Glad to see someone acknowledge the size of the Hellcat too. I have been saying the Hellcat is in some aspects the largest single engine fighter of WWII (wing area, stabilizer) . The T Bolt has a longer fuselage, "only in inches". I believe T Bolts flew at heavier weights. I am researching the height of the two now. I wish I had factory records of which took more sheet metal to build though. From it's best viewing angles, The F6F is absolutely at about the top of my favorite best looking planes list.

it's true)

Those markings were assigned to specific carriers, not air groups, in this case the CV USS Randolph. CAG-12 and CAG-16 aircraft wore those markings when they were aboard Randolph in 1945, until the marking system was changed later in 1945.

Right. The British eventually developed a rugged carrier-based plane, the Hawker Sea Fury.

Read Naval History magazine.

Rodrigo. The differences are cost V airflow. Flushfit rivets allow the air to flow smoothly over the aircraft. Domed head interfere with that and lessen the speed of the aircraft. Speed is everything but cost has to be considered. It is very labour intensive to fit flushfit . So the designers reach a compromise, hope this helps. Take care and stay safe.

Search Greg's Airplanes. He has à video that is on the three vs four topic.

There was a 4-bladed prop on the XF6F-6. But production of that model was canceled because the war was winding down, the Navy had already chosen higher-performing Corsairs over Hellcats by then, and Grumman was committed to development of the future F8F Bearcat.

A downed Zero in the Aleutians was a big development in the F6 from the Wilcat.

@@matthewbratton3825 Yep. The Japanese invasion of the Aleutians was absolute hell for U.S. troops but worth the price paid for the recovery of that Zero. Based on the data he got from it, Roy Grumman determined that F6F could match the Zero without sacrificing pilot armor, self sealing fuel tanks and a stronger air frame to support the more powerful double wasp engine.

@@GTX1123 That is a common misconception. The Hellcat was designed well before any Zeros had been captured. Koga's Zero was discovered in July 1942. The first Hellcat prototype flew in June 1942.

@@pararaftanr2 It was both. Yes, the common misconception is that the F6F's initial and overall design was based on the Akutan Zero; i.e. it was already obvious that the USN needed a fighter that could match or exceed the Zero, at least in speed but also be suitable for carrier op's. This was why F6F's engine was upgraded to the more powerful Double Wasp in June 1942 before the Akutan Zero was discovered-restored-tested which was completed by September of 1942. But is is a fact that the data learned from the Akutan Zero's flight test was used by Roy Grumman to finalize the F6F's design long before it went into production for things like wing loading, fuel capacity and pilot armor. That's why it was both.

@@GTX1123 You state that " it is a fact that the data learned from the Akutan Zero's flight test was used by Roy Grumman to finalize the F6F's design long before it went into production". You also state that testing of the Akutan Zero "was completed by September of 1942." however, the first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942, so this would appear to contradict the alleged importance of that Zero's flight test data relevant to the design, or production, of the Hellcat. In fact, an actual influence was information provided by Navy Wildcat pilots who had previously engaged Zeros in air combat.

I think he meant it for the US.