# Which is better, A-6M Zero or the F4U Corsair



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

What do you people think is the best fighter beetween the, F4U Corsair or the A-6M Zero

Im thinking the F4-U Corsair.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

F4U Corsair, without a doubt. The A6M was a remarkable aircraft during the early war years but the Corsair out-classed it. The only advantage the Zero had over the Corsair was low-speed turning. 

The Corsair was faster, more armed, better armoured, had a faster climb, faster dive, faster acceleration, high speed rate of turn, rate of roll, range...and, basically, was just better in every aspect except low speed turning.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 10, 2005)

Damn you D, that's what I was gonna say!


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

oh so that explains why we always downed zeroes with corsairs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm sorry to say dude, this is either going to be a really short or a really long thread. It's pretty obvious the Corsair is quite superior. Mind you I always appreciate stimulating conversation and I think we're going to see a lot of good quips and jokes on this thread, SO LET THE GAMES BEGIN!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

Agreed. CORSAIR, CORSAIR, CORSAIR!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2005)

As my grandfather said, "Piss on those Zeros..." Not having self sealing tanks and no armor was its undoing...... 2 rounds and its on fire, and thats a kill....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

Maybe the Zero could out-do the Corsair in an "Ensign Aircraft Carrier Landing Challange." Make low time pilots crash on landing, perhaps the only way the Zero is going to best the Corsair.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2005)

Hehe...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

yes the corsair wins this easily...........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 11, 2005)

Hmmm...I think some Corsair pilots needed "Sleep now in the Fire" playing while shooting up Zeros like it was just a good night out on the town.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 11, 2005)

I wouldn't go that far. I read a story by a corsair pilot (early corsair) who said his opponent flying a zero pulled up, and he was unable to follow initially. He did end up shooting him down in the end(which does say something), but it wasn't an easy fight, not least because of the zero's great climb rate.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2005)

Most likely he was dealing with an experienced Japanese pilot as well.... Most of the Green and Rookie pilots were brainwashed to believe their aircraft we invincable and the American planes were rubbish...

Never underestimate ur opponent...


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

I believe the Corsair to be technically far in advance of the Zero and definitely more robust when introduced the Zero was a formidably machine but very quickly became out classed by the US machines
and if I had the misfortune to have to be in combat using either of them I know which cockpit I would be climbing in.
This particular F4U has been researched and worked on over the last 3 years and is all genuine 1944 components and markings as is possible anything after WW2 has been removed including paint layers.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 12, 2005)

Including the paint, huh? Wow, so that one really _is_ genuine then, with the old parts. Awesome.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 12, 2005)

The Corsair is the obvious winner here, but keep in mind they are almost a generation apart as far as technology. The non-self sealing fuel tanks and lack of armor plate led to that plane being a real death trap if you got an enemy aircraft on your tail. For it's day, the Zero was an incredible aircraft. But by the time the Corsair flew onto the scene, the Zero was approaching obsolescence.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 12, 2005)

Yes, and i agree, but my point is that it was NEVER cannon fodder if flown well.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2005)

The Zero was too slow, simple as that...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

actually it's not, it's speed wasn't the only thing that makes the corsair better......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

Agreed - although, with a seasoned pilot the Zero will put up a fight, but it's only going to be able to turn and "dance" around for so long before its torn to shreads.

Firepower, strength, and of course armor protection to name a few!


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> actually it's not, it's speed wasn't the only thing that makes the corsair better......



Yes it was !  

If the Corsair only was as fast as the Zero, the Zero would make mince meat of the Corsair ! 

Because the Corsair was much faster, it slaughtered the Zero which could do nothing but turn circles and try avoiding getting hit. The Corsair simply B&Z'ed the Zero to death, and there was nothing the Zero could do about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

so you really think that speed is the only reason the corsair is better than the zero..........


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so you really think that speed is the only reason the corsair is better than the zero..........



Please tell me, what would the Corsair do against a Zero if it couldnt outrun or outclimb it ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

Outdive it and defeat it in the "zoom," just like the P-40 did


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Outdive it and defeat it in the "zoom," just like the P-40 did



I think we can agree that the P-40 wasnt superior to the Zero, now can't we ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

not sure to be honest.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Outdive it and defeat it in the "zoom," just like the P-40 did
> ...



Oh agreed, but through tactics and pilot training it held its own until better aircraft came along.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



Absolutely, but the same would be true for the Corsair then.  

If the Corsair didnt have its much superior speed, then it was inferior to the Zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2005)

Soren said:


> If the Corsair didnt have its much superior speed, then it was inferior to the Zero.



I think you might of had a "Bent wing P-40 with a more durable engine that was able to land on a carrier."


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 14, 2005)

wouldnt the hellcat be better than the corsiar?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2005)

dinos7 said:


> wouldnt the hellcat be better than the corsiar?



If they had the same top speed - I think so!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 14, 2005)

The Corsair could sustain hits much better than the Zero as well. Self-sealing fuel tanks and armor plate may not win a battle, but they sure help you to survive one.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

Everything on the Corsair was better than the Zero except low speed turn-rate.


----------



## superunknown (Jun 15, 2005)

I don't like these "which aircraft was better" threads, if your a good enough pilot in a sub-standard aircraft, you can easily beat a sub-standard pilot in a good aircraft. 
In this case however from a personal point of view, I would have rather flown a Corsair than a Zero.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

That's because the Corsair was just better than the Zero, end of story. I think anyone with a bit of sense would have rather taken the Corsair into battle.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 15, 2005)

Bang on D! It was a tough, powerful aircraft. Period. Self-sealing tanks and all that, too. Compare that to the kite that was the Zero and of course it's the better plane. Exceptional pilots could make the most of the Zero, but plane for plane the Corsair is the clear winner. A no brainer.


----------



## trackend (Jun 15, 2005)

I think just about everyone one on this thread feels the same Zero great plane in it's day but a dead duck up against the F4U.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

I will not bang on, NS, and you can't make me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 15, 2005)

Well, can't knock a guy for tryin'.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 15, 2005)

There is one disadvantage to the corsairs tough heavy construction. Saburo Sakai says that he and his comrades regularly got the corsairs to follow them down in a dive at low altitude, then pulled up at the last minute. The heavier corsairs could'nt pull out of the dive in time, and flew into the ground, Star Wars style. Of course, this depended on the corsair pilots being relatively inexperienced with the limits of their machine.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 15, 2005)

Ok but don't underestimate the Jap pilots or the zero's small turning radius and climbing abilities.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2005)

The only thing the Zero had was low speed turning ability over the Corsair. The plane itself didn't have pilot skill to it's name.


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's because the Corsair was just better than the Zero, end of story. I think anyone with a bit of sense would have rather taken the Corsair into battle.



No'one is denying the Corsair was much better than the Zero, Plan_D. 

But without its speed advantage the Corsair would be no match for the Zero, and all its other qualities would mean nothing.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

That's a silly statement, really. That's like saying the Zero without it's turning abilities would be dump, while true is just a silly statement.


----------



## Soren (Jun 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's a silly statement, really. That's like saying the Zero without it's turning abilities would be dump, while true is just a silly statement.



Why is it a silly statement ? Its true  

But its silly argueing it, as in reality the Corsair 'was' much faster, and it gave the Zero a licking almost every time they met.


----------

