recall the source though.
Beware anything with Martin Caiden's name on it. I think Sakai and Robert Johnson kept him fairly honest, but one should always be skeptical.
- oldman
Do you recall anything about what the American take on it was?
The fact that this wasn't the normal "x side claims 5 kills and side y records 1 loss" as Sakai didn't claim any kills in the fight I always wondered if there was anything else on it out there.
-
I think Sadaaki Akamatsu also engaged a bunch of enemy planes while alone.
-
Do you recall anything about what the American take on it was?
Regrettably I do not. I have a vague recollection that it was an entry in the end notes to a book on the Phillippines campaign 1944-45. Will see if I can find that book. Guppy and/or Widewing may have a clue on how to get into the fleet records for that period. The incident occurred June 24, 1944.
- oldman
-
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?
-
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?
Most of the pilots who are still around are pushing 90 years of age, and there are very few of them. There are several of us (Guppy, Widewing, myself, and a couple of others) who knew quite a few of them. The odds of getting an interview at this point are extremely slim.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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... :headscratch:
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
Almost all the quotes from surviving IJN pilots Ive heard have been they feared the Corsair the most of any fighter in the theater.
-
Sakai said the f6f was the best fighter he faced.
-
There's a split here: The following is taken from Widewing in a 2006 thread.
(I think the F6F was definitely the better dogfighter but there's also the BnZ school. The Corsair is closer to the 51 in terms of its ideal fighting tactics. I'd also point out that in terms of exposure in air to air fighting, the F6F likely had more time in the spotlight as far as the Japanese were concerned. Subsequently, it had more kills and a the more fearsome reputation to match)
Sadumu Komachi- "I think the best enemy fighter plane I fought against was the F6F. It was faster than our Zero and more powerful. It could dogfight, whereas the F4U could not. There was nothing more frightening than a Hellcat on your tail."
Takeo Tanaimizu- "The F4U was a tough plane, your bullets would just bounce off. I think the toughest opponent was the Grumman F6F. They could maneuver and roll, whereas planes like the P-38 and F4U made hit and run passes. The F6F could actually dogfight with us, and it was much faster and more powerful than our Zero."
Saburo Sakai- "The F6F was the best U.S. Navy fighter. I fought them over Iwo Jima for the first time in June of 1944 and I was shocked at how much Grummans had improved since 1942."
Sadaaki Akamtsu- "In my opinion, the P-51 was the most dangerous American fighter because of its incredible speed. After the P-51 I believe the F6F was the most dangerous, because it was faster and more maneuverable than my Raiden."
-
I don't think you can think in terms of F6F. I think you have to think in terms of FxF and group at least the F4F and F6F's together if not reach even further back (or forward) in the line. Even the F3F was a very similar design. If you do that then the F4U clearly becomes the more formidable aircraft, however the F4F was in use in such large numbers that it's replacement by the F6F in substabtially equal numbers with improved performance over the F4F gave the Americans an immediate edge on the Japanese aircraft.
At the same time the development of the AxM series of Japanese aircraft wasn't nearly as significant and the F6F caught them flat footed.
The F4U being a relatively newer design wasn't intoduced until well after the FxF series had become the entrenched Naval standard and, as others have already stated, was too late to the action to achieve the same type of technological surprise that the F6F had to the AxM series even though it may have been technologically superior to either.
As far as K/D remember, it will vary among dissimilar aircraft. You may want to look into what was doing the killing and what was doing the dieing to find enlightement.
-
I don't think you can think in terms of F6F. I think you have to think in terms of FxF and group at least the F4F and F6F's together if not reach even further back (or forward) in the line. Even the F3F was a very similar design. If you do that then the F4U clearly becomes the more formidable aircraft, however the F4F was in use in such large numbers that it's replacement by the F6F in substabtially equal numbers with improved performance over the F4F gave the Americans an immediate edge on the Japanese aircraft.
At the same time the development of the AxM series of Japanese aircraft wasn't nearly as significant and the F6F caught them flat footed.
The F4U being a relatively newer design wasn't intoduced until well after the FxF series had become the entrenched Naval standard and, as others have already stated, was too late to the action to achieve the same type of technological surprise that the F6F had to the AxM series even though it may have been technologically superior to either.
As far as K/D remember, it will vary among dissimilar aircraft. You may want to look into what was doing the killing and what was doing the dieing to find enlightement.
This is thinking "F6F." It was a completely different than the Wildcat. Comparing the Hellcat to the Corsair is the intent here and it is a viable undertaking given the information available. Taking the average of the FxF line and comparing it to the F4U will make it look more formidable, but would also be an irrelevant conclusion for the topic at hand. "Technological surprise" theory doesn't make too much sense given that the F4U saw combat 6 months before the F6F. BTW, the F4U prototype flew two years PRIOR to the Hellcat. K/D will vary among dissimilar aircraft, but operational factors play a much larger role in who does the killing vs. the dying. (See Winter War)
-
At the same time the development of the AxM series of Japanese aircraft wasn't nearly as significant and the F6F caught them flat footed.
The fact that the IJN completely botched the development of the A7M, going against the advice of Jiro Horikoshi, didn't help them at all.