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 center of much discussion surrounding usage, statistics and overall effectiveness. But which of these two aircraft was superior? It has been said that the F4U holds one of the best combat records of any American fighter during the Second World War, with a kill ratio of 11:1.

However, the Hellcat has one up on the Corsair when it comes to kill ratios, claiming almost 20:1 by the end of the war. Although these figures during World War II were known to be exaggerated by American airmen at times, and no doubt by allied propaganda, it can still be said that roughly 50% of all Navy aerial victories in the Pacific was scored by the Hellcat.

According to U.S. Navy figures, the Hellcat outperformed the A6M Zero by 13:1, The Ki-84 Hayate by 9:1, and even managed to outscore the infamous J2M Raiden by 3:1. The Navy themselves noted that compared to the Corsair, the Hellcat had a similar kill rate but a lower loss rate on a per sortie basis. The claimed kill count of the Corsair stands at 2140 victories, whilst the Hellcat has a claimed kill count of 5163.

Again, this puts the Hellcat above any  other U.S. aircraft, including the P-51 Mustang, with its claimed 4200 kills and the P-47 Thunderbolt with roughly 2600. The Hellcat’s 19:1 kill ratio is also unchallenged by any other U.S. aircraft produced during the war. Yet whilst the Corsair couldn’t compete in kill statistics alone, it certainly makes up for it in terms of reputation.

The Corsair was widely considered by Japanese pilots to be one of America’s best fighter aircraft. Its introduction in early 1943 likely saw it squaring off against more experienced Japanese pilots, many of whom were no longer flying by the end of the year when the Hellcat arrived. And so may have missed the comparison by the time the Hellcat saw widespread use.

Japan was at two disadvantages. Firstly, they had a shortage of experienced pilots worsening over time and secondly, the aircraft were prone to underperforming and failures, thanks to both an increasingly tight manufacturing schedule and a lack of high octane fuel for operational aircraft. While it’s a stretch, it could be said that the Hellcat had an easier job than the Corsair by the time it saw widespread combat.

Since Japan’s aircraft issues only grew worse with time, the level to which this played into the Hellcat success is up for debate. Throughout the war, both these aircraft flew close to the same amount of sorties, with the Hellcat flying 66,000 sorties whilst the Corsair flew 64,000. There are some important considerations here.

Firstly, only 15% of the Corsair sorties were flown from carriers Whilst the Hellcat was used far more frequently in carrier ops. This was the result of difficulties the Corsair experienced whilst landing, which will be discussed later. This led to the Navy preferring the Hellcat by the time of its arrival whilst the Corsair was  handed off to the Marines.

This led to another trend of the Corsair becoming the primary ground attack aircraft in the Pacific, responsible for delivering 70% of all bombs attributed to fighter aircraft. An important consideration is that both aircraft were powered by the same radial engine. The Pratt and Whitney  R-2800 Double Wasp.

This was unanimously considered a great engine, also seeing use in the P-47 Thunderbolt. The peak performance variants of each aircraft produced during World War II resulted in similar engine output. The F6F-5 had a power output of 2200 horsepower with water injection partially based on technology from captured Japanese zeros.

Whilst the F4U-4 produced 2100 horsepower with standard injection and 2450 horsepower when using a  water alcohol mixture. When climbing, the two aircraft showed some interesting differences among the variants. Performance tests of the Hellcat showed a consistent climb rate of 2600 feet per minute. However, it is claimed that later variants of the aircraft could achieve 3400 feet per minute.

In contrast, early versions of the Corsair were rated at 2900 feet per minute whilst late war F4U-4s, could climb at 4400 feet per minute, significantly outclassing the Hellcats climb rate. The service ceiling of both aircraft remained relatively similar, with the Corsair being rated at 41,000 feet and the Hellcat at 37,500 feet.

When it came to other aspects of performance, both aircraft held similar authority. Both could achieve similar turn rates, achieving maximum performance at higher speeds, while suffering at lower speeds. It was roughly the same with roll rate. Both aircraft were similar in performance and operated at their peak at higher speeds due to their aerodynamics and increased weight (due to armor), characteristics superior to most Japanese aircraft at the time.

This was noted by the Navy who trained pilots on both aircraft to gain both an altitude and speed advantage before engaging enemy aircraft. If this was achieved, standard Japanese fighters such as the Zero couldn’t compete. However, this advantage was lost below 200mph, with pilots being taught not to engage Zeros unless they had sufficient speed or altitude, since the zero would outperform at low speed.

In terms of pure speed, the Corsair held a significant advantage over the Hellcat. The F4U-4 Corsair could reach 446mph, whilst the F6F-5N was clocked on a test run at 395mph. Of all performance statistics, this remains the most debated, with some believing that bias was shown towards the Corsair when measuring air speed or that differing methods resulted in the Hellcat showing an overall lack in speed.

However, various tests conducted by different entities over the course of the war consistently noted the Corsair’s speed advantage, even when both aircraft were tuned to identical horsepower. Range is where we find a significant  disparity between the two aircraft. The F4U could travel up to 1600km. The F6F-5 Hellcat, on the other hand, could fly up to 2400 kilometers.

Of course, this range could be extended with external tanks for either aircraft. One of the major points of difference based on pilot testimony was how easy the aircraft was to fly. Many pilots reported that the F4U was a difficult aircraft to handle in flight, somewhat unstable, with takeoffs and landings, more challenging.

This latter issue was largely a result of poor ground visibility and a weaker gear system prone to failure during hard carrier landings. In contrast, the Hellcat had better visibility, more stable, and was reported as being an all round, pleasant aircraft to fly. This made the Hellcat a breeze for inexperienced pilots to learn, in contrast to the rather  unforgiving Corsair.

Despite this feedback, when U.S. Navy and Marine Corps pilots were questioned in the 1944 fighter conference survey on their preferred aircraft, they chose the Corsair. However, it is likely that ground crews preferred the Hellcat, which required considerably less maintenance and was reportedly also easier to work on when required.

This could have been another serious consideration leading the Navy to prioritize the Hellcat over the Corsair Regardless of competition, it can safely be said that both aircraft were on a similar footing within the American arsenal. But how did these aircraft perform against enemy equivalents? There were a number of Japanese fighters that could put up a good fight against the Corsair and Hellcat.

But two serious opponents in the Pacific are worth mentioning. The short range J2M Raiden, a formidable lightweight interceptor which could reach upwards of 410mph above 16,000 feet. And the land-based N1K Shiden-Kai a land based offshoot of a Navy fighter which became known by American airmen as one of the best Japanese fighters.

While the Hellcat would retire after the war, the Corsair would go on to serve in the Korean War in a ground- attack role operating at low altitudes. So while it may be said that the Hellcat outperformed the Corsair during World War II, the Corsair would see combat once again, half a decade later. There is still debate over whether the Hellcat could have outperformed the Corsair if it had been upgraded and kept in service beyond the war.

The Hellcat did achieve a massive portion of total U.S. fighter kills in the Pacific, but was the Corsair denied the opportunities of the Hellcat for fighter missions being relegated to more bombing sorties? Whatever the case, these two outstanding aircraft, with their own strengths and weaknesses, delivered the deadly force they were designed for.

It could be said that overall, the Corsair and Hellcat were equally matched.