Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
NguyenArchitakuVN

Please change F4U to F6F

  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Which fighter do you prefer?

    • F6F Hellcat because of it's ruggedness
      7
    • F4U Corsair because of it's speed
      4

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
1,825 posts
5,163 battles

If you are a WWII nerd, you must have read through the history of US Navy. Talking about US Naval Aviation during WWII, you are talking about the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair. But!...

... F4U Corsair was designed as a carrier-based fighter aircraft. However its difficult carrier landing performance rendered the Corsair unsuitable for Navy. The Corsair retained prominence in its area of greatest deployment: land based use by the U.S. Marines, leaving the role of carrier-based fighter filled by F6F Hellcat. 

So, it's my idea for WG to replace the current "F4U" module on the Lexington and Essex with the more historically accurate "F6F". And i personally love the "-cat series" a lot. We have the Wildcat and Bearcat in game already. Why can't we have the Hellcat?

GkV7GZ5.jpg

Hellcat deserves more love! <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
45 posts
22 battles

Evolution of "The Cats": Wildcat => Hellcat => Bearcat

Makes more sense. Rather than Wildcat => Corsair => Bearcat. Consider the Corsair mainly served in the USMC, rarely saw service in USN carrier-borne fighter units.

None can deny the impact of the Corsairs. But also, none can deny how great the "cats" were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

Sorry to interrupt here, not only IMO, but F4U is indeed a better aircraft, although just be clear I am not to bash the Hellcat is bad or anything.

 

F6F is a fantastic aircraft - it is easy to handle, extremely powerful, well-armed especially facing Japanese lightly armored fighters.

Indeed, it is an excellent example of the Grumman cats  - AND it's very easy to operate even for the newbies.

 

The problem of the F6F is that it's potential is limited. The F6F-5 is basically the end of it's potential. 

F8F Bearcat? Unfortunately it born in an wrong era, and it is much less multi-purposed compare to the F4U or even the F6F. It didn't remotely match the Corsair or heck the Hellcat's legacy.

 

The myth of F4U's problems on carriers is only partially correct. The F4U-1 had visibility problems and it's back tyre is not suitable for landing on a carrier.

However, from the F4U-1A onward it had no problem landing on a carrier. VF-17 already proved this - and in fact it is them who provided all the feedback Vought needed to improve on the F4U-1.

In fact, the Navy didn't reject it to be deployed on the carriers in 1942 because they think it's not good enough or had issues with the landing problem - it's simply that the Navy don't have any bloody spare parts in their inventory and supply ships!

 

The British had used Corsair at very earlier stage - earlier than the Americans themselves by 9 months - and they were extremely impressed - Partially because the Seafire is that hard to land. It took part in multiple actions in Norway and even involved in the bombing of the Tirpitz in order to prevent the FW190s defending Norway, but it never show up.

One of the only TWO Victoria Cross that is awarded to Fighter pilots is in fact, a Corsair pilot, Robert Hampton Gray for his brave sacrifice in an operation attacking a Japanese harbor.

 

By 1944, the definitive version of the Corsair, the F4U-4 is simply unteachable by any Japanese or US Navy aircraft. It had an insane top speed of 718km/h at 6250 feet - and it can climb to such attitude in just under 5 minutes - far far superior to the Hellcat (Which I suppose many people know, is actually a back-up plan for the Corsair).

It can easily hold it's own against any Japanese aircraft including the best Japanese fighters that gone into mass production Ki-84/100/ N1K2-J. Internal testing in the US showed that the F4U-1 (Non-supercharged) beated a P-47 and a captured Ki-84 (Using US fuel) later with ease.

 

There is also a test between the F4U-1D and the F6F-5:

WYk4JX4.gif

Thj7Aen.gif

 

And clearly even started at a disadvantage, the F4U-1D win with ease. Oooops.

 

And you're right, the Marines is indeed the first one to utilize the potential of this beast - the (tied) highest scoring Marine pilot - Gregory Boyington (You may know him as "Pappy") used the F4U-1A for the majority of his air kills. 

 

Many people remember Hellcat for all the bombs and rockets it can hold - The Corsair can do just the same if not better.

Oddly enough, the person who discover this potential is - You guess it - Charles Lindbergh. His testing showed that the Corsair can easily handle 2 tons of bombs - larger than even some Medium bombers and easily many of the Japanese "Heavy" bombers. This greatly enhanced it's service length to the Korean War.

You may asked - Well the Hellcat can do the same...? Yep, but it's performance is simply no match for the latter version of F4U (-4/-5/AU-1/-7(specifically designed version for the frenchies) ). It was quickly retired after WWII. Even the Bearcat only saw extremely limited service in Korean war.

 

Speaking of Korean war, one of the first wave of air support comes from the Navy's carrier's Corsair. They fight there throughout the entire war - and shot down a MiG-15 (Which is the last jet fighter being shot down by these "Last-gen" aircraft in the Korean war) towards the end of the war.

It's reputation is far superior than the Mustangs - which you may know is one of the best if not the best fighter the US have in World War II - for the same reason the F6F being legendary - the F4U's dependability, incredible survivability and the superior-ness of carrier-based aircraft to land-based aircrafts.

In this respect, you cannot deny the F4U is also an incredibly durable aircraft. Don't forget, it had work on un-workable environment in Solomon Islands in 1942-1944, and yet somehow it still achieved the remarkable reputation there.

 

The 12,751 aircrafts produced, the 13 years service length in the US Navy (In such an era which Military technology evolve like you wouldn't believe), the 1 : 11.3 KD ratio in WWII, the 2140 victims of the Corsair in WWII, the fact that it remained in service in many countries until the 1960s had proven the Corsair's greatness.

 

In my opinion, the F4U is the Best piston-engined Naval aircraft in history. The F6F is close, but not quite there.

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,677 posts

Isn't Ranger and stock Lexington lugging Hellcats around or was I blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,922 battles

The Hawker Sea Fury gets my pick as the best piston engined carrier borne fighter - they even saw service in Korea and shot down supersonic MIG-15's

But I'd give the Corsair a close second - it was also extensively used by the New Zealander Airforce to replace their ageing P-40 Warhawks and gave great service there

 

The Cosair had its issues in the USN due to landing and visibility issues, namely the pilot couldn't see the deck he was trying to land on due to the position of the cockpit - The Brits solved this issue because they always had a curved landing approach as standard for landing on carriers, therefore keeping the deck in sight till the last second.

Edited by Blitzkreig95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,296 posts
9,726 battles

Would be nice if they added a fighter-bomber configuration, it will make the USN (or other carriers with different nationalities other than IJN in the future) able to compete with the IJN loadouts..... (tip: after using payloads, these planes become fighters but have less ammunition compared to standard fighters, for balancing i hope?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,825 posts
5,163 battles

Sorry to interrupt here, not only IMO, but F4U is indeed a better aircraft, although just be clear I am not to bash the Hellcat is bad or anything.

 

F6F is a fantastic aircraft - it is easy to handle, extremely powerful, well-armed especially facing Japanese lightly armored fighters.

Indeed, it is an excellent example of the Grumman cats  - AND it's very easy to operate even for the newbies.

 

The problem of the F6F is that it's potential is limited. The F6F-5 is basically the end of it's potential. 

F8F Bearcat? Unfortunately it born in an wrong era, and it is much less multi-purposed compare to the F4U or even the F6F. It didn't remotely match the Corsair or heck the Hellcat's legacy.

 

The myth of F4U's problems on carriers is only partially correct. The F4U-1 had visibility problems and it's back tyre is not suitable for landing on a carrier.

However, from the F4U-1A onward it had no problem landing on a carrier. VF-17 already proved this - and in fact it is them who provided all the feedback Vought needed to improve on the F4U-1.

In fact, the Navy didn't reject it to be deployed on the carriers in 1942 because they think it's not good enough or had issues with the landing problem - it's simply that the Navy don't have any bloody spare parts in their inventory and supply ships!

 

The British had used Corsair at very earlier stage - earlier than the Americans themselves by 9 months - and they were extremely impressed - Partially because the Seafire is that hard to land. It took part in multiple actions in Norway and even involved in the bombing of the Tirpitz in order to prevent the FW190s defending Norway, but it never show up.

One of the only TWO Victoria Cross that is awarded to Fighter pilots is in fact, a Corsair pilot, Robert Hampton Gray for his brave sacrifice in an operation attacking a Japanese harbor.

 

By 1944, the definitive version of the Corsair, the F4U-4 is simply unteachable by any Japanese or US Navy aircraft. It had an insane top speed of 718km/h at 6250 feet - and it can climb to such attitude in just under 5 minutes - far far superior to the Hellcat (Which I suppose many people know, is actually a back-up plan for the Corsair).

It can easily hold it's own against any Japanese aircraft including the best Japanese fighters that gone into mass production Ki-84/100/ N1K2-J. Internal testing in the US showed that the F4U-1 (Non-supercharged) beated a P-47 and a captured Ki-84 (Using US fuel) later with ease.

 

There is also a test between the F4U-1D and the F6F-5:

WYk4JX4.gif

Thj7Aen.gif

 

And clearly even started at a disadvantage, the F4U-1D win with ease. Oooops.

 

And you're right, the Marines is indeed the first one to utilize the potential of this beast - the (tied) highest scoring Marine pilot - Gregory Boyington (You may know him as "Pappy") used the F4U-1A for the majority of his air kills. 

 

Many people remember Hellcat for all the bombs and rockets it can hold - The Corsair can do just the same if not better.

Oddly enough, the person who discover this potential is - You guess it - Charles Lindbergh. His testing showed that the Corsair can easily handle 2 tons of bombs - larger than even some Medium bombers and easily many of the Japanese "Heavy" bombers. This greatly enhanced it's service length to the Korean War.

You may asked - Well the Hellcat can do the same...? Yep, but it's performance is simply no match for the latter version of F4U (-4/-5/AU-1/-7(specifically designed version for the frenchies) ). It was quickly retired after WWII. Even the Bearcat only saw extremely limited service in Korean war.

 

Speaking of Korean war, one of the first wave of air support comes from the Navy's carrier's Corsair. They fight there throughout the entire war - and shot down a MiG-15 (Which is the last jet fighter being shot down by these "Last-gen" aircraft in the Korean war) towards the end of the war.

It's reputation is far superior than the Mustangs - which you may know is one of the best if not the best fighter the US have in World War II - for the same reason the F6F being legendary - the F4U's dependability, incredible survivability and the superior-ness of carrier-based aircraft to land-based aircrafts.

In this respect, you cannot deny the F4U is also an incredibly durable aircraft. Don't forget, it had work on un-workable environment in Solomon Islands in 1942-1944, and yet somehow it still achieved the remarkable reputation there.

 

The 12,751 aircrafts produced, the 13 years service length in the US Navy (In such an era which Military technology evolve like you wouldn't believe), the 1 : 11.3 KD ratio in WWII, the 2140 victims of the Corsair in WWII, the fact that it remained in service in many countries until the 1960s had proven the Corsair's greatness.

 

In my opinion, the F4U is the Best piston-engined Naval aircraft in history. The F6F is close, but not quite there.

 

I understand what you mean. But here is the point.

After the surrender of Japan, the US captured a Japanese prototype of the A7M. They tested it and all results show that the F4U still has superior performance compared to the A7M. But in the game, F4U is a tier VIII fighter while A7M is a tier IX. Isn't it weird?

So yes, what i meant is replace the current position of the F4U with the historical accurate F6F. F4U deserves to be at higher tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

You sure the Americans captured any A7Ms? 

As I remembered they were deliberately destroyed by the Japanese just after the end of the war to avoid the American capturing it.

If you can find any documents showing any testing results, I would really appreciate it.

 

And yes, the F4U-4 is simply un-matchable by any naval aircraft at 1945. In fact, even the F8F-1 is proved to be inferior to the F4U-4.

The F8F-2 is comparable, but unfortunately for Grumman, there's the even better F4U-5 which can manage 743km/h @ 20000 feet, which is bloody insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
36 posts
2,915 battles

The myth of F4U's problems on carriers is only partially correct. The F4U-1 had visibility problems and it's back tyre is not suitable for landing on a carrier.

However, from the F4U-1A onward it had no problem landing on a carrier. VF-17 already proved this - and in fact it is them who provided all the feedback Vought needed to improve on the F4U-1.

In fact, the Navy didn't reject it to be deployed on the carriers in 1942 because they think it's not good enough or had issues with the landing problem - it's simply that the Navy don't have any bloody spare parts in their inventory and supply ships!

 

The British had used Corsair at very earlier stage - earlier than the Americans themselves by 9 months - and they were extremely impressed

 

Mostly true. The Corsair had three huge design faults which made it very dangerous to land on a carrier:

 

1)  Poor forward visibility over the nose, exacerbated by oil leaking out of the top cowl flaps.

2)  Badly designed undercarriage oleos which when combined with a too steep approach caused the aircraft to bounce over the arresting wires.

3)  An aerodynamic issue which caused the left wing to enter a stalled condition well before the right.  Very dangerous when low and slow, and it killed several test pilots.

 

It was the British who solved the first problem with the now ubiquitous curved approach combined with at first wiring the top cowl flaps shut then replacing them entirely with a fixed cowling plate.

The Americans redesigned the oleos with a bleed valve which limited the rebound characteristics, they also redesigned the tail hook as well.

A stall strip outboard of the gun ports on the left wing fixed the stall issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
350 posts

You sure the Americans captured any A7Ms? 

As I remembered they were deliberately destroyed by the Japanese just after the end of the war to avoid the American capturing it.

If you can find any documents showing any testing results, I would really appreciate it.

 

And yes, the F4U-4 is simply un-matchable by any naval aircraft at 1945. In fact, even the F8F-1 is proved to be inferior to the F4U-4.

The F8F-2 is comparable, but unfortunately for Grumman, there's the even better F4U-5 which can manage 743km/h @ 20000 feet, which is bloody insane.

 

Well, it may have been an error of sorts as it was a Japanese A6M Zero that did crash in Akutan Island in the Aleutian Islands as the boss monster that wanted a Reppu (A7M) was linked to the Aleutian Islands campaign (Northern Water Princess or more commonly known as Hoppo-chan). It would have been a bigger coup if the A6M and the A7M were both captured in the same area except that the A7M was only ready for production near the end of the war itself, too little too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
575 posts
5,354 battles

F4U deserves to be at higher tier.

 

Exactly. The -1A or 2 should be tier 9 while -4 should be tier 10. The Corsair was the pinnacle of fighter technology for the US during WW2. The fact that it was able to take on MiG-15s and win was a testament to this plane's abilities. The F4U-4 is the plane that should and needs to be the replacement for the jet fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×