F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by MikeGazdik

I answered this based off the question; P-47 vs F6F. And my answer was F6f. I take the question as meaning you vs the other guy. IF I had to choose one and then dogfight the other, I would take the F6F. I think my chances would be slightly better.

If I was supposed to answer as to which was the best aircraft based upon history and what it accomplished, then once again another tough argument, and I am not sure which to pick.

I personally like the P-47 better. But I wouldn't want to dogfight a Hellcat if I didn't have to while flying the Jug.

Except in ground support role - If I see the other guy first I would prefer the 47 in comparable year versions, particularly mid 1944 forward. I know the F6F is superior in low altitude but not by much!

The 47 had so many options including dive/zoom for superior altitude, faster, rolled better, much better climb above 25K.. much faster abover 10K, heavier fire power. The Jug doesn't have to play 'turn' unless on the deck.

[TheMustangRider]

Both the P-38 and the P-47 were excellent fighters and were lethal countering Luftwaffe fighters when they fought under their terms but in the ETO where endurance was the name of the game the contributions of the P-51 are impossible to deny nor ignore, the Mustang didn't just offer the capability to protect bombers until their targets and back but also the capacity to hunt down German fighter in their own skies until the allies had the solid ground in Europe and long range was not longer a necesity. By the end of the war both the P-38 and the P-47 had matured greatly but earlier it was the Mustang which helped greatly in achiving air superiority for the allies.

[Clay_Allison]

Just realized that the P-47 was more than twice as expensive as the F6F; owning, no doubt, to the complex and expensive turbocharger (as opposed to the Supercharger on the F6F).

F6F: $35,000 in 1945
P-51: $50,985 in 1945
P-47: $85,000 in 1945
P-38: $97,147 in 1944

[davebender]

F6F. Empty weight = 9,238 lbs.
$35,000 in 1945
A reasonably effective fighter aircraft for an inexpensive price. The USN equivalent to the Me-109.

P-47. Empty weight = 10,000 lbs (for P-47D).
$85,000 in 1945
The aircraft use similiar quantities of aluminum and have similiar engines. Even the machineguns are similiar. Either the P-47 turbocharger is outrageously expensive or the P-47 airframe is very expensive to manufacture.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by davebender

F6F. Empty weight = 9,238 lbs.
$35,000 in 1945
A reasonably effective fighter aircraft for an inexpensive price. The USN equivalent to the Me-109.

P-47. Empty weight = 10,000 lbs (for P-47D).
$85,000 in 1945
The aircraft use similiar quantities of aluminum and have similiar engines. Even the machineguns are similiar. Either the P-47 turbocharger is outrageously expensive or the P-47 airframe is very expensive to manufacture.

I have read previously that Turbochargers were outrageously expensive.

[Sweb]

"The Cat" was 1 ton lighter comparing all-up weight (15,400 vs 17,500) and had a larger wing. The difference in speed (380 vs 433) is obvious as the Jug was a cleaner machine.

[renrich]

Sweb, the Jug may have had slightly less drag than the Hellcat, but the main reason the Jug had a higher vmax than the Cat was that it's engine made more power high up where the air was thinner and an airplane could go faster because of less drag. The F6F5 was a legitimate 400 plus MPH AC at critical altitude. For a WW2 recip AC to go fast it had to get high.

[Milos Sijacki]

That the P-47 was overshadowed by P-51 is exactly the same with the Hawker Hurricane which had shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain campaign. Spitfire, P-51 as well, just grew to people's hearts.

When it comes to these two aircraft, Hellcat and Thunderbolt, I would go for F-6F Hellcat when we talk about a fighter, while P-47 found its true role as a far-ranging hard-hitting ground-attack aircraft.

Cheers

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Sweb

"The Cat" was 1 ton lighter comparing all-up weight (15,400 vs 17,500) and had a larger wing. The difference in speed (380 vs 433) is obvious as the Jug was a cleaner machine.

Sweb - I don't have the facts at hand but if I was trying for a 'kentucky windage' comparison on drag I woul lay the charts of speed vs Hp at several altitudes to be able to draw some conclusions..

Is that what you did - or did you just compare Vmax with no reference to Hp-altitude for the Vmax comparison?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Milos Sijacki

That the P-47 was overshadowed by P-51 is exactly the same with the Hawker Hurricane which had shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britain campaign. Spitfire, P-51 as well, just grew to people's hearts.

When it comes to these two aircraft, Hellcat and Thunderbolt, I would go for F-6F Hellcat when we talk about a fighter, while P-47 found its true role as a far-ranging hard-hitting ground-attack aircraft.

Cheers

Milos - for that analogy to work the P-47 would have had to shoot down more aircraft than the Mustang. That was not the case.

The P-47 and P-38 totals - air to air - Combined achieved the Mustang totals for the entire war despite much longer operational time in theatres.

[davebender]

It appears to me that a F6F fighter-bomber could perform at least as well as the P-47 fighter-bomber. For half the price.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by davebender

It appears to me that a F6F fighter-bomber could perform at least as well as the P-47 fighter-bomber. For half the price.

I would not only agree, but add that an 'army' version would not require folding wings or arframe structure/weight to mount arresting gear. The F6F-5 'Army should be nearly 6% lighter with attendent boost in climb and acceleration and range.

The 9th AF could have easily substituted the F6F-5 for P-47D with zero loss in mission flexibilty...

[davebender]

I wouldn't count on that. If the Army F6F is designed as a fighter-bomber then it will gain some additional cockpit armor. Plus it will come standard with extensive bomb racks. Similiar to the Fw-190F variant.

[renrich]

The F6F3s and 5s were used as fighter bombers extensively in the Pacific. There were 553 lost to AA and they dropped over 6500 tons of bombs. At the fighter conference the F6F was ranked third as a FB, just behind the P47. The Corsair was ranked number one. A couple of hundred pounds of armor, if needed, would not probably effect performance much if 6% of weight had been deleted as an Army fighter.

[Magister]

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf


Table 19 presents the record for individual types of aircraft for the entire war. It will
be clear from the foregoing data that direct comparisons cannot always be made between various
types of aircraft, because of the varying tires and conditions under which they engaged in combat.
Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated
from the sanm ships during the sam periods.

Certain tentative conclusions may Ee reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to tie F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its
greater ability to survive damage.

P. 58 Naval Air Combat Statistics

(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.

P. 79 Naval Air Combat Statistics