F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt - Aircraft of World War II

Clay_Allison · 01-31-2009, 04:15 AM

The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.

No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.

People eaither love the P-47 (like me) gushing about its toughness, firepower, number of kills, number of sorties (most in Europe), realiability (mission ready %), and dive speed. Or they hate it because it was no dogfighter, turning like a city bus and only fit for the climb and dive.

The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft, though many would say this would not have been the case that the F4U not been only barely carrier capable due to dangerous landing qualities.

Lucky13 · 01-31-2009, 04:19 AM

The F-3 or F-5 and the M or N version of the Hellcat and Thunderbolt? Of the two, my guess is the P-47, aren't they both in somewhat similar size btw?

MikeGazdik · 01-31-2009, 04:35 AM

I think an F6F would handle the P-47 anywhere but at very high altitudes.

Catch22 · 01-31-2009, 04:38 AM

I agree Mike. I think it was more maneuverable. And Jan, the Thunderbolt and Hellcat were 1 and 2 respectively in regards to biggest single engined fighters (at least for the US, I know the Jug was the biggest period).

MikeGazdik · 01-31-2009, 01:22 PM

Talk about a slug fest though, two brutes, heavy weights, with tremendous firepower and the ability to take a pounding.

Amsel · 01-31-2009, 02:14 PM

I would have to go with the F6f5 myself. Manueverability being the key issue.

tomo pauk · 01-31-2009, 03:21 PM

P-47 is my bird here.
Not only because it could take it on the V-1 if needed.

syscom3 · 01-31-2009, 04:18 PM

P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).

P47 for fighter bomber role.

F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed).

P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance.

When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were.

Clay_Allison · 01-31-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).

P47 for fighter bomber role.

F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed).

P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance.

When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were.

they did have a ton of similarities though. Same engine, similar philosophy, I don't think you could find two much more alike at first glance.

comiso90 · 02-01-2009, 12:15 AM

I wouldn't say the F6F had "Tremendous" firepower.

I would have liked to seen a land based version of the F6F w/o the extra weight needed for carrier operations.

Like any similar planes, it would come down to the pilot, chance and like SYS mentioned, the altitude of the scrap.

Pretty cool duel!... if I had to choose... I'd go for the Hellcat

.

davebender · 02-01-2009, 02:06 PM

The P-47 did not have tremendous firepower either. By 1943 most fighter aircraft had firepower superior to the 8 x .50cal MGs carried by the P-47.

TheMustangRider · 02-01-2009, 03:43 PM

By European standards the P-47 armament was not the greatest, but for air-to-air combat against fighters 8 .50 caliber machine guns were more than enough and remained apropiate for the rest of the war.

drgondog · 02-01-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing.

No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter.

People eaither love the P-47 (like me) gushing about its toughness, firepower, number of kills, number of sorties (most in Europe), realiability (mission ready %), and dive speed. Or they hate it because it was no dogfighter, turning like a city bus and only fit for the climb and dive.

The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft, though many would say this would not have been the case that the F4U not been only barely carrier capable due to dangerous landing qualities.

The Mustang killed nearly as many in the air as the P-47 and P-38 combined, nearly as many as the F6F in the air but far more on the ground.

Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter, and arguably against a much more dangerous opponent than the F6F

drgondog · 02-01-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed).

P47 for fighter bomber role.

F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed).

P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance.

When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were.

very good summation. For the USN, the F6F was the right airplane at the right time. IIRC it shot down more Japanese aircraft than all the USAAF and USN and USMC aircraft combined in the PTO. Its performance matched the prime mission against the Japanese aircraft extremely well.

While I believe it would have accounted itself well for several mission profiles it would have had a much tougher role escorting in the ETO and would have been evenly matched and probably outperformed by the 109G-6 and Fw 190A7 which would have been their initial foes in ETO in late 1943.

IMHO the F6F was superior in PTO and inferior in the ETO/MTO

Clay_Allison · 02-01-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

The Mustang killed nearly as many in the air as the P-47 and P-38 combined, nearly as many as the F6F in the air but far more on the ground.

Combined air and ground the P-51 destroyed over 9,000 aircraft... most of any allied fighter, and arguably against a much more dangerous opponent than the F6F

Then I am misinformed. I had thought the longer time and more sorties by the P-47 had made up for the P-51's superiority.

01-31-2009, 04:15 AM	#1
Clay_Allison Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 925	F6F Hellcat vs. P-47 Thunderbolt The most unromantic successful plane of the war versus the most polarizing. No one talks about the F6F but it (IIRC) killed more enemy planes than any other American fighter. People eaither love the P-47 (like me) gushing about its toughness, firepower, number of kills, number of sorties (most in Europe), realiability (mission ready %), and dive speed. Or they hate it because it was no dogfighter, turning like a city bus and only fit for the climb and dive. The P-47 killed more planes (I think) than the P-51 but was overshadowed by it. The F6F was similarly overshadowed by the F4U Corsair though it definitely killed far more enemy aircraft, though many would say this would not have been the case that the F4U not been only barely carrier capable due to dangerous landing qualities.

01-31-2009, 04:19 AM	#2
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,144	The F-3 or F-5 and the M or N version of the Hellcat and Thunderbolt? Of the two, my guess is the P-47, aren't they both in somewhat similar size btw? __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

01-31-2009, 04:38 AM	#4
Catch22 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 4,293	I agree Mike. I think it was more maneuverable. And Jan, the Thunderbolt and Hellcat were 1 and 2 respectively in regards to biggest single engined fighters (at least for the US, I know the Jug was the biggest period). __________________

01-31-2009, 02:14 PM	#6
Amsel Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 1,738	I would have to go with the F6f5 myself. Manueverability being the key issue. __________________ 'Live Free or Die'

01-31-2009, 03:21 PM	#7
tomo pauk Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 588	P-47 is my bird here. Not only because it could take it on the V-1 if needed. Last edited by tomo pauk; 01-31-2009 at 03:22 PM. Reason: spelling

01-31-2009, 04:35 AM	#3
MikeGazdik Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 240	I think an F6F would handle the P-47 anywhere but at very high altitudes.

01-31-2009, 01:22 PM	#5
MikeGazdik Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ohio Posts: 240	Talk about a slug fest though, two brutes, heavy weights, with tremendous firepower and the ability to take a pounding.

01-31-2009, 04:18 PM	#8
syscom3 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 10,283	P47 for high altitude performance (for which it was designed). P47 for fighter bomber role. F6F for low and middle altitudes (for which it was designed). P47 had the payload, range and speed. F6F had the handling and low altitude performance. When you think of it though, they're two different fighters for two totally different roles. Its hard to compare the two without having to factor in what the mission requirements were. __________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

02-01-2009, 12:15 AM	#10
comiso90 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: FL Posts: 3,294	I wouldn't say the F6F had "Tremendous" firepower. I would have liked to seen a land based version of the F6F w/o the extra weight needed for carrier operations. Like any similar planes, it would come down to the pilot, chance and like SYS mentioned, the altitude of the scrap. Pretty cool duel!... if I had to choose... I'd go for the Hellcat . __________________ http://www.BOOKSonWAR.com/ .

02-01-2009, 02:06 PM	#11
davebender Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 614	Wouldn't say F6F had tremendous firepower The P-47 did not have tremendous firepower either. By 1943 most fighter aircraft had firepower superior to the 8 x .50cal MGs carried by the P-47.

02-01-2009, 03:43 PM	#12
TheMustangRider Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: United States Posts: 82	By European standards the P-47 armament was not the greatest, but for air-to-air combat against fighters 8 .50 caliber machine guns were more than enough and remained apropiate for the rest of the war.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode