F4U Corsair vs F6F Hellcat | Which was the better fighter?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 06. 2024
- Today, when people look back at the Pacific theatre, there are two American fighter aircraft which are often remembered together . Those are; the Vought F4U Corsair, and the Grumman F6F Hellcat. Both have been the centre of much discussion surrounding usage, statistics, and overall effectiveness. But which of these two aircraft was superior?
Please consider supporting this channel raafdocumentary.com/support/
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.com.au/?ref=AMAHA and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Check out our next comparison video - P-51 Mustang vs P-47 Thunderbolt czcams.com/video/-JR4DssC2FY/video.html
The P-38 shot down it's fair share of Jap planes. Just ask Richard Bong. You covered Hellcat and Corsair here, and Mustang and Thunderbolt in another video. Do you have anything on the Lightning? Do you have anything on the Spitfire vs. Me 109?
P-47 was a gigantic airplane. Faster in a dive than just about anything I'd imagine.
@@jasonebone6464 and more durable than anything
Was the Corsair better in the ground attack role or could it carry more ordinance what did I miss? Something else to consider is this, since the Corsair is entered the arena first they start at the age first ,they started to wear out first.
This is similar to the P-51 vs P-47 debate. The Corsair like the P-47 fought enemy aircraft when the enemy was stronger and had more advantages.
The F6F like the the P-51 batted cleanup and came in for the final play.
Not to be dismissed, but in both cases the later arrivals are perhaps assigned much credit which should be given to the aircraft present at the most critical junctures of conflict.
Also, the F4U and P-47 both had designs with great potential for improvement, late versions of both being some of the best, highest performing piston prop fighters of the war, and final variants being competitive with "superprops" post war until being superceded by jets.
The Hellcat was initially preferred for carrier use due to ease of flying and landing, and the Navy preferred to have only one fighter type on carriers to reduce the logistical tail. But when kamikaze attacks became a real threat, Corsairs were deployed on carriers for their superiority as interceptors. It's also worth noting the Corsair was produced for years after the war, the Hellcat wasn't.
I love your comment, I didnt know the F4U was a preferd interceptor, as both F6F and F4U were faster then the Japanese aircraft they were likely to engage with.
Yes, but Grumman did evolve one more radial Navy fighter which didn't quite arrive in time to contribute...that absolute beast of a Bearcat.
Thing is. the corsair holds no advantages in any reguard compared to the hellcat. just as fast. climbs and dives just as fast. hits just as hard. the only thing the corsair has is disadvantages. turning was worse, landings were worse, reliability was worse.
Blah blah blah.
The F4U had that sexy reverse gull wing. It wins!
Hellcat had one purpose to destroy the Zero.
My dad flew a P-38 out of New Guinea. I was born in 1954 and read every book I could find on WWII when I was in middle school. Of course, nothing was as good as my dad's plane, the P-38. About 8th grade, I developed an affinity for the F4U. Those gull wings were so distinctive. The TV show "Black Sheep Squadron" pushed me deeper into the F4U camp. A visit to the Pima Air Museum was eye-opening. The F4U is huge compared to the P-38! I contribute to preserving these warbirds. I encourage you all to contribute to the Pima Air Museum or another similar air museum.
At least read about planes that fought in both theatres The P38 did and had as many KILLS as the Corsair and was a front line fighter in both theatres However it was NOT the best the US had
The hellcat came into the war when the majority of Japan's top tier pilots had been killed. Hard to compare. The Corsair had to fight Japan's best, while the hell cat fought their 2nd and 3rd string fighter pilots
@@Rebel-Rouser The Corsair combat debut Feb 43 Hellcat Aug 43 Wildcat 41 It was the Wildcat that fought Japans best Down south in New Guinea it was the P40 P38 Spitfire 6 months before the Corsair
The Lightning should be considered as a different aircraft from the other single engine aircraft, it had a different role and its armament were placed in the nose. It was designed as an intercepter with a distinct role. It excelled and should be considered an aircraft design for a specific role. Could it dogfight, indeed. Could it be a ground defense aircraft, well yes. Was it was an all around aircraft for air and ground defense . Well yes. Other aircraft were better suited for singular uses. The Lightning was a glorious and wonderful piece of amazing design and when they were seen in the sky surely feared and thought of as a huge threat. Those two supercharged engines gave it a rate of climb much higher than it's single engine counterparts. They were feared and treated so. Kelly Johnson designed some amazing aircraft.
@@chrisharris4975 They were not feared by the Luftwaffe.
It's very interesting to me when you started going into the details of those kill numbers i.e. by the time the Hellcat arrived, the Japanese aviation situation had devolved tremendously.
I want to expand on this a little because the downfall of Japanese aviation in the Pacific began earlier than 1943, before even the Corsair's arrival. 1942 was a brutal year for Imperial Japanese Navy aviation: There were 4 major Carrier duels that year. Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz Islands. Each resulted in very heavy losses to Japanese pilots. The Allied effort in Guadalcanal began in the middle of that year. Japanese aircrew losses doing these long range missions over Guadalcanal were costly. The IJN were losing a lot of their early war, pre-war experienced aircrews that they could never replace.
And the US Navy & Marine Corps primary fighter facing the Imperial Japanese Navy at its height of capabilities in 1942? The Grumman F4F Wildcat.
IMO, the Wildcat fought the hard Pacific air battles of the critical year in 1942. They fought IJN aviation at the peak of their strength and capabilities, back when they had a bonafide, powerful carrier force with a well trained set of pilots. The IJN's capable, experienced pilots were bled out in 1942, which of course continued in 1943 when the Corsair and Hellcat arrived.
I'm not saying the Wildcat > Hellcat and Corsair. They were superior fighters that both the US Navy & Marine Corps needed. But the F4F Wildcat fought the harder early war battles when the Japanese were at their peak. By the time the Corsair and Hellcat arrived, Japanese aviation was literally already in a death spiral. Thanks to the heavy losses they started to suffer in 1942.
Edit: There were 5 Carrier Duels in all of WWII. 4 of them were in 1942, only 1 happened outside that year, and that was in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, i.e. the Marianas Turkey Shoot in 1944. As I said, the Wildcat fought the tough battles when the Japanese were at their peak.
I agree. By 1943 the Japanese were on the losing side of the attrition game in pilots, planes and carriers. This was done mostly with Wildcats and P 40's. It would have taken longer but I believe the US would still have won the war without the Hellcat and Corsair.
As to which aircraft was better, I think the Corsair was superior once airborne.
I had the honor to interview Admiral John "Jimmy" Thatch for a Navy film in the 1960's soon after he retired. He developed the Thatch Weave which was a tactic responsible for giving the F4F Wildcat a better chance in combat aganst the superior performing IJN Zero fighter.
BTW: I had been confused about Admiral Thatch's first name. It was actually John but, he acquired the nickname "Jimmy" because his oder brother (who was also a Naval Academy graduate) was named James. Navy officers often gained nicknames at the Naval Academy which followed them throughout their naval careers.
@@brianking5092
Yes. It was F4F's and P-40's that fought the Japanese to a stand still in 1942 when they had a chance. By the time our better fighters were available - Japan had been beaten. It wasn't finished yet - but it had been beaten and was on the defensive.
.
I agree with your premise and conclusion. You point out correctly, the carrier battles in 1942 killed the Japanese skilled pilots, and losing 6 carriers during this time also was a huge factor.
Excellent observation and summation.
Both are beautiful aircraft. Both are icons of American aviation history. Both got the job done.
This makes no mention of the (British) Royal Navy who badly needed a good carrier fighter (the Seafire was a modified land plane and a bit fragile) and were initially offered Corsairs (that the US Navy didn't want) but not Hellcats. They solved many of the problems with landing the Corsair on a carrier and worked with Vaught to improve the landing gear. The American Navy became more interested after that.
Over 1,000 Hellcats Lend Leased to Britain.
The US Navy didn’t quit on getting the Corsair into carriers. There wasn’t time too solve that carrier landing issue in the middle of 1943! Britain’s Fleet Air Arm working with Vought came up with that.
@@nickdanger3802… By the end of the war. Initially the US Navy had production priority over the Royal Navy
Armored Carriers channel has two videos on the Corsair in the Royal Navy; "F4U Corsair: Black Sheep of the RN" and "F4U Corsair: Taming the beast"
@@Idahoguy10157 December 1941 HMS Audacity sunk with four F4 Wildcats.
June 1942 Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.
Despite many like this two aircraft
One should never forget, the unsung hero of Pacific war, the aircraft that hold the line in the beginning, F4F wildcats
P-40, P-39 , P-38 had held the line as well in the beginning.
i think what you say is the most important. the wildcat was there when it was badly needed and though slightly inferior to the zero, used with the correct tactics it allowed the navy to battle the zeros. before that - and during that time - the other navy aircraft were sitting ducks for the zeros. the zero was the most dominant aircraft in its theatre and time of all the planes produced in the war.
The Wildcat served through the entire war and was even upgraded throughout the war.
Yes indeed
My Pops flew both. He said both were excellent aircraft but he fell in love with the Corsair.
I met and spoke to Dan Carmichael years ago, one time president of the Columbus Athletic Club (Columbus, OH) who flew both types in combat. I asked which he preferred, and he said the Corsair flew better. He had scored 13 victories in the Pacific, but I don't know the distribution of those kills between the two types. He was a fascinating guy, having flown early jets after the war, and then becoming a race car driver in the years that followed. His accomplishments are too long to list. I wish I had talked to him more at the time.
According to the Veteran Tributes website, Navy Captain Carmichael's 13 aerial victories were achieved while flying the F4F Wildcat and F6F Hellcat.
@@friendofenkidu3391 Didn't know of this website. Thanks for the info.
what a badass
My first "boss" flew F4U's in the Pacific with the RNZAF. Prior to that he flew P40E Kittyhawks. He said he loved the F4U remarking how much room he had in the cockpit. He also spoke about "Going through the gate" which was engaging Maximum War Power - water injection to give more power. Apparently the "gate" was wired so that you had to make a conscious effort to engage as it put huge strain on the engine and you were limited to a certain amount of time in it. He said if you had a Zero on your tail, you could go through the gate and leave him way behind! RIP Dick.
They all "went through the gate" when engaged with Japanese fighters.
I have a copy of a fly-off between a Japanese Zero (Zeke 52, so a late model aircraft) captured on Saipan verses the standard U.S. Army Air Force and Navy fighters. The Air Force fighters were the P-38J-25, the P-47D-30, and the P-51D-5. The Navy fighters were the F4U-1D Corsair, the F6F-5 Hellcat, and the FM-2 Wildcat. The Corsair and the Hellcat were extremely close in performance advantages over the Zero. At 20,000 feet, the Corsair had a 78 MPH advantage over the Zero, and at 30,000 feet, a 74 MPH advantage over the Zero. The Hellcat, by comparison, had at 20,000 feet a 69 MPH advantage, while at 30,000 feet the advantage was 66 MPH. I would not regard the differences as significant. The rolls and turn rates of both aircraft were very similar, and overall their performance was extremely close. Interestingly enough, the FM-2 Wildcat had a performance very similar to that of the Zero 52, especially with respect to turning combat, the Zero being slightly superior. It would have been a good Zero clone for the Navy to practice dissimilar combat training, Overall, if I needed a good fighter-bomber, I would pick the Corsair, while for a straight fighter, I would go with the Hellcat.
Another interesting item was that all three Navy fighters were superior in maneuverability to all three Army fighters, while the Corsair and Hellcat were not that much slower.
Met an old navy test pilot. Said the Hellcat was easy to fly, was a steady gun platform and slower than the Corsair. Said the Corsair had poor forward visibility requiring a tight turning carrier approach. Also had an unfortunate tendency at approach speed to drop a wing without warning. Mostly fixed by installing a wedge on leading edge of wing.
My father had a good friend who flew Corsairs over Korea. Got shot down by ground fire several times. Hellcat was less complicated and more rugged. Test pilot said he would pick the Hellcat for combat hands down.
I find that interesting since most research I have do many pilots would prefer the Corsair when engaging ground targets and able to zoom climb to altitude after weapons release.
It's the "more rugged" that confuses me, as the two airframed shared a common power plant.
My father-in-law flew both during the war. He said that the Hellcat was the better fighter, but the Corsair was the most stable gun platform of any plane. Hellcats and Mustangs, etc would really move around when all six machine guns were firing. So, for ground attack, strafing and even rocket launching, he preferred the Corsair. He passed away in 1989, but I remember his stories like he told me yesterday.@@19KiloM1A1
@@jacobmccandles1767 True. Same p&w but different cowl flaps, oil coolers, fuel tank set up and airframe. Cant beat the “Grumman Ironworks.”
@@thomasking4136 i mean...you *could*, but...
I think the Hellcat was meant to mix it up with the Zekes and beat them at their own game. Literally a Wildcat that could turn, climb, and go fast...er than a Zero.
The Corsair by contrast was well over 100 MPH faster than the Zero, and could "boom-and-zoom" the hell out of 'em with no real need to mix it up.
The F4U was significantly more complex and expensive to build. The Corsair was kept in production, and in service, for YEARS after the war while F6Fs went straight to Reserves. For a few years. F4Us stayed in Reserve service past the adoption of the gull gray-over-white paint scheme. As far as speed, I don't recall Hellcats making much of an appearance in post-war racing. Fun fact -- the last plane to shoot down a Bf 109 in WW2 was . . . a Hellcat.
I don't think Hellcats were raced much, either...but apparently a few P-39 Airacobras and P-63 Kingcobras were, and did quite well...apparently the Bell fighters did quite well down low at race altitudes....
And just where did the Hellcat shoot down a Bf109 in the ETO The FAA did not sail up the Rhine as far as I know
We let some our allies have Hellcats, I believe the Brits used it and may have gotten that kill.
@@30AndHatingIt I doubt that otherwise Eric Brown would have mentioned it in his books
Fun fact, the last piston engine plane to be shot down by another piston engine plane was in 1969 where a P-51 was shot down in The Football War. Oh... yeah... almost forgot. The P-51 was shot down by an F4U ;)
My dad flew a combat tour with VF-19 in 1944 that included Leyte Gulf. He flew about 400 hours in F6Fs. After a month's leave when the tour was over, he was assigned to a different squadron, and transitioned to the F4U-4, in which he flew about 500 hours, though none in combat. Fortunately, Japan surrendered before he had to fly another combat tour. I've been reading about these two planes for more than half a century, and my own non-pilot's take is that the Corsair was probably the better plane - faster, better climb rate, better visibility in the air, marginally better roll rate and climb rate. Both planes could, and did, serve effectively as "attack" planes, using rockets and bombs against ships and to support ground troops, and they had the same onboard armament. That said, the better plane hasn't always been more successful in combat. On those grounds I have to give the nod to the F6F. It was easier to fly, easier and more forgiving to land, and turned marginally better than the F4U. I don't think the differences between the two were huge, but they were real, and the kill ratio is a number that can't be ignored. 19-1 is significantly better than 11-1. So, "Which is 'better'" depends upon how you define 'better."
You're only hear to comment, I think, because your dad didn't die in an operations incident in the Corsair. Both planes lost pilots at nearly the exact same rate, and that's what matters. And that despite the fact the Hellcats were mostly operating from carriers while Corsairs were mostly on land. Hellcats did the harder job, with same overall loss, and did it for 60% of the cost, or perhaps more importantly half the labor to produce. We'd only have half the planes had we made all Corsairs. If we made all Hellcats, we'd have a lot of surplus labor to put into guns tanks or ships instead.
@@lqr824
Goddamn bloody-well 'sure-rights' you are on that one, _by Jesus,_ 'fly-boy' - and by *_'Christ!'_* almighty, I couldn't have said it better myself than the broadside of a 'double-odd buck's worth o' delayed-blowback auto-loadin' wadcutters over any justifiably-righteous salutin' burst o' half a dozen 'ang-cry' Browning fifty-cals firing off the hip of Godzilla's thunder-thighs! ... _"And you'd better believe it, 'mister'!"👨✈🛩🎖✋_
The Corsairs Climb rate was almost 1000ft/min less than the F6F and at Sea level the Hellcat had the edge on the Corsair
@@melsuggs3389 No I have not, only post war did the Corsair have a very fast climb rate
@@jacktattis Ok, here is what I have F4U-1 2890 ft/min, F6F-3 2900 ft/min, F4U-4 (entered service June 1945) 4000 ft/min these are the Naval variants. The Marines did use a version optimized for lower altitudes and ground attack which had a lower rate of climb. If you want to be technical about it the F4U-5 did enter service before the end of the war, by about two weeks so that would be seriously picking a nit.
You also have to remember that counting aerial victories changed throughout the war as japan was bleeding it's experienced pilots dry by attrition. Late war was a turkey shoot for our American aviators.
Edit: Nevermind, you addressed my point later in the video.
kevnspacey...........did you watch the video because that's exactly what it stated.
Im a Barber, and for 23 years I worked at a shop in Tampa, Fl. When I started, most WW II Vets were 63 through 67 years old. The shop had been popular for about 30 years before I even got there, at 27, to work with 3 other Barbers who were all WW II Veterans, and loads of our customers were Vets too, including Korea and Vietnam guys. One of our favorites was James Olsen, he had been an aviator out in the South Pacific, flying Wildcats, then Hellcats, and finally Corsairs, which he loved. He survived the Coral Sea fights, his carrier badly damaged, was transferred to The Yorktown, and survived the big fights around Midway! He said getting to fly Corsairs, for him, must have been similar to an Army pilot graduating from a P-40 to a P-51D. The improvement was that distinct.
Oh: Olsen said that the height, and crazy long 'snout' of the Corsair, made training for it a deadly proposition, and that a lot of pilots were killed trying to land them, because it was hard to see the deck coming up at you, especially on a carrier moving through seas, under fire, etc. He mentioned a group of British (or Canadian? I cant recall) and one in particular crashing, and everyone racing down to help but the ammo started 'cooking up' and all they could do was wait...
I just love the plain-Jane looks of the hellcat. It’s so unassuming looking. From an aesthetics point of view this makes it one of my favorite planes of all time.
I met to an old, Japanese guy at at a race track once.
We got to talking.
At one point he claimed he was an expert on 'Corsair'.
Even said he owned 'some' and invited me to look at them and chat about 'the war'.
I was fascinated and took him up on his offer.
My (then) girlfriend and I went to this guy's farm.
He showed us to his barn to talk about his war years.
Within five minutes I realized he had been in a cavalry brigade in China.
And he had said 'horse hair'. Not Corsair.
Oh well...my girlfriend got a kick out of the visit, at least.
☮
Whatever … all I know is I am sooooo proud to say my father mastered the F4U Corsair as a Navy pilot
You can sum this up for "the right tool for the right job". The Hellcat was just what the Navy needed in 1943. Easy to fly for Carrier op's; slow stall speed, great visibility and outmatched the best the Japanese had. The Corsair was a nightmare to land on a carrier but by the time the kamikaze threat emerged it's issues for carrier op's were sorted out and it proved the better interceptor.
I think the main reason for the Corsair longevity was the bomb load . Along with Grumman developing the Bear Cat, to replace the Hellcat on carriers. And suddenly jets took over navel aviation as technology evolved.
on the nose the hellcat carried far less in payload then a corsair ever could so yes the f4u was kept longer for ground attack and as a night fighter intel the skyraider was introduced
I feel like the Hellcat more embodies the American philosophy of the era. Easier to build, easier on pilots, easier on crew... hard on the enemy. The Corsair is a beautiful plane, and the Hellcat is more... utilitarian, so it's easy to see how bias creeps in for the F4U, but the Hellcat is the meat and potatoes. Two amazing planes, in any case. While the Corsair might be higher performance in some regards, and certainly is the prettier plane, I gotta give it to the Hellcat. I'd def hook up with the Corsair and show her off to my friends, but I'd marry the Hellcat.
That's true, the pretty ones always cheat on you.
The Wildcat was a great design and though losses were higher, once the pilots adjusted to the the Zero and it's weaknesses began to gain better results. Once the Hellcat entered service the kill ratio improved quite a lot and it's improvements were stellar. The Wildcat was a stout fighter, heavy and under powered, it's landing gear being narrow really was a huge strike. The Hellcat fixed the landing gear issue, a better fire control system and six 50Caliber Browning machine guns with a better wing, quite a bit more aerodynamic design, even more stout, and the 2800 Wasp radial was a drastic improvement over the Wildcat's 1850
@@chrisharris4975 It's the Corsair and the Hellcat. Nobody is talking about the Wildcat.
the Wildcat pilots after huge losses got wise. They had to and found the weaknesses of the Zero. Yes the Hellcat and the Corsair were the saving grace
The Wildcat was a 1930's design
I would choose to go to war in a Corsair. It had a higher ceiling and was designed to be areodynamic, and so had a higher top speed. This allowed the Corsair to sit above and dive on the enemy, then climb again to repeat the same procedure. It was a highly effective tactic.
The navy scrapped all the Hellcats after WW2 and kept the F4 all the way through the Korean war. So the Navy said the F4 was better. The Hellcat was good enough, until faced with the KI-100. If I was fighting in the pacific I'd want the KI-100 for sure.
@@jeffk464 It was probably a political decision: which congressman's district's factory needed to be kept working in order to get his vote for something else.
And/or, once you built the thing, and already spent the 50% more to build it, then that was a sunk cost, and probably didn't matter which of the two you kept flying. On that basis you could just justify the decision based on speed and the nominal kill ratio.
The Corsairs certainly flew until 1979, but not from carriers. As long as you 1) didn't fly them from carriers they weren't killers and 2) already had built them so they were a sunk cost, 3) no longer were rushing to send as many pilots into combat as possible but could train a bit more, I'd say superior to the Hellcats, even though during the actual fighting I'd say the Hellcat was was the better plane (lost the same pilots, a few more in combat and a few less operationally, but cost half as much and was no problem on carriers).
Highly effective on War Thunder too lol
Aero dynamic with a huge radial engine in a pigs eye it was. Look at the thickness of the wings Look at the short Fuselage from cockpit to tail
Now go and have a look at the P51 Narrow sleek frontage. Wings half as thick and dynamically superior from cockpit to tail .
@@jacktattis > Now go and have a look at the P51
Every time a Corsair fought a P51 the Corsair won.
Regarding the kill/death ratio, one thing I heard was that Marine Corps pilots flying the F4U Corsair were more likely to take greater risks to accomplish the mission than navy pilots flying the Helcat.
There is a story of Marine Corps pilots, while trying to save USS Laffy from Kamikazes, flying their Corsairs down through the USS Laffy's anti-aircraft fire. One Corsair was lost when its Marine pilot colided with the ship.
The comparitive combat hazards experienced by the F6F and F4U during the period 1943-44 is officially explained within paragraph 2(b) on page 79 of the document, "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II" (US Department of Navy publication June 1946) which clearly states:
"Loss rates for carrier-based aircraft were consistently higher than for land-based air-
craft, despite inclusion in the latter of the relatively vulnerable VPB. The reason is that
land-based aircraft generally were assigned to attack the less well-defended rear area targets,
already well beaten down by the carrier forces, such as those in the Marshalls and Philippines.
Also their campaigns against such heavily defended targets as the Rabaul area were of long duration, and by the later stages enemy A/A guns had been greatly reduced in number and ammunition supplies depleted. Carrier aircraft, on the other hand, were constantly reaching out toward the most
heavily defended targets, pressing their attacks close to wipe out such small and vital targets
as grounded aircraft, warships and merchant vessels, and seldom staying long enough to enjoy the
benefits of the reduced A/A defenses resulting from their attacks."
So in essence the environment in which the majority of Hellcat units operated, at least before 1945, was officially considered more dangerous than what land-based Corsairs encountered during the same period.
The same page also states in paragraph 2(e):
"The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same
conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the
F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit."
So the take away is that the F6F was also statically more survivable than the F4U, when utilized in similar roles.
Food for thought....
Great point about the Corsair being forced to fight experienced pilots in late 1942 and 1943. When the Hellcats came into service, far fewer seasoned pilots were available AND the Japanese navy and air force concentrated on opposing American landings. Target rich environment for the Hellcats.
Reminds me of the P51 and P47 debate in Europe war theatre. They were both great planes that undoubtedly with the skill of brave pilots brought allies superior air power. They had different design philosophy and roles but that doesn’t make one better than the other. Appreciate both and the pilots that flew them they deserve it.
that is the truth. the mustang became iconic because of its range - fast production - and its ability to match the best german fighters. with the bombers, it really was a revelation. the idea of a bomber as a " flying fortress " was an idea that was tried for the majority of the war, but turned out that it needed an agile fighter escort achieve good survivability.
It was mentioned that the P-47 had the same engine and the Navy fighters, but casual viewers may not understand that the Army fighter had an exhaust driven turbocharger, giving it a smooth performance curve and better high altitude performance. The gear driven superchargers in the Navy planes delivered the advantage where they could find the Japanese.
The P-47 was considerably more expensive to build than the P-51 or the Hellcat.
The P-47 was considerably more expensive to build than the P-51 or the Hellcat.
@@toomanyuserids And the P-47 was the best at high altitude, where it completed outclassed the F6F. Tools for purposes.
@@gort8203 That would have matter had the Axis powers used many combatant planes at high altitude...which has happened in European Theater of Operation when Germany fought the day bombings.
@@alexhurlbut Huh?? You must be aware that the P-47 was used in the high-altitude escort role over Germany. And the Germans used "combatant planes" that would have run away from the F6F, which was inadequate for that role. Not sure what your point is, but my point was don't try to belittle the P-47 because it was more expensive than a plane with inferior performance.
Note .. though Hellcat and Corsair are excellent fighters, the tide of War first stemmed, then turned with the Wildcat and Dauntless.
Fighting against the most experienced Japanese pilots, and often with odds stacked against them.
Correct. By the time the Hellcat and Corsair came out, the hard part was over. Ditto in Europe: Mustang joined a war that was basically already won by the Thunderbolt.
The Dauntless won the war at Midway.
@@lqr824 the Wildcat held the line, THEN the Corsair led the offensives with the Marines alongside the Hellcats operating from the carriers, during the Island Hopping campaign starting from the Solomon Islands.
@@alexhurlbut Wildcat more than held the line. You could argue the battle of the Pacific was decided at Midway. After that it was just mopping up. Wildcat needs to be fairly credited with actually turning the tide.
@@lqr824 Wildcat wasn't exactly outdoing the Zero, but when the pilots understood better they managed to get the Wildcat ratio against the Zero to roughly 1:1 (kill/loss).
This was simply wonderful - concise, well-written, and the footage chosen was stuff that I largely hadn’t seen before.
I would say that one thing not mentioned is that the plane, that takes pilot back and is ready to go back to war swiftly, is the better one when on carrier, where spare parts, space and crew is limited just as much as a supply of new pilots.
Hellcat was known to be hardy, resilient and easily repaired. That was undeniably very important in war time on carrier, when every minute, every man and every spare part counts.
Did a college aerodynamics paper on F-4U vs F6F.
Very similar aircraft, with a slight drag advantage to the F-4U. Not enough to make a significant difference tho.
The F-4U paid for that drag advantage edge with increased complexity design wise.
Both great planes. As shown by the navy who elected to use both.
The Corsair with the same engine had a greater rate of climb, a better turning radius and a top speed fifty miles per hour faster. these are the things that made it better in some occasions, The F6F had a better chance of landing on an aircraft carrier , mabey better chance of getting shot up and returning home much like the wildcat.
4翔プロペラの場合ヘルキャットは何ｋｍ/ｈ出るか知りたいです
Among the many inconsistencies, to put them mildly, in this video is the fact that not only did Pratt&Whitney accidentally discover water injection in 1936 when an engineer was playing around with seeing how much water their engine's could injest while flying through a cloud, but water injection was not put on US aircraft from it being discovered on downed A6M Zero's, I'm actually unaware of any variant of the A6M that had water injection that saw service, as far as i know there was a single prototype made late in the war with a -31 variant engine but it failed to produce the power desired and never went beyond the single failed prototype, there were some variant's of Japanese fighter's with water injection on their engine's towards the end of the war but not many, but I can assure you that Pratt&Whitney was putting water injection on their aircraft engine's long before anyone would have gotten a look at any Japanese aircraft that would have had it, they knew about it years before the war even broke out on anyone's front, it was the other way around, Axis aircraft started installing water injection on their aircraft including Germany after finding it on captured US aircraft, the US is who pioneered water injection, that's strictly a US thing.
Also i don't know where you get that the F6F started seeing combat AFTER the F4U, they both entered combat at approximately the same time with the F6F being the original carrier based fighter whilst the F4U was deployed to both Marine and Navy ground based units at the same time, VF-17 who was carrier qualified and shipped out for the Solomon Islands Campaign on the USS Bunker Hill and was pulled from it when the Bunker Hill put in at Pearl Harbor along the way for provisions, VF-17 unloaded from the Bunker Hill with an F6F squadron replacing them, VF-17 was then put onboard another carrier that took them too the Solomon's where they occupied their new land base, it's not like the Navy didn't use F6F's until after they were already using the F4U, as stated between the two the F6F was the original carrier fighter, and that was simply because of maintenance issues, the landing difficulties of the F4U have been widly exaggerated over the year's especially by the people who like to propagate the myth that the US Navy couldn't land them reliably on carrier's until after the British showed them how, that's an absolute bedtime story fairytale that doesn't stand up the least bit to facts, starting in early Spring of 1943 when VF-17 was carrier qualifying on a converted steamship in the Chesapeake Bay it was VF-17 that worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A, it was VF-17 themselves and not even with assistance from Vought who came up with the short wedge shaped piece of wood fitted to the leading edge of the right wing in a particular location that solved the problem of the right wing stalling ar low speed.
The reason why the F4U was removed from carrier service had absolutely NOTHING to do with landing them, by the time VF-17 shipped out on the Bunker Hill for the Solomon's they'd more than mastered landing on carrier's with the F4U and is why they were given permission to keep them by the Admiral in charge of the task force, but on the way to Pearl Harbor for their provisions it was a decision by ComAirLamp (the Navy department responsible for maintenance and parts for all naval aircraft) to exclude the F4U from carrier service based entirely on maintenance and parts issues, Tommy Blackburn, the commander of VF-17 said in his book that the F4U, particularly the early variant, was "over engineered" leading to parts shortages with components unique to the F4U and the early variant's totally unnecessary automatic systems like the automatic flap controls, those along with other unnecessary systems were constantly broken always causing VF-17's early F4U's to be deadlined awaiting parts, although as promised by Vought brand new F4U-1A's were supplied to VF-17 before they shipped out on the USS Bunker Hill for the Solomon's he knew even after they left that there was a chance that ComAirLand would pull them from carrier service based on maintenance issues with his fears coming true when they arrived at Pearl Harbor, maintenance was such an issue with the F4U that even maintenance crews were understaffed from the lengthy syllabus in the training program for it's maintenance crews, although disappointed with the Navy's decision Blackburn fully understood why they did it, things like half a carrier squadrons fighter's being deadlined because parts on a carrier aren't available since whatever it ships out with is whatever it has.
F4U's were returned to service for the very reason of something your video points out, it's climb rate, in June of 1944 the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest, this scared the Navy's admiralty, they decided to put a unit of F4U's on each Essex class carrier with the thinking being that in the event of an incoming force of Japanese aircraft they could launch first with their superior climb rate to intercept incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through the F4U's, that's the reason they were returned to carrier service with the US Navy, not because they'd wanted to have them on carrier's all along but couldn't because they couldn't figure out how to land their own airplane on their own carrier's with the British later teaching them how so then they returned them to carrier's, that's a fairytale that takes advantage of an involved story with a timeline of events, the fact is when it came to landing F4U's on a carrier the Navy already had that figured out, it wasn't the problem people make it out to be with their wild exaggerations, matter of fact when VF-17 was getting carrier qualified on a converted steamship that could barely make 23 knots, the minimum safe headwind for landing an aircraft like the F4U, not only did it not have any fatalities they didn't even have any injuries.
The combat hazards experienced by the F6F and F4U during the period 1943-44 is officially explained within paragraph 2(b) on page 79 of the document, "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - World War II" (US Department of Navy publication June 1946) which clearly states:
"Loss rates for carrier-based aircraft were consistently higher than for land-based air-
craft, despite inclusion in the latter of the relatively vulnerable VPB. The reason is that
land-based aircraft generally were assigned to attack the less well-defended rear area targets,
already well beaten down by the carrier forces, such as those in the Marshalls and Philippines.
Also their campaigns against such heavily defended targets as the Rabaul area were of long duration, and by the later stages enemy A/A guns had been greatly reduced in number and ammunition supplies depleted. Carrier aircraft, on the other hand, were constantly reaching out toward the most
heavily defended targets, pressing their attacks close to wipe out such small and vital targets
as grounded aircraft, warships and merchant vessels, and seldom staying long enough to enjoy the
benefits of the reduced A/A defenses resulting from their attacks."
So in essence the environment in which the majority of Hellcat units operated, at least before 1945, was officially considered more dangerous than what land-based Corsairs encountered during the same period.
The same page also states in paragraph 2(e):
"The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same
conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the
F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit."
So the take away is that the F6F was also statically more survivable than the F4U, when utilized in similar roles.
Food for thought....
Also don't forget the Corsair was a new and innovative, the F6F was a complete 're-dsign', or successor really, of the Wildcat but they had a starting point with data and experience.
June 1938, U.S. Navy signed a contract with Vought for a prototype bearing the factory designation V-166B,[6] the XF4U-1.
3 years later the Navy signed the contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941.
Three years at this point in aircraft design history meant a fair impact.
It seems clear from the design philosophy and procurement history that the Corsair was the high risk, high performance project while the F6F was more of a known quantity based upon design concepts already proven on the F4F that the Navy took on as a lower risk backup to the Corsair... This was especially true as the Corsair ran into some teething problems during its development process and also with the F6F the Navy had another design that is based upon proven concepts that could be put into production quickly and immediately and in large numbers which was crucial as the country enters the war...
Great video. My Dad was a B-17 copilot who got me interested in WWII planes so I built models of all the great planes. The Corsair had the advantage in terms of stats I read and looks but I always admired the rugged simplicity of the Hellcat. These great videos in recent years come at a time when Americans need reminding not only of our brave heritage but of the tenacious and determined engineers who helped us win the war. Now we need more of this mission oriented leadership for challenges ahead with China, and less careerism in the military services and less contract mongering shown in the defense industry.
Sweet man.. My grandpa was a b25 pilot in Okinawa. RIP Robert Merle Blair was in the Army Air Core. He just died a few years ago before he turned 99 :(
The B-17 shot down more enemy fighters than any other plane.
I was just at my local air museum today and they had both of these airplanes side-by-side, very cool to see them both in person. Personally I’m more partial to the Corsair because of the inverted gull wings
I waited so badly for this one, for me, both of them were formidable fighters and had their own positives and negatives.....
The narrative suggests that the Hellcat's water injection was based on information from captured Japanese airplanes. I think that what is intended is that the Hellcat was designed with input from captured Japanese planes. That's a common myth, but it is not true.
Exactly the Hellcat was already finished production wise and used nothing from the Zero the benifit of the captured Zero was more on the tactical end.
If you are going to war on a carrier you want reliability and the plane that is more pilot friendly, easier to fly which means less fatigue. The Hellcat was not better but it was more suitable to give to the average pilot.
That I would agree with finally although I think in a 1 vs 1 situation I still think if I were a good to great pilot I would choose a Corsair.
Over sea, that extra basic range would have been a life-saving feature.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad You adjust your combat radius to the fuel available so you avoid getting into a sticky situation. 🙂
Yes, that's sensible, but unexpected events can disrupt plans, so a bit extra in the tank is re-assuring . . . @@Slaktrax
@@EllieMaes-Grandad That's what drop tanks are for 🙂
Many Zero aces lost their lives when thinking they were facing a Wildcat only to find out it was the Hellcat. The zeros would fly straight up while being chased by a wildcat. the Wildcat would stall and the Zero would swoop down for the kill. Imaging the shock when they went to swoop down to only see the hellcat fastly approaching as it shredded the Zero. The Corsair's ability for ground attack especially with Napalm was devastating. The long nose of the Corsair made it very difficult for Aircraft landing especially when allies turned to night missions.. The P-38 was another amazing long range fighter
The F4F Wildcat did the heavy lifting. Thinning the ranks of experienced Zero veterans considerably prior to the arrival of either the Corsair or the Hellcat.
I love them both and my mother was a WAVE aviation machinist mate (AMM2/c) in WW2 and worked on the engines of both airplanes.
I hope every one of you get to hear a big radial engine like these start up at least once in your life. What power.
But which is better? Depends on better at what, overall? I'll take them both.
My cousin flew their replacement, the Bearcat.
Nice video and a good summation of these two iconic fighters.
My father-in-law was fighter ace in WW2 in the Pacific and spent time as a POW in Korea. He never talked about it much but in one of the few times I was able to get him to talk he said he preferred the F4U. Said he liked how the plane "wrapped around" him.
Although I'm a Corsair fan, there's no doubt of the contribution of the Hellcat. Corsair was a beast to land on a carrier. The Hellcat was instrumental in the Great Marrianas Turkey Shoot. While the Corsair helped to win the Solomon Islands.
By the time the Korean war erupted, the hellcat was considered obsolete in the jet era as a pure fighter. The F4U Corsair, on the other hand, was widely used in Korea as a close air support platform because of versatility as a fighter bomber, versatility in ordinance capabilities, and ability to stay on station much longer than the jets. Both aircraft were exceptional for what they were designed for.
The Corsair was also obsolete by the time of the Jet Age. It was used in Korea because it served very well as a rugged ground attack aircraft. It was a great plane for sure. But the question was which plane was the best fighter? Since both were used as fighters in WWII you have to make that time period as a comparison. And in that War, it wasn't even close. The Hellcat was used in far greater numbers, shot down way more enemy planes, was faster and easier and cheaper to mass produce, and didn't kill new pilots like the Corsair did. That's why the Navy rejected the Corsair. The Hellcat was by far the more successful fighter.
@@LA_Commander Your statement is non sequitur. You need to familiarize yourself with the meaning of obsolete. A weapon that is still being used, by definition, can not be obsolete. It may not be the newest or best, but that is not the meaning of the term. The Corsair survived WW2, the Hellcat did not. I know of no military that flew the hellcat up to the 1960's, I do the Corsair. The simple fact is it survived because it was better suited for specific combat roles that neither the Hellcat nor jet aircraft could match.
@@allanboyer2769 You completely missed the point. The question was which one was the best fighter. The Corsair was not used as a fighter in Korea, it was a ground attack aircraft. Could it shoot down enemy planes if it had to? You bet! But it was already made obsolete as a first line fighter plane due to the next generation jet fighters. We were already on the second generation of jets by then. Even the P-80 was being replaced by the F-86. So that leaves us with WWII in which both the F4U and the F6F were used as fighters. When you compare the two records of those fighters, actually being used AS fighters, it's not even close. The Hellcat shot down more that twice (almost 3x) as many enemy planes as the Corsair. It served as the primary Navy fighter. It served in greater numbers. More pilots flew it. I look at the actual records. What did the plane actually do. One can cite abstract and hypothetical stats like greater top speed and so on and so forth, but at the end of the day what did the plane actually do? A fighter is meant to gain air superiority and shoot down enemy planes. And the Hellcat just did that in far greater numbers. So there's your 'non sequitur' for you.
@@LA_Commander Completely a matter of opinion. What is the best candy bar? The one who sells the most?
@allanboyer2769 nope. The fact that one of the two was used and flown in greater numbers, was flown by far more pilots, and shot down almost 3x as many enemy planes are documented historical facts. Not matters of opinion.
One last stat - the Corsair remained in production until 1953. New Corsairs were sent to Korea. In fact, the last Corsair combat missions were flown in Central America in 1961
There's also a discrepancy in the number of each aircraft that was made. While the overall numbers between the Corsair and the Hellcat are extremely similar, the Hellcat's production was ended in 1945 while the Corsairs numbers reflect it's last plane being built in 1952. This means that there were significantly fewer Corsairs during the wartime years than there were Hellcats. When you take the numbers difference of active aircraft into consideration the kill numbers of the Corsair become far more impressive. They achieved their amazing records with significantly fewer aircraft. Without taking the actual numbers of total aircraft into consideration you don't have an accurate representation of the effectiveness of a particular aircraft.
I'm not convinced one was "better" than the other by any large margin but if I were forced to choose one based on all the data, the Corsair would be the clear choice. Fortunately for the world the allies had both.
I was thinking the whole video that the Hellcat had superior numbers during the period.
Bearcats were an post war aircraft and super good. Should they have been in the war would have been a great aircraft. On to 1950 we had just a few prop planes and the Bearcat was too small and fast, the Corsair had the ability to carry bombs and rockets and have six fifty calliber guns in the wings. Was chosen. There are MIG 15 JETS shot down down by the F4U Corsair. This is a testament to the F4U Corsair. It is and will always be one of the greatest fighters, bombers and ground defense aircraft ever. Not many aircraft were great at all of these roles.
Yeah and also the F4U flew a much higher VBF-VRF / VF ratio than the F6F. F6 didn't have night fighter version till the very end in the -5N. The F4U-2 didn't get the N designation though it was the first night fighter / recon. 46% of F4U loses where due to ground / shipboard fire, 48% for the F6 (excluding operational loses for either). 189 F4 versus 270 F6 are the actual air combat loses. When you do the math, the F6 was 80% as effective as the F4 ... AS A FIGHTER.
@@ejrupp9555 except that your math is wrong. 2100 for 189 vs 5500 for 270.... .9 vs .49, the corsair was lost at twice the rate in air to air as the hellcat...
@@Reylock118 the claim of 13 to 1 against zeros less against others but 19 to 1 total how does that work out? because they counted ground attack. And the marines ground campaign was more against supply not air fields or carriers. Also the f4u fought in less favorable odds ... there's a reason they called it a turkey shoot ... the f6f fought many VF missions where they had the numbers advantage and against less experienced opponents My uncles flew both in the Korean war and my granddad in ww2, they all said the corsair was preferred ... it'd the reason the corsair continued and the f6f didn't and the bearcat was envisioned ... the f6f wasn't fast enough and it didn't dive as well as the corsair. As my uncles said .. .the f6f dove just fine ... it just took too long doing it because it's Vfc and Vne was slower.
My numbers are for per plane per VF mission. It's a value figure.
I would like to have seen production & deployment numbers in squadrons compared. This could explain part of the difference in kills.
The difference in kills was because of the difference in the initial deployment of each type. Corsair’s went to land based on the islands, while hellcats went to carriers. By 43 the Japanese navy had been severely impacted by attrition, and had already lost over half of their experienced pilots and maintenance crews, and the F6F faced an ever more inexperienced opponent. Meanwhile the Japanese were absolutely determined to hold the islands at all costs, and the island bases still had most of their experienced pilots and maintenance crews, and they were able put up a much more determined fight. Simply, the difference in kill rates was the result of one plane facing a tougher opponent, while the other plane faced an easier opponent. Had the rolls been reversed, the kill ratios would have been at least equally reversed, perhaps even slightly more so.
Very nicely detailed and presented, thanks.
Ah now you know a video got attention when the armoured carriers people show up.
Speaking of which.
This video covered the Pacific and the American side of things.
However both aircraft were used in the fleet Air arm.
I've read much your website and watch your videos.
Got anything to add to this from the royal navy's perspective?
Heh, "armoredcarriers person". Glad you found my stuff interesting. The only thing to add is that the RN found both aircraft to be excellent and vital (filling the FAA design and development gap fallout from the Battle of Britain's emergency focus of all aircraft industry on just a few RAF designs). The Corsair saw more service, but only because it was made available earlier (when it was unpopular with the USN). When it became popular, then the Hellcats were made available as an alternative. But only a couple of squadrons reached the Pacific, and many of those were night fighter variants. @@Caktusdud.
Wonderful video, many thanks.
The F4U was better in all performance metrics except one: Cost. We could buy 3 Hellcats for the cost of 2 Corsairs. Post war, the Hellcat was quickly retired while the Corsair was retained.
The F4U MANOEUVRED LIKE A DOUBLE DECKER BUS.
The Hellcat also had a better armor package and was a bit more durable and able to withstand a lot more damage than the Corsair.
There's a great book out, Ghost by Thompson-Grant in 1987. Great excerpt by David McCampbell who was a f6f pilot. One pane in his squadron returned after a mission and had 117 bullet holes in it. His plane got shot up by antiaircraft fire, belly tank on fire, hydraulic fluid fire, loss of rudder control, partial loss of aileron control, loss of radio, couldn't lower the wheels with hydraulic power. Made it back to the carrier 135 miles away. another mission his wingman got hit by antiaircraft fire, made it back to the carrier. You could see the number nine piston moving up and down.
Good video. Considering the same power plant the performance differences were surprising. I assume the Hellcat's internal fuel capacity was greater which hurt its climb and speed but helped its range. The question isn't what an improved Hellcat would do. It is how the Corsair would compare against the F7F and F8F, which replaced the Hellcat. Vought had one plane. Grumman just kept cranking out winners.
Fuel capacity differences were 15 gallons. Not enough to affect performance at all.
The big difference was aerodynamics and engine tuning, which favored the Corsair.
Enjoyed the Commentary. Look forward to more!
One of the best things about the Hellcat was that it was relatively easy to mass produce, far less expensive than the Corsair, which allowed greater numbers of Hellcats to get into the battle as soon as possible. Maintenance was straightforward and the Hellcat was a forgiving airplane for beginners.
Both F6 Hellcat and F4 Corsair were issued to the French Air Force in Indochina. But only the last one was used in Suez crisis in 1956 and in Algeria.
Both were great airplanes, that served specific needs. The Hellcat made average pilots into aces, being forgiving and rugged to fly. The Corsair was a hot rod, with 2000 HP engine took more attention to take off, fly, and land. But in good hands that bad boy could fly like an acrobat, and go like a bat outta hell when the throttle was opened all the way.
No it was a terrible dogfighter
Let’s see, in 1943 there was a series of head to head tests against the P-51B. Corsair absolutely dominated in EVERY aspect of maneuverability, rate of climb, roll rate, etc. the speed was essentially even to 25,000’ where the P-51 had a slight advantage. The only clear win for the mustang was dive speed. And this was woman original F4U-1 birdgcage model!
In 1944 it was directly tested against the F6F, again Corsair won absolutely everything.
It was later tested against the P-47, the p-38, the BF-109 and the FW-190. Again, winner was the Corsair, with its closest rival being the FW-190.
Sorry, but reality disproves your claim.
@@scrappydude1 Crap the Corsair in ww2 was a lumbering piece of rubbish
@@jacktattis Your just being a troll now for the sake of it.
@@blank557 No not really you fan boys do not do any research .
If I remember correctly from another video like this, the Corsair was very expensive compared to the Hellcat. It had a smooth surface where the Hellcat had rivets sticking out of it's skin. This definitely contributed to cost and probably reduced drag.
The F6F was far superior in engineering and construction. All F6F's were built at Grumman's Long Island facility. The F4U was farmed out to various manufacturers. Quality control at Grumman was at a much higher level. Those "rivets" you mentioned were just another indication of the strength and durability of the F6F.
@@AmericasChoice Strength and durability are not superior engineering, they are easily achieved by excess material when it comes to airplanes and race cars. Superior engineering is making it strong enough while lighter and smoother than it would be if you just threw more material at it.
@@gort8203 The F6F was superior in its concept and design. It's durability and strength were a result of superior engineering. Grumman did NOT throw material at it to make it stronger, but used innovative design features to add strength. You need to learn a something about how F6F's were designed and manufactured, ONLY at Grumman's facility on Long Island. The P-47 was another plane that had strength built into its design without sacrificing performance, and it was better than the P-51 for the same reasons the F6F was better than the F4U. Crack open a book or two, Gort.
@@AmericasChoice LOL! You are opining about which aircraft was superior in order to try to invalidate my general statement about what constitutes superior engineering when I didn't even say which airplane I think was better. Why don't you read what I said instead of getting triggered into a fanboy outrage by it? Strength and durability are easy. Strength and durability while providing superior performance is superior engineering. Same for race cars as for fighter planes. Durability keeps you in the fight, but performance is what wins the fight, and excess durability hinders performance. By the way, you are obviously ignorant about which of these two aircraft had superior performance, because it was not the F6F. Crack open a book or two yourself. You sound like a PR man for Grumman.
@@gort8203 Poor little Gort is the one triggered. I never said the F6F had superior performance, in fact if you read my other comments in this stream you will see I acknowledged the F4U was superior in speed and range, but that does not mean it was a superior fighter aircraft. Try researching what former Japanese pilots said, they ALL say the F6F was the more dangerous foe in arial combat. You are the fanboy/shill for the F4U, a plane that did nothing it was supposed to do, a complete failure in aircraft carrier operations, UNTIL the Brits started poking holes in the landing gear strut shock absorbers. I guarantee you are under 30 and never read one comprehensive book on either aircraft, or it's history in combat operations. Run along little boy...and go play on your fighter video games.
Most of the F4U Corsair's service live was with the USMC whose main assignment was ground attack.
The F4U corsair was still flying and fighting in the 50's and in the Korean War even claimed Mig 15 kills while the F6F Hellcat was retired from service when WW2 was over, so the F4U has to be considered the best overall, the higher kill ratio of the F6F was mainly achieved at the "great Mariana turkey shoot "against low quality untrained opponents late in the war.
And the fact that they were used for different missions the Corsair was used more as a fighter bomber and for ground support by the Marines.
It was not ‘mainly achieved at the Mariana Turkey shoot’. Hellcat has 5000+ victories. It maintained that kill ratio throughout its service.
F4U was a good airframe, but not optimized for its role as well as the Hellcat. Hellcat is the better dogfighter. The F4U was used in CAS in Korea and had power plants reaching up to and over 3000 HP. Korean era F4Us need to be compared to F8Fs … which would absolutely demolish the Corsair in a dogfight. The Corsair is a legendary aircraft, but the numbers don’t lie. The Hellcat was the more successful fighter.
@@thecircusfreak5364 You are right, the numbers don't lie, the F6F may have been a better fighter against Japan but the F4U was used by more air forces during WW2 and by even more air forces after the war, the F6F was superseded by the F8F but even that was retired after the war while the F4U was still being built and put into service,it's versatility and longevity are legendary.
1 MIG 15 KILL and the F4U pilot must have had a horseshoe up his ass that day. You make it sound like corsairs were routinely shooting down mig 15,s in Korea. BS, That was the F8 crusaders & F86 Sabres jobs.
A very well-done presentation! Both of these magnificent AC served the US well and presenting both of their strengths and weaknesses made them equal in my eyes.
Got to see an F4U fly at an air show in VA beach a few days ago for the first time and it was such an amazing experience. Truly a remarkable aircraft
The problem with the Corsair was the port side wind stalled first and that is also the same way the planes wants to go from engine torque.when power is added. They solved the problem of the port wing stalling first by adding a small block on the starboard wing so it would stall at the same time the port side does. When you look at Corsair pictures you will see this block just outbound of the guns.
The Hellcat was more practical, but the Corsair was the thouroughbred (and a 4 year older design)
We are most fortunate to have these amazing warbirds in our service.
Great as Always !
That comparison was well done.
The difference between the Corsair and the Hellcat was that the Hellcat mounted the 13 ft fighter prop, while the Corsair mounted the 16 ft bomber prop, and therefore actually utilized the full horsepower of the engine. Geoff Rohde
that was my first thought before the comparison and alone accounts for the marginal superiority.
@@johnklatt3522 Thinking about the physics. Adding six inches to the end of a 6'6" prop to bring the diameter to 14 feet, at an rpm of 2700 [45 beats per second] circumference out there is 44 feet. tip speed = 2000f/s
The added area from 13 to 14' is 18 feet.
That is a four foot three square moving at 2000 feet per second... roughly.
Bit of added thrust there.
Yeah there is no way the frame could have handled a 16' diameter without chopping a lot of resources to bits.
Gotta plant the peas now.
For length of combat service ... the Corsair. Saw combat service right up to 1969 with both Honduras and El Salvador both flying the Corsairs.
And those countries were as poor as church mice
I remember seeing an entire flight line of F4U aircraft in 1960 at a small airstrip near Jacksonville, Florida. These aircraft were bound for a Central American nation but, I don't know which nation.
@@richardpcrowe either given away cheap or just given away. The USA was trying to be the dominant force on the Americas
a friend of mine was a IP during ww2 he flew the f4f, f6f the f4u-1 and the f4u-4 and sometimes the avenger , and even got a little time in the p-51. he was quite fond of the f4u-1 as it was lighter than the -4s but had difficult to start flooding updraft carburation. sometimes causing fires in an attempted start. the -4 had tremendous power and was a rocket in a climb . the -4 had improved carbs that stopped the flooding and fires . i think the f-6f was about $36k and was quick to build while the f4u ran $80k and took up more resources to build. the -4s were more of a fighter bomber and set up to use the landing gear as a dive break for bombing.. being the f6f was on the carriers sooner i think they had more contact with enemy ac than the F4Us, the build of both AC was that the F6F was a mature design , while the F4U had a lot more development potential . best i can recall he had nothing bad to say about any of them--
Excellent video!!
Hellcat - for ease of flying but especially longer range - over water thats critical. Nice presentation - thanks.
TRUE.
Ease of flying is everything. Having a predictable plane allows you to focus on fighting the enemy and not fighting the plane.
5:37 The same roll rate?
These are the data from the flight report of F4U-1D and NACA report on the F6F-3's aeliron: (deg/sec)
F4U-1D @ 150 knot:
left roll: 73, right roll: 70.
F4U-1D @ 200 knot:
Left roll: 84, right roll: 76.
F6F-3 stock @ 150 knot:
left roll: ~55, right roll: ~60
F6F-3 stock @ 200 knot:
left roll: ~70, right roll: ~75
F6F-3 with spring tab aeliron @ 150 knot: *note the spring tab one could roll better than the stock one at really high speed like around 270+ knot.
left roll: ~52, right roll: ~54
F6F-3 with spring tab aeliron @ 200 knot:
left roll: ~65, right roll: ~65
I don't think these are close to be called 'similar' or anything. But if you have the source that say otherwise, can you give me the name of that source, I want to read them too.
7:40 Weaker gear system?
Vought literlly designed the landing gear to be short and strong to the point that they could be used as air brake. They're by-no-mean 'weak' or 'prone to failure', it's just that their oleo were too bouncy and were not as good at absorbing the shock, resulting in the aircraft bouncing around after a bad impact. You can check out video of F4U's accidents and you would rarely see the landing gear itself failed.
Thanks for saving me from commenting on F4U landing gear strength.
Excellent informative post👍
Thank you for this video.
According to the 1944 Navy evaluation , which directly compared the two, the Corsair was both a better fighter and a substantially more versatile aircraft overall, including considered fully as suited to carrier operations The board “strongly “ recommended that the Navy begin phasing out the F6F in favor of the Corsair. The difference in kill ratios has nothing whatever to do with any supposed superiority of the F6F, but rather has everything to do with the nature of the average opponent each type faced.
let's ask the British , as they ALSO used both fighters , although initially, the Hellcat (in British service ) was known as the Grumman Gannet Mark I
Love channels and content like this!! 🤓🥳
Great comparison!
The Corsair also served as an air racer at Reno up through the 1990s. It is the perfect combination of speed, climb, dive, maneuverability, ruggedness and firepower, especially the F4U4 variant which is a BEAST!
The F4U-4 post war, and in the war it was always beaten by the P51 in all the things you quote
The real hero is the Pratt & Whitney company
And their engineer George Meade
accurate
Rolls Royce used in the plane that, went higher, dived further, climbed faster, turned tighter than any plan in the US inventory
R1820 R2000 R2800
@@jacktattis BS And they were so short legged they could only fight in their own "backyard" !!!! DUUUUHH!!!!!!
The thing about the navy aircraft, they didn’t have to fly 4 hours on O2 at 30k to get to the fight, then 4 hour to get home.
PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT - the final answer: IT'S A DRAW, which you concluded. Thank you for the post and facts. I just wish the F8F BearCat was available then 🙂
Awesome analysis of the two planes! I always loved the Corsair, having watched Baa Baa Black Sheep growing up. Love your videos, keep up the good work!🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The F8F Bearcat was an even more viscous plane, smaller , lighter and 50 MPH faster . The Corsair has the beautiful lines, as a Navy plane with the long nose and tail dragger landing gear was a nightmare to land on a carrier deck. For the Marines it was a perfect land based air superiority fighter, bomber and close ground support aircraft. It was so good that it was still service in 1950 during the Korean war.
I believe you, but "it was so good that it was still in service in 1950 during the korean war" is crazy
@@815cu1tb0i Great aircraft with eight fifty caliber guns. It was slower than the jets thrown against it. The corsair actually did well against the jets.
@@815cu1tb0i Maybe the brass knew that they were already built. the Corsair were built by the thousands
They didn’t call the Corsair the Ensign Eliminator for nothing. It was a nightmare for new pilots to land on a carrier.
Thanks a lot ! Great , important history.
There was a version of the Hellcat that used a four bladed propeller that made it faster, a little over 400 MPH if I remember right. Why they didn’t use one from the start, or even after the testing with the four bladed prop is beyond me. Always use the best parts you can!
My old neighbor flew the Corsair during the Korean War, but never saw combat. I asked him what it was like to fly it, and he said it was incredible on how it could have so much power. He loved it!
You’re probably thinking of the F8F Bearcat, which came out too late for service in the war.
There was no F6F with 4 blade props and 400+ mph speeds
It was the XF6F-6 that used the 4 bladed prop and same R 2800 variant as the F4U-4
XF6F-6 prototype@@scrappydude1
Corsair cost a bit more than what it took to build two Hellcats . Cost has everything to do with the choice . Two Corsairs or five Hellcats ,
I think it was more like 60% of the cost of a Hellcat. The prices changed constantly though so there might be a point the exact ratio you state was the case.
The kept corsairs after the war.......
Well they did not use the Hellcat after the war but they did use the Corsair.
@@jameshannagan4256 Sure, once they stupidly built them, why not use them.
They stupidly built even more Hellcats but for some reason they did not ever use them after the war.@@lqr824
Love the ending because it can def be said that we wouldn’t have won the war without one or the other. They were amazing compliments in their day no doubt and both incredibly successful and incredibly lethal. Great video!
Excellent over view of these two iconic aircraft. It was Royal Navy pilots that eventually developed the techniques for carrier use of the Corsair.
What’s your point?
Please show your source, that the WEP was developed 'partly from captured Japanese zeros."
Zero was found mostly intact in the Aleutian islands. Lessons from that were incorporated into Hellcat. Much is written about it. Bearcat gained much from captured FW-190.
@@thomasking4136The Aleutian Zero was found in July, 1942. The Hellcat first flew in June, 1942.
Difficult to incorporate anything from something you don't yet have.
@@mbryson2899 I read the book “Zero.” That may be where the myth originated. You sir are correct. Thank you for the info. I checked an article from US Naval Institute and a couple other sources. Thanks again.
@@thomasking4136 That's why we come here, isn't it? Sharing, asking, debunking, all that good stuff! 👍
@@thomasking4136 Both those myths are completely false. Both airplane were on the drawing board before those enemy airplanes were seen by Grumman.
Well done and professional.
I had no idea they were even considered close enough in quality to merit a comparison video. The video explains the difference in performance statistics. 2:20 explains the difference in kill ratios.
Strategic-level officers may have loved the Hellcat's superior range and lower maintenance burden, but if I had to stake my life on the the quality of the aircraft I was flying, then like the navy pilots surveyed at 8:04, I'd rather do it in a Corsair.
The British adopted the Corsair on their Pacific carriers and solved the landing difficulties by adopting a turning approach on landing which enabled the pilot to have visual contact with the deck until the last few seconds of the approach. The Corsair's gull-wing design was the factor that made landing visibility a problem.
If anything the inverted gull wing would make sightlines better, not worse. What made visibility poor is that the cockpit was moved behind the trailing edge of the wing so that a larger fuel cell could be put over the center of gravity. It was the long nose of F4U that made landing visibility difficult, not the wing.
Originally, the Corsair had a fuselage tank in the wing carry-through section -- but with that complicated gull wing structure, it proved impossible to seal it properly. This led to the stretched fuse, the rearward cockpit location, and a nickname: "hose-nose". Yep, landing visibility musta been crap.
F6 had a successor, the f8 while the corsair did not, so there is that as well. Would be interesting to learn more about their use in Europe and compare to planes associated more with that theater
Check out Greg's airplanes and automobiles he did a great video on just that
True but successor was a totally new airframe. The Corsair was used in Korea by the US and again in French Indo-China as AU-1(US) and F4U-7(French).Hellcat had more kills as it primary function was fleet defense while Corsair was used by Marines as a tactical fighter. SPECIAL NOTE HERE: A Corsair gained fame in Korea as the ride of Guy Bordelon sic the only night fighter ace, only prop driven ace, and only night fighter ace of that war. That said I wouldn't feel slighted having to fly either one.
Not sure what you are trying to say. The F6F needed a successor because its speed and climb performance was not enough. The F4u didn't need a successor, it was its own successor and went to the next war in which neither the F6F or the F8F participated. Of all of them I would prefer to fly the F8F, but it was a later design and should have been "better".
They would probably had done ok against the Early Types but the later types would have been too much
@@gort8203 The Hellcat had a better climb rate than the F4U-I
Excellent!
Great video. You should do one on the P47 Thunderbolt vs. P51 Mustang.
Yes it would be interesting The P51 would win because of its superior Tactical Mach
It sounds like by the time the Hellcat was deployed the Corsairs had already removed most of Japan's best pilots. And then the Corsair was moved into a ground attack role. The Corsair was also used for much longer than the Hellcat, right up into the Korean War.
Hellcat Aug 43 and straight into battle Corsair April 43 and had a lot of problems
That's because the F8F Bearcat came out right at the end of WWII. This was designed to replace the Hellcat. So that's why the Hellcat wasn't used after the War.
Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer insisted the Corsair had little if any speed advantage in level flight. Meyer said a Hellcat could keep pace with a Corsair yet show a significantly lower indicated air speed. He attributed this to the different design and set up of their pitot systems.
Navy pilots depended on DEAD RECKONING to navigate at sea, which involves measuring time and airspeed accurately to figure out where you are. Even a few miles off could place your carrier totally out of sight, and it would be apparent in a matter of days if that was happening. ALL aircraft of WWII had an indicated air speed that HAD to be corrected, and they had correction numbers to do that right in the manual. There's no freaking way that these correction tables wouldn't account for "different design and set up of their pitot systems." And Meyer ABSOLUTELY knew that. Either he was lying to say that, or you're lying that he said it.
Hello@@lqr824, I think you misunderstood the situation. He's talking about real events where they were comparing the actual readings on air speed indicators. They weren't using correction tables. The USN had bailed a Corsair to Grumman and a Hellcat to Vought to develop ideas for their own aircraft. Corky had a funny story of having a Hellcat's air speed indicator recalibrated to match the Corsair's indicator. However, they got caught by the USN when a Navy pilot was flying around at zero knots. Corky also realized that part of the problem was supercharger air intake differences.
@@lqr824 Flight Journal, 01 July, 2021 "Navy taste test: Hellcat vs. Corsair." There are also other web sites that come up when googling the Hellcat vs. Corsair speed issue.