F4U vs. F6F

[SgtPappy]

lol  ooo yea! guess ill stick with that then. but mad respect to the Hellcat still remains.

and btw, i'll be sure to fix up my questions alf

[Flaps]

There are some Hellcat pilots in AH that I would not want to meet if I was flyin the F4U-1D or F4U-1...

That said, I would rather be in the F4U, it just suits my flying better (and I know it a lot better).   The F6F suits other people's style better.  It boils down to how well you know the strengths of one and the weaknesses of the other.  

Its hard for the F4Us to get away from the Hellcat, especially at low altitude...at higher altitude, the F4U will have the advantage.

Both are tough birds but in this regard, the F6F has another advantage -- not that it is tougher than the F4U, but because the F4U can't usually flame it with a snapshot, which is all you are going to get (assuming equal skill/energy states, etc).  Where the F6F can just saddle up and blast away on the F4U till his armor is gone.

F4U-4 is the best fighter in the game.  Nothin can touch that

[stantond]

While the F6F did hold a higher kill/death ratio than the F4U, it was not it's sucessor.  If the F4U were cleared for carrier operations sooner, it would have seen more action and gotten more kills.  The Hellcat and Bearcat were obsoleted by the F4U variants, as such the F4U was able to fulfill the future roles better than those planes.

I haven't looked up the data, but I have a very hard time believing the F6F (and F8F) were as fast or faster than the F4U.  The F4U had a lower drag airframe with the gull wing configuration and extensive drag reduction was done by the NACA before ww2.  The F4U saw much more service after some operational issues were worked out than any F6F or F8F variants and was used long after the introduction of jets into the early 1970's.  

I would be interested to read in reports why the Navy phased out the F6F (or F8F) and kept the F4U for 40 years.  Jets played a part in that decision for sure, but whether it was range, durability, ordinance capability, or maintainablity that edged out the F4U from its simliar era planes is a mystery to me.  On the topic of speed again, how many F6F (F8F) planes were used in civilian racing?  None that I have ever seen, but the F4U (and P51) were top contenders.


Regards,

Malta

p.s. talking about the game now: if the F4U-4 had 4 20mm hispando's, then it might be one of the 'best plane in the game' and worthy of the perks.  Above 250 ias, the P51, 109, 190, and La7 are more maneuverable in the game.  Many planes in the game are more manueverable below 200 ias (including the F6F).  One could say it has a combination of attributes that make their sum greater than the parts, but I would not after flying it.  Marginally better acceleration and a slighty higher top speed than the -1C with inferior 50 cal guns doesn't count for much in a fight.

[ujustdied]

well standond i agree on you that the f4u4 doesn't need to be perked  i would call it one  of the best turners in the game.  now back on the subject i would mostly say that the f4u was much better then the f6f it had a 2800 engine and a huge prop this thing was fast plus i bet more pilots would tell you that the f4u was a much better plane. but thats just my opinion.

catfish6

[Grits]

Originally posted by stantond
On the topic of speed again, how many F6F (F8F) planes were used in civilian racing?

Rare Bear. Closed course speed record holder of 528mph. Its won Unlimted at Reno 15 times.

http://www.rarebear.com/

[Grits]

Originally posted by ujustdied
well standond i agree on you that the f4u4 doesn't need to be perked  i would call it one  of the best turners in the game.  now back on the subject i would mostly say that the f4u was much better then the f6f it had a 2800 engine and a huge prop this thing was fast plus i bet more pilots would tell you that the f4u was a much better plane. but thats just my opinion.

catfish6

They had essentially the same engine except for some packaging details. The F4U was only marginally faster.

[SMIDSY]

WAIT!! the F4U was in service in the 70s? by whom? not the US, thats for sure.

[FiLtH]

Yeah Id agree..in here F4u seems much better than the F6F. Maybe its just because how I fly, but I dont seem to get much out of the AH F6F.

   In this game there seems to be some planes where flaps greatly improve, minimally improve, and some that retard performance. Id say the F4u  flaps greatly improve, and the F6 seem somewhere between minimal/retard performance. May just be me though.

   In real life..go see Mr. Whoopee...he has all the answers

[Soulyss]

If we are putting this comparison in an historical context I would have to say that F6F could have a case made for it as the greatest carrier born fighter ever.  It was the right design at the right place at the right time.  It had enough performance to beat it's primary adversary (the A6M) and was simple enough to maintain in a combat environment and was a perfect match for the pilots the navy was turning out in 43 and 44.  You can argue the technical merits of the F4U and the F6F, but I think the F6F did more to win the war than the F4U.  It did everything; it gutted the ranks of the IJN (granted this process was started years earlier), won air superiority, it performed attack/light bomber roles and nightfighting.

[Saxman]

If you want to go by gutting the cream of the IJN crop, you really have to give props to the F4F. The Battles of Midway and Guadalcanal are what really bloodied the Japanese best fighter pilots, and it was the Wildcat that did it.

Anyway, the only clear advantages the F6F had over the F4U I've ever been aware of was that she was easier to fly in general and was better-suited for carrier duty out of the box, whereas it took some trial and error to perfect the Hog. Corsair may have only been faster by 8mph, but she WAS still faster, and IIRC maneuverability at high airspeeds was superior, while low speeds was an edge to the Fat Cat, but not particularly significant (the guys with access to every official test chart and performance comparison ever written are bound to correct me). A couple times I've outmaneuvered F6Fs with a 1-Hog in medium to low-speeds, tho that could just have been the quality of pilot I was facing. Firepower was basically the same with the 1D and later carrying the same ordinance loadout, if not slightly heavier. I also seem to remember hearing/reading/seeing that the F4U could take more of a pounding than even the P-47.

As has been suggested, the kill/death of the F6F is rather skewed by the sheer number of them in the combat area.

[hogenbor]

The F6F wasn't developed (and produced) much further beyond the F6F-5, the Corsair was, but more as an attack aircraft.

Grumman had the F8F as the F6F's successor, but his aircraft was designed to a different philosophy. More a carrier based air superiority fighter, hence it became obsolete much sooner because the jets arrived to the scene. At least, that's my guess.

I asked a similar question long ago, Widewing had some good background info on this topic, F6F, F8F evolution and the F4U. Can maybe be found with a search.

In AH the F4U-1D has a significant speed advantage over the F6F but in a dogfight I'd rather fly the F6F.

[bozon]

F6F was definitly one of the planes with greatest impact on the war. Its appearance instantly shifted the advantage to the american side in naval wars. The F4u was always favoured in its design stages over the Hellcat, but was delivered too late. Not to mention the F6F pitot tube legends that made the F4u "superior" and much "faster".

The F6f to the F4U is what the P47 is to the 51. Produced in larger numbers, did more actual work and in the critical stages of the war but their competitor, "superior" on paper, got most of the glory. The mere fact that P47 and F6F were the most produced USAF and USN fighters say something about their effectiveness. They were definitly not produced because they were pretty. Cost, maintnance, reliability, availability are also part of plane performance.

The greatest thing about the F6F was its reliability and readiness for use from carriers.  In AH we do not have mechanical problems and if we crash on landing, no damage is done. People tend to underestimate the importance of this on the global strategic level. The Mossie is another example of how the use of "inferior" wood materials is actually an advantage in war time.

Bozon

[Whisky58]

Originally posted by bozon

The greatest thing about the F6F was its reliability and readiness for use from carriers.  In AH we do not have mechanical problems and if we crash on landing, no damage is done.
Bozon

I thought the Corsair had a reputation for being a devil to land on a carrier - high torque, hopeless visibility.  F6F was better in this respect. Were many Corsairs lost on landing and if so did it have big effect on K/D ratio?

Regards

[Max]

Originally posted by ALF
The question is really incompelte, its like asking whats better a can opener or a corkscrew....it all depends what you want to do with them.

Silly man....to open beer or wine bottles of course

[TexMurphy]

Originally posted by Jebus
The other question i was going to post.  What plane had the biggest impact in WW2.  Was it the Pony or my favorite the Jug?  The 38 seem well rounded, and the hellcat had alot of success in the pacific theater.   I know all had its + and -.  But really out of all the american planes what had the biggest roll in the Allied Success.

Well this can be argued from so many angles that its almost impossible.

For the PTO I would say the F6F was the MVP. It won air supperiority over the IJN something that no other allied plane managed to do.

ETO is much more difficult imho to judge. The Pony in competition with late mark spits where the best planes. The D Pony did really only see action against a luftwaffe which was heavily decimated on trained pilots. Spitfires came in so many versions that its hard to say Spitfire was the best plane without specifying version.

Imho one of the key airial battles of the ETO was the Battle of Britain. If the RAF wouldnt have halted the luftwaffe there the war would have been over in europe. Sure the Spit was the best of the british planes in BoB but the main bulk was still the Hurricanes who pulled the heaviest workload.

The RAF would never have won BoB without Hurricanes. Would they have won it without the Spit? Doubt it.

So I would say the MVP of the ETO and most likely of the entire war would imho go to the Hurricane and the Spit.

But Im basing that on the fact that they prevented the allies from loosing the war.

But the question of which plane contributed most to actually winning it... hmm thats harder... Id say that "race" is between the Jug, the 38 and the Spit... but Ill leave that to others to discuss...

Tex