Best Pacific Fighter II

[R Leonard]

Dad was commissioned in 1938, did the mandatory fleet service, went to Pensacola, and got his wings in November 1940. He retired, a Rear Admiral, in 1971.

His shot at driving the Mosquito came while he was assigned to TacTest as Projects Director in 1946-1948. He had three flights, the first on 10 Apr 46 for 1.2 hours, the second on 27 June for 1.3 hours - until a section of canopy blew out, and the third on 3 July 46. All were in PZ467 which also carried b/n 99106. Somewhere in the files I have the pilots manual for this plane.

 

[dragonandhistail]

The Hellcat was the top scoring aircraft period. That settles it in my mind.

 

[stug3]

The F4U obviously had better performance qualities than the Hellcat. The Hellcat was designed to out-perform the A6M which it did decisively, 19-1 kill ratio vs. 11-1 for the F4U (which was also flying against the same supposedly "lousy" pilots by the end of 1943). Efficiently mass produced by Grumman, it was also easier to fly and operate from carriers. Its success made it the most important fighter in the PTO. Of course the Navy was looking to replace it, you cant deny evolution. But you also cant deny its success.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F4U obviously had better performance qualities than the Hellcat. The Hellcat was designed to out-perform the A6M which it did decisively, 19-1 kill ratio vs. 11-1 for the F4U (which was also flying against the same supposedly "lousy" pilots by the end of 1943). Efficiently mass produced by Grumman, it was also easier to fly and operate from carriers. Its success made it the most important fighter in the PTO. Of course the Navy was looking to replace it, you cant deny evolution. But you also cant deny its success.

The 19 to 1 and 11 to 1 kill ratios were "claimed" ratios and in actuality the numbers were a lot lower.

 

[R Leonard]

And the F6F was designed independent of any knowledge of the A6M. It most definitely was not ". . . designed to out-perform the A6M . . ." You don't want to get me started.

 

[stug3]

Yeah, I think I do want to get you started you arrogant jerk.

 

[evangilder]

Yeah, I think I do want to get you started you arrogant jerk.

Talk like that will get you tossed out of here post haste. Tone it down, immediately.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Wow, I think someones New Years is not going to start out very nice.

Way to be invisible and insult people. Looks to me someone else is the arrogant jerk here.

 

[stug3]

And the F6F was designed independent of any knowledge of the A6M. It most definitely was not ". . . designed to out-perform the A6M . . ." You don't want to get me started.

Definition of ARROGANCE
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Definition of ARROGANCE
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

Stug, you're being an idiot - you're a newbe here - chill or your days are numbered here.

 

[evangilder]

I have already warned him and he has ignored the warning. 10 days off.

 

[evangilder]

And for the record, Mr Leonard knows what he is talking about. It's not arrogance, it is knowledge. Knowledge is something gained when your ears are open and your mouth is shut.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Can't say I did not see that coming...

 

[renrich]

Stug3, you need to spend a little time just reading the posts by various members. Some of us think we know a lot but truly only know what we have read in books or online. Sometimes we know a lot less than we think we know. Once in a while we are fortunate to have a member who has first hand knowledge about flying or working on or designing real airplanes. And sometimes we are fortunate enough to have a member who has a close relative, like a father who was really there in the thick of things. Those type of members are very rare and when they write something I generally read with rapt concentration. Because of the years so swiftly going by, there are fewer and fewer of those who have heard related to them in person accounts of how it truly was. Information has a way, when being passed down, of getting twisted around and when the members who have heard first hand about events are gone, accuracy suffers.. If you are careful you can discern who these members are and be blessed to learn from them.

 

[R Leonard]

Golly, go away for a few days of computer-less relaxation and see what happens.

Truth be known, I'd be happy to have a discussion, an exchange of research if you will, with Mr. Stug3 on the question of the A6M's influence, or lack thereof, on the development of the F6F. I'll even be nice and let him go first . . . when he gets back in good graces and if he so wishes.

So, I shall eagerly await Mr. Stug3's presentation; that way we can talk about his specific points rather than my guessing which pieces of the puzzle he has, or has not.

And my thanks to those who spoke up for me in my absence; it is greatly and gratefully appreciated.

Regards,

Rich

 

[cimmee]

Corsair.... It had manueverability, speed,and firepower....In fact, It was pretty much good for everything.

It was also a gas hog, hard to make, and hard to work on...

I saw no mention of the P-51 Mustang. Why's that?

 

[R Leonard]

Since we're strictly discussing Fighters in the Pacific Theaters, the P-51 variants, to include the F-6, were credited with but 297 victories. That's 7% of the F6F credits, 14% of the F4U credits, and 17% of the P-38 credits. Comparatively, Pacific credits to USAAF aircraft:

P-38 = 1,700
P-47 = 697
P-40 = 661
P-51/F-6 = 297
P-39/P-400 = 288
P-61 = 64
P-36 = 3
P-70 = 2
P-26 = 2
P-35 = 1

So you can see the P-51 types ran a distant 4th in USAAF credits. If you were to add in the USN/USMC types, the P-51 ranks 7th or 8th, depending how you want to count USN/USMC types (some count F4Fs and FM-2s as separate accounting, the USN for, for example, reports them separately; both types individually were credited with more victories than the P-51).

In Europe, a different story, just as you do not see a whole lot of argument for the F4U or the F6F as the best in that theater. Sure, they could have racked up big scores, but they did not, just as the P-51 did not in the Pacific.

Would haves, could haves, and should haves don't count.

Regards,

Rich

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was also a gas hog, hard to make, and hard to work on...

I saw no mention of the P-51 Mustang. Why's that?

What do you have to base "hard to work on"? I know people who worked on them in the Navy and as civilians and the aircraft offers no more or no less ease or complication than any other of its contemporaries.

 

[renrich]

F4U was no more of a gas hog than any R2800 powered fighter and certainly did not use as much gas as a P38. It was sometimes referred to as the Hog because it's nose resembled a hog's nose and it may have been called a Hog because the early versions handled like a "Hog on ice" on the ground. It had a lot of nicknames besides the Hog, such as U Bird, Ensign Eliminator, Bent Wing Bird and Hose Nose. The more nick names the more formidable the reputation of the AC. At the most economical cruise settings the Corsair could get by on as little as 42 gallons per hour.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

F4U was no more of a gas hog than any R2800 powered fighter and certainly did not use as much gas as a P38. It was sometimes referred to as the Hog because it's nose resembled a hog's nose and it may have been called a Hog because the early versions handled like a "Hog on ice" on the ground. It had a lot of nicknames besides the Hog, such as U Bird, Ensign Eliminator, Bent Wing Bird and Hose Nose. The more nick names the more formidable the reputation of the AC. At the most economical cruise settings the Corsair could get by on as little as 42 gallons per hour.

Yep...

Our former member who made that comment evidently spoke though his lower intestinal cavity with only the byproducts of that region to back up any of his claims or comments. He is now floating in hyperspace such as a large turd may float within a well maintained toilet.