# Best naval fighter



## corpcasselbury (Dec 20, 2003)

Naval fighters are something of a breed apart from their totally land-based cousins of the world's air forces. WW2 saw the first use of large scale carrier operations, as well as the debut of carrier vs. carrier battles. Of the many types to see service with the navies of the war, which was best? My pick is the rugged, versatile, and supremely deadly Chance-Vought F4U Corsair, which the Japanese pilots nicknamed "Whistling Death" after both the sound it made and what so very often happened to them when they mixed it up with the Corsair.


----------



## trackend (Dec 21, 2003)

Here. Here .Corpcasselbury I think you hit the nail on the head picking the F4U Corsair, tough,manouverable, fast, and with good hitting power.
The only drawback was the poor visability available for landing on a carrier flight deck. This was overcome however by approaching the flightdeck from the stern quarter rather than the standard head on approach then turning to line up with the arrestor at the last moment , a skilled manouver but it saved pranging the aircraft as had occured numorous times before the introduction of this type of approach.
It was used by the Royal Navy as well as the United States Navy and much of it's development as a carrier based plane was a collaberation between these two services. 
After the not very successful SeaFire (a variation of the Spitfire) the Corsair proved itself a popular craft with the Fleet Air Arm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2003)

obviously there's little debate here, and I'm only 13, who am i to dissagree.  the corsair runs away with the title, with the japanese zero, coming a not very close second


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 21, 2003)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> obviously there's little debate here, and I'm only 13, who am i to dissagree.  the corsair runs away with the title, with the japanese zero, coming a not very close second



But the Grumman F6F Hellcat was in most areas far superior to the Mitsubishi Zero.


----------



## Crazy (Dec 22, 2003)

I'm gonna have to agree here. The F4U Corsair beats out all contenders.

After that, corp hit the nail on the head again with F6F Hellcat.


BUT.....

If it had gone into service during the war, the Vought XF5U Flying Pancake might have taken the title. I'd like to thank the Lancaster kicks ass for bringing it to my attention  



S!

Crazee


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2003)

well you know, don't like to brag an all........... \/


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 24, 2003)

A word does have to be said for the Grumman F4F Wildcat. While not exactly the greatest fighter ever to fly off a carrier deck, it did hold the line against the Japanese for the first year of the Pacific War until newer and better replacements could make it out into the fleet and USMC. Many pilots blessed this plane because of the incredible amount of punishment it could absorb and still come home. This led to Grumman being nicknamed the "Grumman Iron Works". Comments?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2004)

sorry, i don't know a great deal about the war in the pacific


----------



## Crazy (Jan 16, 2004)

Likewise. However, I know some about the Wildcat's history, and I agree with corpcasselbury. It held out very well until the newer replacements got there. As for "Grumman Iron Works", I'd say they were right. But I don't have much room to talk, as they were the ones flying, not me.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 16, 2004)

neither do I


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

Corsair 8) 

Although I would of said the Hawker Sea Fury, but that came just a little late   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

we're focusing on the war in the pacific, don't forget the seafire and sea hurricane


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

The Sea Hurricane was a bit slow and the Seafire's Undercart was too weak   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2004)

yea, but they worked


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 26, 2004)

True, but they were Designed as Land Planes.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2004)

that don't make them any less naval fighters


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2004)

Both had very limited ranges IIRC, thus making them pretty bad naval fighters since they couldn't strike out too far or stay on station or patrol for long periods.

I'd say the Corsair was the best carrier fighter, the Hellcat a fairly close second. The Wildcat gets honourable mention for holding the Japanese off until more modern fighters could enter service. And the Zero also gets best early-war Carrier fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2004)

but remember, a zero could out manouver any over navy fighter out there..........


----------



## Archer (Jan 28, 2004)

The was maneuverable, but the US planes could take a beating and still keep going. I just finished a book about the Pacific that had many first-person accounts, and a couple Japanese pilots were amazed at how much damage the Wildcats could take and not go down when they first came into service. The Thatch Weave was also a very effective maneuver to counter the Zero's maneuverability advantage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2004)

true, the zero had zero damage tollerance (you see what i did there?8))


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

A.............baked a Cake   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2004)

you guys can't tell true comic genius when you see it.....................


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 30, 2004)

Nah.............haven't read a Comic since I was a Kid  

He He

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2004)

were comics around when you were a kid?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 31, 2004)

Yep, I was joking, M8 8) 

I use to read the Beano and the Dandy 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2004)

sorry..........................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

why do these dam smiles never work


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

8)               :BIG:        .............which one  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

well that's just taking the piss hot space...........................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Yes  ..................but please refrain from swearing though, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

sorry, just where i come from that's not swearing


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Same here, but some folks might be offended by it.

What's the Picture? It didn't come out, M8  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

it's supposed to be the gracefull, beutiful, elgent love of my life, the lancaster


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 7, 2004)

I thought it was  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

well, a name like mine seriously limits the possibilities..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

you may have turned into a traitor though and developed a sudden liking for the b-17 and just didnt want to get a new account cos you a hypocrit and want the amount of posts to stay high (sorry for disgraceful language there, i know, im ashamed of myself)(btw "b-17" is the disgraceful language in question )


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well, a name like mine seriously limits the possibilities..............



Good point  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

well said cheddar cheese


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

strange how every board ends up being about the lancaster and the b-17, this board is supposed to be about naval fighters, and putting a lanc in that situation is something id like to see 

not a complaint, just an observation


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

we've been through this in another topic already Cheddar cheese


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

have you really? well, my observation skills arent all they're cracked up to be then.......


----------



## kmar (Feb 11, 2004)

The "Bent-Wing Bird" simply rocks! (The corsair that is  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

sorry bout that, it's just that every time you say bent, it reminds me of cheddar cheese


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

ooooooooo thats harsh lanc  ill think up a reply insult when you least expect it........


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

kmar knows what he's talking about


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sorry bout that, it's just that every time you say bent, it reminds me of cheddar cheese


ur so nice and polite it amazes me


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

Well boy's will be boy's  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

well, he deserved it, he was starting to like the B-17, and we can't be having then now, can we?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2004)

i didnt do anything, i said i was neutral, yeah personally i like the lanc more but you gotta give credit when you need to


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

what are you talking about now?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 14, 2004)

heh, that was yesterday, i dont know now


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

to lazy to click on the previous page? don't worry, so was I


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 14, 2004)

no i dont need to - i just cant be bothered to explain 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

only you DT, only you..............


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well, he deserved it, he was starting to like the B-17, and we can't be having then now, can we?


ook


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

I think I may just be a 'devil's advocate' and state the Zero wasn't all that amazing a fighter. Its success early in the war was due mainly to the IJN's level of experience over the American pilots and that the Americans fought the Japanese in turning dogfights (initially) that their P40s and F4Fs simply couldn't win. 

The fact is that the Zero was inferior to front-line European fighters at the beginning of the war. Sure it could outturn just about anything, but the Hurricane could outturn a 109 and a 190 and Hurricanes (although one of my personal 'favs') did not remain 'front line' in Europe for all that long.

Let's see what Zero 'fans' have to say about that 

-- Chris


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 16, 2004)

well my name in games is Zero R but it has nothing to do with the plane and u should get a membership cuz ive seen like 4 of ur posts


----------



## Andrew (Feb 17, 2004)

Although I think the Seafire is a lovely looking Aircraft , it did have it's design limitations .

I have to go for the Grumman Hellcat , as the best Naval Fighter .

Andrew


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

i kinda like the corsair the most


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2004)

yeah i like the corsair too, the shape of the wings is beautiful


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)

i wouldn't say beautiful, just cool


----------



## Archer (Feb 18, 2004)

And aerodynamic.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 19, 2004)

There really is no doubt about it: Next to the Seafire the best Naval plane of WW2 was the F4U Corsair (but only cos we British helped the Yanks build it)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 19, 2004)

Not really, M8  

It was Designed and Built by Beisel and Sikorsky of Vought for the U.S Navy  

Hot Space


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 20, 2004)

You are right, the Americans did build it BUT they kept crashing the prototype because the nose of the plane was too long and the pilots trying to land on a thin, moving landing strip (i.e an aircraft carrier) couldn't see what they were doing and ended up in the drink half the time (you'll notice that the Corsair DOES have a very long nose and the cockpit is situated quite far back) the Americans couldn't figure it out and were thinking about scrapping the whole thing and redesigning the plane but luckily the fleet air arm of the Royal Navy (i.e Britain) saw the promise of the plane and got involved. We sent engineers to look at the plane for the yanks. Unfortunately i don't know any more details about it but i know we sorted the problem for them - i'm sure if you look it up on-line you'll see that i'm correct.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2004)

yup, you are, the brittish combatted the problem by not coming in from straight behind, at more of an angle, then straighten out at the last minuite


----------



## Archer (Feb 20, 2004)

Don't forget the Brits chopped 8 inches off each wing tip which also decreased the bounce (unepectedly), which was also a big problem.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 20, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> You are right, the Americans did build it BUT they kept crashing the prototype because the nose of the plane was too long and the pilots trying to land on a thin, moving landing strip (i.e an aircraft carrier) couldn't see what they were doing and ended up in the drink half the time (you'll notice that the Corsair DOES have a very long nose and the cockpit is situated quite far back) the Americans couldn't figure it out and were thinking about scrapping the whole thing and redesigning the plane but luckily the fleet air arm of the Royal Navy (i.e Britain) saw the promise of the plane and got involved. We sent engineers to look at the plane for the yanks. Unfortunately i don't know any more details about it but i know we sorted the problem for them - i'm sure if you look it up on-line you'll see that i'm correct.



Yep, you're 100% right, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Knight hawk (Feb 20, 2004)

The F4U SBD is the king qeen of D pacific


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

i don't even think the americans even wanted the corsair 'till we showed them how to fly it..........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 21, 2004)

that would have been a real loss... we would have to use hellcats  which are tough manuverable very good bomb load (2000lb bomb and 6rockets) but it cant even reach 400mph and we would keep getting our asses kicked my A6M5 if u dont know what that is look it up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

i know the plan with the corsair was to fit it with the biggest engine and propeller ever fitted to a plane, was this the case however?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2004)

Well i know it was the first fighter in history to exceed 400mph so it might have had the biggest engine...its propeller is pretty big but i'm not sure if its the biggest - its a huge plane though so it could be!


----------



## Archer (Feb 22, 2004)

You've got good taste Knight Hawk  

Actually, the P-38 broke 400 mph before the Corsair, the Corsair was the first single-engine plane to do so. The R-2800 Double Wasp was also used by the Hellcat and P-47, but niether had the 13 foot 4 inch (IIRC) diameter prop.

The Americans actually wanted the Corsair quite badly since Wildcats weren't exactly good against Zeroes, and they put it into service with the Marines originally. There was also VF-12 and VF-17 that used and got carrier qualified with Corsairs. VF-12 switched to Hellcats however and VF-17 became a landbased squadron due to lack of the necessary supply infrastructure.

Hellcats actually were designed to beat the Zero. From information gathered from the Zero in American hands (from Attu Island I believe) the Hellcat was made to kill it, which it did quite well. The Hellcat only got its chance to fight though due to the Corsair's initial problems with carries unless I'm mistaken. It was a good fighter, but was ugly IMO (not quite as much as the Mustang  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually the Hellcat more than held its own against the Japanese Zero fighters. In fact the highest scoring American Ace of the war scored most of his kills flying a Hellcat in the Pacific theatre


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

WHAT DOES IMO MEAN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 23, 2004)

In My Opinion


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

thank you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

anytime.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

*cough* spam *cough*


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 24, 2004)

Crazy said:


> In My Opinion



..............or In My Omelette      

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2004)

corsairs kick ass they are way cool no matter how good they were


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 24, 2004)

so even if they sucked and couldnt shoot anything down (which isnt true) or couldnt kill anything on the ground (which isnt tue either) they would still be cool? really??? thats awesome! but please explain


----------



## Brandon (Feb 24, 2004)

The Mustang uglier than the Hellcat?! Good heavens what are you smoking? Serious the Corsair is beautiful but just think if the Bearcat would have been avaliable! It was designed after some Grumman test pilots flew a captured Focke Wolfe FW-190. They said if that had a PW R2800 up front it would be unstopable.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 24, 2004)

i agree 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Anonymous said:


> corsairs kick ass they are way cool no matter how good they were



You admin guys for the site are gonna have to start up some kind of section on the site for "Amazingly silly quotes" and this one has to be somewhere near the top!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2004)

well, most of cheeddar cheese's posts would be there


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 25, 2004)

I have to say Vought/Goodyear F4U/FG Corsair is the best Naval Fighter ever than any Grumman aircraft like Hellcat/Wildcat/Bearcat and Corsair production longer than any other US Fighter of World War II, the Corsair had several claims to fame. It was credited with an 11 : 1 ratio of kills to losses in action against Japanese aircraft and was the last piston-engined fighter in producation for any of the US services. Its greatest certainly the finest carrier-based fighter of any used by the combatants in World War II, and perhaps the best of any US fighters in that conflict.

Oh BTW, To all you P-38 Lighting, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat people, just remember: The Corsair was the first aircraft to reach speeds over 400 miles per hour.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Yeah well before you get all 'God Bless America' on us - just remember its FACT that Great Britain helped to design the Corsair as Vought-Sikorsky had alot of trouble with early designs - as i've explained before the Corsair pilots kept crashing their aircraft because they complained they couldn't see where they were landing over the planes very long nose so the Fleet Air Arm got involved and solved the US Navys problems for them - once again GREAT Britain comes to the rescue 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 25, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Yeah well before you get all 'God Bless America' on us - just remember its FACT that Great Britain helped to design the Corsair as Vought-Sikorsky had alot of trouble with early designs - as i've explained before the Corsair pilots kept crashing their aircraft because they complained they couldn't see where they were landing over the planes very long nose so the Fleet Air Arm got involved and solved the US Navys problems for them - once again GREAT Britain comes to the rescue 8)


That's true what Bronzewhaler said that Great Britain came to the rescue and but that is not all that Great Britain help us, Grumman who help out on the landing gear problem which the problem is "bounce" landing which I was told that Grumman did help out a little bit. There was alot problem on early F4U-1's and Navy carrier use until late in 1944. 

BTW, Bronze, There's no "God Bless America" on the Corsair and only just this "Good Work"  

Salute


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 26, 2004)

I dunno, the Corsair was a fine machine but I still can't help but think that perhaps the "best" category actually belongs to the Zero.

Kiwimac


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

I think you could be right there, although the Hellcat would be up there as well, M8  

Hot Space


----------



## ZLIN pilot (Feb 26, 2004)

"Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!"
^
HAHA!! Love that Signature..."Airplane"? Think I'll be changing my sig. now...


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

ZLIN pilot said:


> "Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!"
> ^
> HAHA!! Love that Signature..."Airplane"? Think I'll be changing my sig. now...



That's it.................the best Movie EVER    

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

> Oh BTW, To all you P-38 Lighting, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat people, just remember: The Corsair was the first aircraft to reach speeds over 400 miles per hour.


yes, but the P-47 was the first piston engined plane to reach 500mph, alot better that 400mph


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

ZLIN pilot said:


> "Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!"
> ^
> HAHA!! Love that Signature..."Airplane"? Think I'll be changing my sig. now...



I've just notice your's, excellent   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

that's right, ignore my post


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Oh BTW, To all you P-38 Lighting, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat people, just remember: The Corsair was the first aircraft to reach speeds over 400 miles per hour.
> 
> 
> yes, but the P-47 was the first piston engined plane to reach 500mph, alot better that 400mph



Sorry   but yep, the P-47M was a real Mean Machine 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)




----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 26, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Oh BTW, To all you P-38 Lighting, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat people, just remember: The Corsair was the first aircraft to reach speeds over 400 miles per hour.
> 
> 
> yes, but the P-47 was the first piston engined plane to reach 500mph, alot better that 400mph


"During combat practice in early January, 1943, a captured Japanese Zero was put up against an F4U-1, with the Corsair proving superior in most respects. Against a P-51 Mustang, the Corsair outfought the Army craft above 12,000 feet, and was considered evenly matched below that altitude. A pair of Corsairs took on two Gumman F6F Hellcats. Noted Navy flier Butch O'Hare piloted one of the Hellcats, and later flew the Corsair. Observers said the Hellcat was no match for the F4U-1. On May 21, 1943 a fighter evaluation meeting took place at Eglin Air Base in Florida. Army pilots flying the Corsair for the first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with P-47, P-51, P-38, and P-39 Army Fighters and all resulted favorably for the *Corsair*. 

 \/


----------



## Archer (Feb 26, 2004)

> just remember its FACT that Great Britain helped to design the Corsair as Vought-Sikorsky had alot of trouble with early designs - as i've explained before the Corsair pilots kept crashing their aircraft because they complained they couldn't see where they were landing over the planes very long nose so the Fleet Air Arm got involved and solved the US Navys problems for them



Could you list some of the problems please? The reason I'm asking is that most of the major problems I've ever heard about related to the design of the Corsair were fixed largely by VF-17 and other US squadrons with Vought representatives.




> Grumman who help out on the landing gear problem which the problem is "bounce" landing which I was told that Grumman did help out a little bit.



According to Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea by Barrett Tillman and Vought F4U Corsair by Martin W. Bowman, as well as everything else I've ever seen regarding the bounce on landing, have said it was fixed by VF-17's personnel.



> Oh BTW, To all you P-38 Lighting, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F6F Hellcat and F8F Bearcat people, just remember: The Corsair was the first aircraft to reach speeds over 400 miles per hour.



Again with Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea as my source, "Since 1940 the claim has been made that the Corsair was the first American fighter to exceed the magical 400 mph mark in level flight. This was not strictly accurate. The Army Air Corps' Lockheed P-38 Lightning is the legitimate holder of that title. The Corsair was the first U.S. single engine fighter to break the 400 mph barrier."

Also, I don't know squat about the F8F other than it was really good. Since it was planned to replace F6Fs and F4Us as the carrier-borne fighter in the USN I would assume it was superior to the Corsair. But since it never saw action in WWII, it doesn't really matter since we're talking about WWII


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 26, 2004)

F8F "Bearcat" was superior any USN in WWII, but the bad news that WWII was finally over after Japanese surrender and F8F was on the way to WWII. I have learn that Grumman F8F Bearcat was alot faster than Goodyear F2G Super Corsair and F2G was suppose to be close as 500+ mph, but failure during suffered from lateral control problems. US Navy order 418+ F2G Super Corsair, but since the WWII was over and they cancel the order. Production of the F2G ended after eight prototypes, five F2G-1s and five F2G-2s were completed.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 27, 2004)

The only thing the Brits did were find a way to cure the Corsair's bounce and come up with a safe Landing Approach - Nothing more.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

ah! but if we didn't do that, the whole plane would be useless


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 27, 2004)

Just a Lump of Metal  

Hot Space


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 27, 2004)

True, Brit has save our butt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

yup, and although i hate to admit it, the US has soved ours a couple of times too


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 27, 2004)

Too many to mention here 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah! but if we didn't do that, the whole plane would be useless


not true at all,what about squads like black sheep????,they were very sucsesful


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

that is what the corsair is remebered for,people like greg boyington brought the plane into the light


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 27, 2004)

* HARD QUESTION EASILY ANSWERED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITY*

"I have been asked many times why the British Royal Navy was able to carrier-qualify in its 2,102 Corsair one year earlier than the American Navy. Many articles on carrier aviation have also asked this question, so I decide to call the WW II Royal Navy's most decorated test pilot, Capt. Eric Brown, for the answer. I have known him since 1947 when he served as an exchange pilot and acted as my Panther chase pilot at NATC Patuxent River, Maryland. I called him on July 23, 2003, and put the question to him.
His answer: 'We were a bit desperate at the time our new carrier being launched faster than we were able to equip them. (For perspective, he related that the Royal Navy had 83 carriers deployed at the War's end!) The Corsairs gave us a bit of a hard time, and we soon understood exactly why the American had so much trouble with them. One problem was the bad view over the nose. Also, if one got slow on approach and added full power to go around again, one could induce an uncontrollable torque roll. Because of the (Corsair's) small stabilizing vertical-fin area (one-third the size of Hellcat's) and high power, the aircraft would then ya, roll, stall and spin into the water. It also, had a most non-resilient landing gear that would bounce the beast over the barrier into the parked aircraft pack on the foredeck.
"Its redeeming factor was its high kill rate-second only to the Hellcat's, but the high accident rate cost a lot of Allied pilots their lives. The Royal Navy had a lot of trash in its Seafire and Sea Hurricane aircraft because neither was disnged from the ground up for carrier operations."
Questions answered: because of its great need for carrier fighters, the British Royal Navy accepted the Corsair's abysmal accident losses.

*QUESTION:*

Why did it take so long to the Corsair's carrier landing bounce and torque-roll stall accident problems?
Had Vought requested that the Navy load them a Hellcat's well known, non-bounce, landing gear shock strut and use its design to solve that landing-gear problem, it could have been eliminated within a month. Had Vought increased the Corsair's roll-stabilizing vertical fin area by three times (to at least make it equal to the Hellcat's) the torque-roll stall would have been eliminated. I checkeda 1952 F4U-5 Pilots' Handbook that stated clearly on page 29. "At the stall with POWER ON, FLAPS DOWN, a roll off to the left is violent and is accompanied by 600- to 900- foot loss in altitude. "At this late date in the Corsair's long history, torque roll still caused too many accidents when a pilot added power during a landing-signal officer's wave-off on a poor carrier-landing approach!
Answer: when I posed this question to two Vought WW II test pilots, they immediately replied that Vought's enginnering boss simply didn't want to hear that anything was wrong with the Corsair, even from Navy-trained test pilots. Bob Hall, test pilot and VP of engineering. Bud Gilles, test pilot and VP of Flight Operations and the Service Department and President Boy Grumman (who flew Hellcat throughout WW II) had open-door policy to all Grumman test pilots.

_Flight Journal Speaical Issue *F4U Corsair*_


----------



## Archer (Feb 27, 2004)

> The only thing the Brits did were find a way to cure the Corsair's bounce and come up with a safe Landing Approach - Nothing more.


A safe landing approach - yes, but my point was how the Brits helped design the Corsair, this is just operating procedure 
The bounce was partially resolved when the Brits chopped 8 inches off each wing. The cut was so the Corsairs could fit in the hangars and reducing the bounce was a byproduct.
From Corsair: F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman:
"The engineering officer, Lieutenant M. W. "Butch" Davenport, worked with Vought representatives in solving the landing gear oleo problem. Experimentation with the oil level and air pressure in the gear strut eventually found the right combination. It was a relatively easy procedure to correct the rigid oleos as they arrived from the factory. With a softer oleo piston stroke owing to greater air pressure, the jolt and consequent landing bounce was alleviated." And Davenport was the engineering officer of VF-17. Davenport also did early testing and design of the spoiling device on the right wing to lessen the wing drop when a Corsair stalled.

"Apparently the Fleet Air Arm never entertained serious reservations about the Corsair as a carrier aircraft. Almost from the beginning, modifications were made with the specific aim of qualifying the new fighters for embarked operations. These included the oleo strut and starboard wing spoiler mods which became standard on all American Corsairs."


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 28, 2004)

Funny how often its the little things like the pressure in an oleo strut that can be the downfall of a good airplane.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

that's fasinating stuff


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

An interesting and excellent Post, Rafe 35 8) 8) 8) 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

where's you get that 'lil pic on the left HS, it's cool


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

if it wernt for the americans there would be no corsair.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> where's you get that 'lil pic on the left HS, it's cool



Here's the Link 8) 

http://emoticons4u.com/smoking.htm

Hot Space


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 1, 2004)

Viper said:


> if it wernt for the americans there would be no corsair.


Well, If werent for Corsair designer Rex Beisl who work for Vought, There would be no F4U Corsair and USN/USMC will probably having trouble against Japanese, but F6F Hellcat would better without F4U Corsair and beside F6F Hellcat got more kills than F4U Corsair, but again F4U Production more than F6F Hellcat lol. 

BTW Hot Space, Thanks!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

> if it wernt for the americans there would be no corsair.



if it weren't for the Brittish, you couldn't land it


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 2, 2004)

But if it wasn't for a Russian it wouldn't of been Built   8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 2, 2004)

correction lanc.....they wouldnt be able to land it on a carrier,it was doing just fine without the britesh on land bases


----------



## Viper (Mar 2, 2004)

and rafe.....i dont see any tv shows or movies other than documenturys with britesh corsairs in them,my point is lots of people remember corsairs for black sheep and the jolly rodgers,britesh corsairs are not remembered very much or at all sometimes,they were made famous by the americans and dont i denie it


----------



## Viper (Mar 2, 2004)

and the navy could have held out with hellcats and the bearcat or some other fighter would have came out


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 2, 2004)

Viper said:


> and rafe.....i dont see any tv shows or movies other than documenturys with britesh corsairs in them,my point is lots of people remember corsairs for black sheep and the jolly rodgers,britesh corsairs are not remembered very much or at all sometimes,they were made famous by the americans and dont i denie it


Man, I really don't care about TV Shows or Movies that talkin' about some famous squadron and sure British Corsair are not remembered, but how about this? "Gone but not forgotten" 

Check it out on this site you should know about FAA Corsair history: http://fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Corsair.htm

There are two Royal Navy Ace in World War II and they flow Corsair II on HMS Victorious in January 1945. Corsairs for FAA didnt last long until 1946 and they were replace by either Sea Fury or other British new Navy Fighter. 

Major Ronald C. Hay, of No 47 Wg. (7 kills and 4 Damage)
Sub Lt Donald J Sheppard, of No 1836 Sqn (5 kills and 1 Damage)


----------



## Archer (Mar 3, 2004)

Don't forget Lt. Gray, while not an ace, a distinguished Corsair pilot. He was Canadian and recipient of the Victoria Cross for his actions on an attack against shipping in Onagawa Wan (sp?). He led his squadron in through heavy AA. He picked out the Amakusa, as he bore down on it the Amakusa, Ohama, a Minesweeper, and a Subchaser fired at him. His Corsair caught fire and one bomb was shot off of it, he continued his attack and dropped his remaining bomb. It penetrated the Amakusa below the No 2 gun, exploded inside the ship and it quickly rolled over and sank. As Lt Gray flew away from the Amakusa after dropping his bomb, his Corsair burst into flames and his aircraft crashed into the ocean.
While his final flight was in 115*X, I recall reading that 119*X was his normal mount, but it had a problem that morning so he switched to 115*X.
http://www.navalmuseum.ab.ca/gray.html

In addition to Lt Gray and Sub Lt Sheppard, who were Canadians that flew Corsairs with the FAA, while looking for more details on Lt Gray's mission, I also found that the last Canadian to die in WWII, Lt G.A. Anderon, also flew Corsairs. On approach after a second strike on Onagawa Bay several hours after Lt. Gray went down, Lt Anderson's engine faltered and the plane hit the rounddown and he died in the collision.

Rafe's link is also a great site for info about FAA Corsairs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

> they were made famous by the americans and dont i denie it


 i realise they were best remembered for their role in the east, i'm just sayin, we taught them how to land it on carriers


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

Viper, i know its deeply painful for any American to accept.... but without help from abroad (both British and Russian) one of the best fighters of the war wouldn't have been as versatile....you can't deny that it was hardly a pure American effort...in fact you yanks can't even boast that the P-51 Mustang (arguably your most famous fighter) was entirely yours...it had a British made engine in it!!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

no it had a british DESIGNED engine in it packard actually made it and some spits had packard merlins as well


----------



## Crazy (Mar 3, 2004)

Touche!


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 3, 2004)

Archer said:


> Don't forget Lt. Gray, while not an ace, a distinguished Corsair pilot. He was Canadian and recipient of the Victoria Cross for his actions on an attack against shipping in Onagawa Wan (sp?). He led his squadron in through heavy AA. He picked out the Amakusa, as he bore down on it the Amakusa, Ohama, a Minesweeper, and a Subchaser fired at him. His Corsair caught fire and one bomb was shot off of it, he continued his attack and dropped his remaining bomb. It penetrated the Amakusa below the No 2 gun, exploded inside the ship and it quickly rolled over and sank. As Lt Gray flew away from the Amakusa after dropping his bomb, his Corsair burst into flames and his aircraft crashed into the ocean.
> While his final flight was in 115*X, I recall reading that 119*X was his normal mount, but it had a problem that morning so he switched to 115*X.
> http://www.navalmuseum.ab.ca/gray.html
> 
> ...


Hmm I forgot about that and British are pretty good to fly their Corsair as American do.


----------



## Archer (Mar 3, 2004)

Kiwi's too. The Kiwi's were mopping up the islands bypassed by the Yanks in the Solomons and the area around their until the war's end. The were about to move over to the CBI theater I think when the war ended. I think the Kiwi's were probably more forgotten than the FAA.


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 3, 2004)

Archer said:


> Kiwi's too. The Kiwi's were mopping up the islands bypassed by the Yanks in the Solomons and the area around their until the war's end. The were about to move over to the CBI theater I think when the war ended. I think the Kiwi's were probably more forgotten than the FAA.


RNZAF right? They were pretty forgotten and many people dont know what Kiwi is which it seem feel pretty bad that they have fought against Japanese in WWII as FAA and USA did. They flow many aircraft such as P-40 Warhawk, F4F-4 Wildcat, Seafire and other nation aircraft.


----------



## Archer (Mar 4, 2004)

RNZAF is correct.

I have the Vought history site in my favourites, the most useful ones for Corsairs are http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/mono.html for some pics and info and http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/html/pmono.html for just pics. I had found another one probably about a year ago, it was simple (ie 10 pics or so per page, white BG, and a simple table with pics and captions) that had many of the pics from the above sights, but some were larger (1024*768 and bigger). I think it was the Vought site, but I'm not certain. If it was its unfortunate that the Vought site only has smaller pics now.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

It doesn't matter who BUILT the damn engines - the point is they were BRITISH and even IF you put aside the engine argument the planes we mentioned still relied on British intervention to become the best fighters - it really is as simple as that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 4, 2004)

Archer said:


> RNZAF is correct.
> 
> I have the Vought history site in my favourites, the most useful ones for Corsairs are http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/mono.html for some pics and info and http://www.vought.com/heritage/photo/html/pmono.html for just pics. I had found another one probably about a year ago, it was simple (ie 10 pics or so per page, white BG, and a simple table with pics and captions) that had many of the pics from the above sights, but some were larger (1024*768 and bigger). I think it was the Vought site, but I'm not certain. If it was its unfortunate that the Vought site only has smaller pics now.


Yeah, I always go Vought website where my friend told me that they Corsair picture which I was looking for it long time and now I found it. They show alot Prototype Corsair picture that i never see before, but too bad that I cannot find Goodyear or Brewster prototype corsair.


----------



## itznogood (Mar 4, 2004)

Very nice plane


----------



## itznogood (Mar 4, 2004)

And one more


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

cool 8)


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 5, 2004)

What Itznogood post that F2G-2 Super Corsair:

B.U. #88463: Race No. 74: Civil Race No. "NX5577N"
Cook purchased this F2G-2 on 2-05-47 for $1,250. It was flown by Cook and by his friend Richard Becker. #74 was sold to Walter Soplata, of Newberry, Ohio. This F2G was acquired by the Crawford Museum in Cleveland, Ohio. Bob Odergaard of Kindred, N.D. is restoring the a./c. to static condition. 

and Itznogood again post that Brewster F3A-1D Corsair: 

Brewster only make 735 F3A-1s(F4U-1) Model and the business was not so well, so they went out of business after production of F3As. Probably why they went went out of business because so many problem on F2A Buffloes and F3A Corsair. Many US Navy and US Marines Corps really hate F2A Buffloes because they were so crude and had so many problems like engine, etc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 5, 2004)

yeah, the corsair was very good looking..................


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

And so is this (Yes I know I've Posted this Picture here 3 times today   )






Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)




----------



## Hot Space (Mar 6, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

im not american,im canadian,and lanc u did not teach them how to land,u fixed it


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

the thing is,sure the britesh fixed the gear and used them in the eto. But the americans did more damage with them,the americans would have evetually fixed it


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

VF-17 solved the oleo problem and almost all Corsairs afterwards until F4U-1Ds I think had it included in the field mods (oleo fix amongst other things) before gonig overseas or before fighting as opposed to being done in the factory. I've also read that a VMF squadron (I forget which one, probably -124 sine it was the first Marine squadron with Corsairs) also more or less did the same thing independently of Vought/VF-17 _(Edit: VF(N)-101 made independent oleo mods, maybe not a VMF squadron)_. 

Everything I've seen about the FAA regarding oleo problems just says 
they made the modification, not that they solved it. The first FAA squadrons sailed to the US for training in late May 1943. VF-17 started their carrier qualifications, which one can assume was after the oleo fix was done, on May 1, 1943.


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 6, 2004)

Archer is right about VF-17 solved the problem and BTW Archerm VF(N)-101 use F4U-2 night fighter, is that correct?


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

just dont try and make the corsair sound like a pure britesh fighter,because it wasnt,the spitfire and hurricane were


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

VF(N)-101 was equipped with F4U-2s. No one liked them (or the night fighter squadrons on other carriers with F6F-3Es) because it meant more work after a very long day all for one or two planes (moving the planes on deck for take off and again for landing). The task group commander insisted on launching one or two night fighters whenever a bogey was picked up on radar. VF(N)-101 launched often when other carriers wouldn't launch their night fighters because of the extra work.

While the plane handlers and and air staff still didn't like them, after the Marianas Turkey Shoot the other pilots did. The task group sent a 200 plane attack against the IJN fleet, they'd return after sunset, and not all the groups were night qualified. Harmer (CO of VF(N)-101, and one of two pilots that did almost all of the flying at night) launched, and found groups of carrier planes that were lost. He found three groups of planes and led or vectored them back to the carriers.


----------



## Bacher (Mar 6, 2004)

Corsair? What happened to the Hellcat? Sure, it wasn't the most maneuverable, or the fastest, but it certainly gave the Japs quite a shock.


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

The Hellcat was good, but the general consensus here is the Corsair was better (and it was leaning that way before I arrived  ). The Hellcat had a better kill/death ratio (19:1 IIRC) while the Corsairs was 11:1, the Hellcat also had some stunning numbers of enemy planes destroyed - 300 at Truk, 35 for one loss over Guam, somewhere near 400 in the Marianas Turkey Shoot, etc. That said, IMO if Corsairs were aboard they would've done better  Then again, they could've done worse.

I think the Corsair's better, maybe this site is lacking in Hellcat fans...

The Corsair looks better too, which isn't really that hard when comparing any plane to the F6F


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

i think the corsair was a better plane to......................


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 7, 2004)

I believe that Grumman want to try F6F Hellcat to against Vought F4U Corsair and they probably agree that who's the better fighter. In sometime Spring 1943, a pair of Corsair took on two Grumman Hellcats F6F Hellcat, Noted Navy Flier *Butch O'Hare* piloted one of the Hellcats, and later flew the Corsair.

Observer said the Hellcat was no match for the F4U-1 Corsair.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Cobblers!

The Zero was the niftiest!!

Kiwimac <lights fuse and runs and hides>


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

the zero rocks 8)


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

The Zero was awesome while they had good pilots, I've heard their gunnery skills were so good that they could aim for the pilot, and hit them a fair amount of the time. It was a sweet plane, but without armor and a relatively light armament, it had many flaws once the Americans devised tactics to keep themselves somewhat safer.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Damn!

Wasted effort!

Zero was good as was the Hayate but I think that one of the finest Japanese planes was the Raiden.

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

In my lowly opinion the Mitsubishi F1M was the best Jap plane


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 7, 2004)

I dont like any Japanese Fighter, I dont know why lol.


----------



## SINKA (Mar 8, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

Hey, Try the KI61 Hien!

Nifty plane!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 8, 2004)

Rafe35 said:


> I dont like any Japanese Fighter, I dont know why lol.



I wouldn't be too quick to criticise Jap planes if i were you mate...if it weren't for stiff Jap resistance in the Pacific arguably there would have been no need to design your beloved Corsair...think about it 

Cause and Effect


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

oohhhhh, someone has been paying attention in class *clap*


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

IMO possibly the single best naval fighter of ww2

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

what is it?  what ever it is im sure the corsair was better


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

thats a zero,very impresive fighter,but the corsair was waaaay better


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

ya jappanese fighters i dont like very much


----------



## Viper (Mar 8, 2004)

and i think the hellcat is being left out here


----------



## Archer (Mar 8, 2004)

A6M2 Zero I believe. They were great, but they had nor armour or self-sealing fuel tanks which is very bad, especially when the enemy's aircraft are generally quite tough, fast, powerful (especially against an unarmoured plane), and dive faster. Zeroes are beautiful planes and were quite good in the opening days of the war, but soon effective tactics were employed by the allies, and once the US evaluated one in flight, it was in some serious trouble as even better tactics were discovered.


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 8, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Rafe35 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont like any Japanese Fighter, I dont know why lol.
> ...


If the Japanese did not attack Pearl Habor then Vought F4U Corsair will still go on, because there's a war over England and Great Britiian probably need F4U Corsair for FAA, but again, I dont know that would happened. There are so many "What If in WWII" questions and I doubt that would really happened.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

Well you have to consider it from the point of view that most of the warplane designs (if not all) surfaced becuase there was a specific need for that type of plane. For example the DH Mosquito was made almost entirely of wood (an idea that was laughable at the time) but that "wooden wonder" went on to become arguably the best fighter/bomber of WW2 (bare in mind it was still in service around the world well into the 50's when Jets ruled the skies) but it was designed that way becuase the British Gov at the time needed a lightweight bomber that could outrun german fighters BUT they didn't have alot of materials for mass producing planes so wood was used - we didn't have lots of steel but more than enough trees...my point to this long-winded story is that the US spawned the Corsair (with international assistance  ) because their planes were having a bit of 'trouble' comparing to Japanese planes (the Japs had some amazing planes and i think us brits are lucky we didn't have them as our neighbours instead of Germany) my point is the Corsair WAS born out of nessasity rather than because Vought wanted a new fighter designed - so if it wasn't NEEDED by the Americans i doubt very much it was NEEDED by anyone else (The Brits had the Germans airforce under control) - the corsair was one of the best planes of the war and no-one could argue otherwise (without looking very silly) but all i'm saying is it might not have been built if it weren't for the stubborness of the Japanese...BUT you are quite correct there are too many 'what ifs' in this war and its ridiculus to bother with them  

cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

is a zero  dont look like one to me....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

i'm bot sure, i would have said it was a T-6 converted to look like a Zero proberly for a film, but for the long landing gear which the T-6 didn't have, so it's a close one to call......................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

I think it doesn't quite look like an A6M Zero cos of the camera angle and the fact that the cockpit is open  you don't often see photos of them with their wheels down either


----------



## Archer (Mar 9, 2004)

> the US spawned the Corsair (with international assistance)


Would someone who keeps mentionning this please tell me what this international (or British) assistance was? Unless its just the landing approach, which I'm sure that after several casualties on straight in approaches like the Brits had before they changed to lining up at the last moment, even the yanks would have figured it out quite quickly  

As to the Corsair being designed in response to 'trouble' with the Japanese planes, you're quite wrong 



> In 1938 the US Navy had decided that the time was long overdue to bring carrier-based aviation up to the same performance level as land-based aircraft. On 30 June 1938 the US Navy ordered teh Grumman XF5F-1 and the Vought XF4U-1, while a third aircraft, the Bell XFL-1, was ordered laster on 8 November. The XF5F-2 was the first twin-engine, single-seat aircraft to be built for the Navy, while the Bell XFL-1 was a carrier-based version of the P-39 Airacobra...After just over 200 flights the XF5F-1 project was abandonned in favour of the XF7F-1, which later became the Tigercat. Equally, the Bell machine, first flown on 13 May 1940, was not proceeded with either... on 29 May 1940 the yellow-and-silver painted XF4U-1 was ready for its first flight



As you can see, the US Navy had the Corsair design specs laid out before WWII broke out (excluding the Japanese invasion of China though) and it's first flight was before the US engaged in air combat with the Japanese. Also, the Zero's capabilities were unknown to the US until they captured one in the Aleutians, and the general belief in the US leading up to the war was that the Japanese couldn't make a decent combat aircraft (which they were extremely wrong about  ). While Chennault was in China from 37 or so, any information he may have passed on to the US wasn't distributed to the pilots AFAIK.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

I know that the first orders were placed for Corsairs in 1941...but didn't fly til 1942...you're telling me it took the yanks 4 years to design this aircraft?? Christ even the FRENCH could've designed and perfected it in that time!  

As for presenting you with the info on how the Brits and the Russians (shock  ) helped the Americans design the plane...do the research yourself you lazy bugger!  but as you can see scrolling through previous entires in different threads it is a widely known fact...i first heard about it on a history program on the BBC but can't really remember details the Americans could'nt work out the problems themselves so the Brits had to sort it for them - thats all i know - as for the Russians i don't even know if thats true - someone else on this thread mentioned it but of course it could be a wind up 8) check for youself buddy - i'm a sure a 'die hard' fan of the corsair like yourself would love the chance to find out how great our British Engineers were


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 9, 2004)

Nope, it's a REAL A6M2 Zero 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

It certainly is! oliver

Fuhrer Von Spam Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

i agree but i can see where the lanc got his ideas of it being a converted texan because when the cockpit is slid back it becomes framed like a texans but i can definetly say it IS a zero

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> It certainly is! oliver
> 
> Fuhrer Von Spam Kiwimac



Oliver?

But my name is Susan  

Hot Space


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 10, 2004)

I found some info about Tora! Tora! Tora! which they use some of T-6 Texan in the movie, but i aint sure lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2004)

na, you can see in the pic that it obviously has long landing gear, and the T-6 had very short landing gear..............


----------



## Archer (Mar 10, 2004)

Tora Tora Tora used modified T-6s. I have the DVD and they say it in an interview. Also, after they point it out, and that the wings are swept wrong, its actually quite obvious (one had the leading edge swept and the trailing relatively straight, the other was the opposite).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

does my siggy work?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

nope  oh well ill change it tomorrow


----------



## R Pope (Mar 10, 2004)

You want to see a T-6--Zero photo go to Axl's plane gallery and look up the Zero. Several pics are Tora Tora Harvards.


----------



## Archer (Mar 10, 2004)

Your pic needs to be hosted online somewhere C.C. - like the picture gallery


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I know that the first orders were placed for Corsairs in 1941...but didn't fly til 1942...you're telling me it took the yanks 4 years to design this aircraft?? Christ even the FRENCH could've designed and perfected it in that time!
> 
> through previous entires in different threads it is a widely known fact...i first heard about it on a history program on the BBC but can't really remember details the Americans could'nt work out the problems themselves so the Brits had to sort it for them - thats all i know - (well you dont noe squat then)
> 
> ...


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

you guys the corsair was an AMERICAN PLANE not britesh,the fixed the gear,the americans would have fixed it later,dont try and make it sound britesh cuz it just isnt,just looking at it and you can tell its american,and then you retaliate to me by writeing some 15 page quote on how the britesh "improved" the corsair,well they didnt make it so dont say anything just dont ur taking a true american plane and trying to britanise it


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

it wont work


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

Rafe35 said:


> I found some info about Tora! Tora! Tora! which they use some of T-6 Texan in the movie, but i aint sure lol


ya they jus converted them,a harvard is very very simmalar to a zero


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

harvard=a canadian version of a t-6,very popular up here,there is lots of them


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

Ok. let's all agree that the Corsair WAS an American Aircraft 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

she still is hotspace


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

not was


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

Yep and alway's will be, M8 8) 

The Brits might of had a little hand in it to make to work for Carrier Op's, but it WAS the American who made it into a fine Art 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 10, 2004)

yes ill give you that


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

ill give you nothing  nothing... BUT DEATH!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 11, 2004)

So you're gonna spend a night in with my wife then   

He He

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 11, 2004)

NO NO NO, there will be NO wife-swapping in the Fourth a Half Reich, *you* married her, *you're* stuck with her. Unless she is like really HOT, then the Fuhrer gets first dibs!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

Viper mate - i think you're a tad mentally unstable  - not to mention deep deep deep in denile - you're the one who doesn't know what hes talking about pal - we DID help design it - the yanks DON'T deserve all the credit and thanks to records that EXIST the yanks DON'T get all the credit - nothing some plonker like you is ever going to change - get over it quick, its boring me


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

Viper said:


> you guys the corsair was an AMERICAN PLANE not britesh,the fixed the gear,the americans would have fixed it later,dont try and make it sound britesh cuz it just isnt,just looking at it and you can tell its american,and then you retaliate to me by writeing some 15 page quote on how the britesh "improved" the corsair,well they didnt make it so dont say anything just dont ur taking a true american plane and trying to britanise it



Taking a True American plane and trying to Britainise it?? (i think thats what you're desperately trying to spell but obviously that isn't your strong point, i don't even think 'Britainise' is actually a word...  )

To be honest mate - i don't like American planes - you can keep them! 
Besides i don't know why you're throwing you're doll out of the pram - you're a bloody canadian!

If you can't be bothered to look up the information for yourself don't DARE tell me i don't know what i'm saying


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 11, 2004)

viper....
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but trying to tell Mr bronzewhaler he knows squat is not the best way to make friends and influence people! From the pages before, it is clear to myself and others that bronze appears to have his facts straight whereas you, as bronzewhale so equontly put it...are a tad mentally unstable. 
Whilst i am here and in a particulary viscious mood...True American?????Dont make me laugh please....coming from a country all of 200 years old...the country is a joke as well as the people! Fucking hell Viper....sort it out!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2004)

hey hey, less of the country bashing


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

CAN ANYONE HELP ME WITH THIS AVIATION PROBLEM...?

I've heard you're the people to see about finding things... 8) 

Does anyone know where to find, or can post on this thread (or send a message to me) a cutaway of a fairy Barracuda (British Navy Bomber) I know one exists but i've used Google and i can't find one...can anyone help..i would say i'll offer a cash prize...but i don't want to lie to you guys 8) 

Any help with this would be deeply appreciated!


Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2004)

well bronzewhaler, i feel like i owe you something but unfortuatly i have very little time for research  if i get a few mins spare ill have a look round


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 11, 2004)

Whaler,

I'm looking for ya!

Kiwimac


----------



## Archer (Mar 11, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> You're the one who doesn't know what hes talking about pal - we DID help design it - the yanks DON'T deserve all the credit and thanks to records that EXIST the yanks DON'T get all the credit - nothing some plonker like you is ever going to change - get over it quick, its boring me



Can you point me to the records please? I _want_ to find out what the Brits did since I have not yet come across it. In several books about the Corsair's development (including information about it being modified to accomodate for RN differences, pilot training, etc) the only "design" changes other than the modifications that were standard to US Corsairs was chopping off 8 inches of each wing so it would fit in the Brit carrier hangars. I've gone back over the information I have regarding the initial design as well the British use of Corsairs and have not found any additional designwork done by the British.

To say you heard it on the BBC doesn't mean that it's true, they could be mistaken. If you were certain of this fact I would expect you to at least give a source of some sort so that it can be settled (and failing this, at least being kind enough to state what they did - saying they helped design it means nothing and doesn't help searching for information to confirm your views).

By not being able to provide a source of the information, and taking what seems to be great offense to someone who is arguing against your point because, thus far, no information confirming the opposite has been presented by anyone.

Personally, until I read otherwise or hear from what I consider to be a knowledgeable source, I will continue assuming the Corsair was not "designed" by the British in any way shape or form beyond cutting off the wingtips. And every time someone brings this up, I will continue to question them.



> Besides i don't know why you're throwing you're doll out of the pram - you're a bloody canadian!


I can't speak for Viper, but I want to find out whether or not there is any truth in this so that anyone reading messages at this forum, myself included, can find accurate information. I personally don't care if the Brits helped design the Corsair or not, I just want to find out whether or not they did.



> If you can't be bothered to look up the information for yourself don't DARE tell me i don't know what i'm saying


I've looked, and come up with nothing so far. Are you saying I can only have a differing view from you if I find an accurate source that specifically says the Brits did help design it or that the Brits didn't help design it (the latter of which most likely won't happen since there's no reason to point this out if they didn't help design it).

If you don't mind my saying so, but I think you either have a very big ego that you don't want damaged in a slight and insignificant way, or you just don't want to share information to enlighten others for some reason. I also suggest you learn better interpersonal skills, as they could use a big improvement. There is no need for claiming others are mentally unstable unless you know for a fact that they are, nor for calling anyone names.


As to jji's post,


> trying to tell Mr bronzewhaler he knows squat is not the best way to make friends and influence people!


BronzeWhaler doesn't know squat, but he really needs to learn to share information with those that would like to learn, and to not take so much offense when others disagree with him for a good reason (such as not being able to find information to support his views - especially when the information may not even exist). His rebuttal to Viper's post was quite immature, and is not going to make him friends or influence people eitherr (unless they only care about British pride and designwork as BronzeWhaler's previous posts send quite clearly).



> From the pages before, it is clear to myself and others that bronze appears to have his facts straight whereas you, as bronzewhale so equontly put it...are a tad mentally unstable.


Much of BronzeWhaler's information I would trust, as he seems to know what he's talking about. Although saying the BBC (not even what program, month, day, year, or anything else) said so is his best proof to date. I would not consider this information accurate when many other accurate and well-referenced books, websites from authorities on the matter, and so on make no mention of British designwork on the Corsair. Again, it is impolite to say he is mentally unstable when you have no reason too, and there is no proof that he is.



> True American?????Dont make me laugh please....coming from a country all of 200 years old...the country is a joke as well as the people! f**k hell Viper....sort it out!


Newsflash, if I were to design something, saying it was truly Canadian would be accurate. It would not be British just because we wer originally a British colony. How old the United States is has no relevance on whether or not it is a really country, it is sovereign, even Great Britain recognizes this, thus it is as correct to say it is a true American plane is as accurate as saying the Spitfire is a true British plane. Between your reply and BronzeWhaler's there is a definate feeling that you are both arguing for British pride and anti-American sentiments and not only (if at all) the truth.

If you believe the US isn't a "real" country, I doubt I will believe any nation is, as to the best knowledge available from many sources, none were created at the very start of time.


Have a good day/evening/night gentlemen,
-Archer


P.S. - <sarcastic>Did you know the all British planes from 1936 until 1947 were designed entirely by extra-terrestrials helping the British (they did not reside in Britain, and were thus not British)? I heard it on the BBC.

And don't tell me that I'm wrong unless you can prove to me that this was not the case (which would involve a book or knowledgeable source specifically stating extra-terrestrials in no way, shape, or form worked on the design of the Spitfire and that it was purely done by British humans - the publicized designers of these aircraft are not trustworthy sources for example because the BBC said they were paid very well to maintain their cover stories for 100 years)</sarcastic>

P.P.S. - That was a ridiculous example, but has the same point as claiming the Corsair was partially designed by the British and not providing any sources or further details, yet not accepting anyone's arguments that you are wrong based on the fact that they can't find any information to say the British specifically did no design work on the Corsair. Don't think that's my belief, for the very obvious reasons.


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Viper mate - i think you're a tad mentally unstable  - not to mention deep deep deep in denile - you're the one who doesn't know what hes talking about pal - we DID help design it - the yanks DON'T deserve all the credit and thanks to records that EXIST the yanks DON'T get all the credit - nothing some plonker like you is ever going to change - get over it quick, its boring me


whaler im beond words here!!! metaly unstable?!?!? no not even,its you that is,"o the corsair isnt a 100% american plane,its britesh" ya....NO,just shutup,its a yank plane maybe you should look up some history on it,u obviously s%^* only noe about how the brits fixed the gear!! na d stretch that out to make it sound like the brits did everything,ur an idiot,look up on one of the most AMERICAN planes,im jus beond words here....just anger,just shutup and keep your damm opinions to yourself,your the only one here that thinks brits deserve all the credit and NEVER diss me again when your the idiot


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

That last comment about how America sucks, you burn in Hell!!! F$%^ Viper?? Oooo I'm keeping comments back here.....you can't beat what Archer said, you just can't, you don't have a clue in the world about the Corsair, nothing at all, you should be dammed ashamed of yourself, about the comments you made and the amount of stuff you know about the Corsair.


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

Which is nothing, the amount of British in the Corsair is minimal, abysmal.


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

Yes true American, don't you dare say it wasn't, don't even dare!!! The apearance is American, I give the Brits credit for the gear (which was a major help, not denying that), nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

u make me sick


----------



## Archer (Mar 11, 2004)

Must've replied after every message - or just wanted to spam the thread


----------



## Viper (Mar 11, 2004)

lol...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

> hey hey, less of the country bashing


well considering the country getting country bashed is america, the country bashing is ok 8) (look, ive gone and made a weird-ass sentence with lotsa repetition!)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 12, 2004)

hey bronze,
how awkward are you....got loads of info about the fairy swordfish but i'll be buggered if i can find anything about the bloody barracuda...tried search engines and they keep refereing to the bloody angel fish! Sent you a link anyway with a miniscule amount of info on it.....sorry cant be of more use


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

viper, archer, leave bronzewhaler the hell alone! my reckoning is youre too stuck up with the pride of your own country youve overlooked the facts  and my bet is bronzewhaler knows a hell of a lot more than you do  im not one to talk really though cos i aint the smartest of people, but one thing i can distinguish is smart people and not so smart people


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 12, 2004)

which one am I?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

me thinks he would choose not so smart... just a prediction...

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 12, 2004)

how dare you


----------



## Archer (Mar 12, 2004)

I'm proud of Canada, so I don't want the British to have been involved in the design of the Corsair (which is American)...can you explain how that makes sense? Or is it because Canada's in N.America and you assume we care about the US's pride and achievements?

Or even that I care about pride? Canada's better than some countries in some ways, but in some ways it's also worse. I do not care who designed the Corsair - all I want are the plain and simple facts. And just stating something and saying you heard it on the radio/TV means very, very little in the way of it being an accurate and knowledgeable source.

I just want BronzeWhaler (or someone else) to give me a source for his information so I can take his word for it if the source sounds accurate, or look for myself if it sounds questionnable (and the BBC is not the be all end all authority on any AFAIK). Absolutely nothing I have ever seen about the Corsair mentions the British helping to design it, so I naturally will have an opposing view. I couldn't care less whether or not the Brits helped, I just want the facts, and if no one can give me an accurate and knowledgeable source, I will assume that they didn't help design the Corsair since to the best of my knowledge, they didn't.

And CC, I'm sure BronzeWhaler knows more than me since I haven't been reading into WWII planes until a year or two ago, and I have focussed on learning about the Corsair (and know very little about European planes). BronzeWhaler has said that he doesn't like American planes - so why would he spend a lot of time learning about them? What BronzeWhaler knows about other aircraft (which I'll agree, is a lot, especially those ugly biplanes  ) has no effect on this argument, since all we care about is the Corsair and not general WWII information, biplanes, Spitfires, Lancasters, or anything else.

I'm far from knowing all there is about Corsairs, and I simply want BronzeWhaler to substantiate his point so that I can learn more about the Corsair, since I cannot find anything that substantiates his point. Unless his point is substantiated by facts, rather than a simple claim, his point carries no weight and has no basis of truth - and this goes for every "fact" presented on this forum and anywhere else.

If anyone argues a fact I present, if I (or someone else) cannot find evidence supporting my point, I would gladly retract my point in question unless it is a well known fact. I would not expect someone to do my research for me, I would do it myself if I thought I was correct so that I could prove my point.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

im staying with bronzewhaler though mate


----------



## Archer (Mar 12, 2004)

And I'm stay against BronzeWhaler unless someone can provide proof that the Brits did.


Guess we're done then...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

erm, what are we arguing about again?


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 12, 2004)

Blah, I support Archer, because? He know more Corsair than I probably know and I only know some French Corsair.


----------



## Archer (Mar 12, 2004)

Blindly trusting someone else...not good


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 12, 2004)

Well let's settle this once and for all:

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html

http://www.concentric.net/~Twist/airwar/f4u/f4u.shtml

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/corsair.htm

http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/F4U.htm

http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u.htm

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/f4u.html

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

http://www.zap16.com/mil fact/vought f4u corsair.htm

As you can see from these few Sites I've found, there isn't ONE mention of the Brits helping with the Design of the Corsair  

Hot Space


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 12, 2004)

Well I know one book (The Blue Devils US Navy and US Marines) and say something about Brits did help F4U Corsair, but I can't remember.


----------



## Archer (Mar 12, 2004)

Well look it up 

Great sites BTW Hot Space, lots of great pictures and reading for later on


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 12, 2004)

I brought it at Barne and Noble Bookstore and they pretty high to buy one which it cost over 30 bucks. So, I'll look it up then.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 12, 2004)

Archer said:


> Well look it up
> 
> Great sites BTW Hot Space, lots of great pictures and reading for later on



Anytime 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

the brits merely refined the corsairs design, they chopped 8 inches off the wing which helped the problem of bounce on landing, they also devised a new approach for landing it due to the lack of visibility caused by the long nose...............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

ceilin feet, 41,500 feet  (sorry, private joke)


----------



## Archer (Mar 13, 2004)

The Brits actually chopped off the 8 inches of the wings so the Corsairs would fit in their hangar decks (which were obviously smaller than the US carrier hangar decks) and all other results were a side effect (some were expected, others - like reducing the bounce - weren't). Lt Cdr R.M. Smeeton of the RN came up with the idea of cutting off the wingtips while Vought was thinking more along the linesof retracting the tail wheel, compressing the main gear oleos, etc.

The results of shortening the wings were an increased stall speed (which gave more warning of a stall and less roll in a stall), slightly increased take off distance, improved maneuverability at lower altitudes, and lessening the bounce.

There is the designation F4U-1B that is sometimes used to describe early Corsairs for the Brits with clipped wings. If this is an official designation, I would say the Brits helped design the -1B (as Viper said - it was an American plane and they Britainized it  ), if it is unofficial, the clipped wings would be a modification IMO, but still a case of the Brits Britainizing an American plane.

And to be picky Lanc, you should have said the Brits merely refined their Corsairs's design, as only British (and possibly RNZAF depending how they got their Corsairs) Corsairs had clipped wings while all the US Corsairs maintained full length wings.

Anyways, landing approach wasn't the design, so we don't need to argue about it 

Just found another thing (I coudln't read too well earlier apparently  ) - Another British improvement was the fitting of small air-scoops to the fuselage sides to help prevent life-threatening carbon monoxide fumes accumulating in the fuselage abaft the cockpit. It was thought that, because the exhaust stubs were flush with the engine cowlings, they were not throwing the expelled gases clear of the forward of the forward end of the fuselage. Interesting if I may say so - guess I'll see if I can find anything also about this modification and whether it was also implement on Yankee Corsairs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

> ceilin feet, 41,500 feet (sorry, private joke)



don't i know it................................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 13, 2004)

Wow, you lot certainly have been busy bunnys since i was here a few days ago...christ practically another 2 pages typed since i was last here...caused quite a stir didn't I..where to begin...i think with Viper

Viper - You are an idiot...an abusive childish idiot at that. 
You are clearly a bit upset about this whole thing - are you by any chance about 10 years old? because you behave like you are - all this abuse you throw at me merely clearly indicates to everyone on this forum that you are extremely frustrated about the fact that you can't swallow the fact that the Corsairs career (that you so clearly adore alot) was helped (in part) by Britain and thats all i have to say to you and as a parting shot from myself to you i just wanted to say.....God bless America....MY ARSE
   

Archer....you challenge me with logic and intelligent arguments - so far no abuse so i'm willing to listen to you (even though its one hell of an effort to read all the stuff you post  ) i would like to clear one thing up for a start...i am not being immature about this - Vipers abuse has provoked me on a few occations to retaliate (see above)...but i'm sure if you were in my shoes you would do the same...?

I accept that your knowledge on the Corsair is VAST and you certainly know more than me - good for you 8) 

However in this case it certainly seems that you have a little more to learn on the subject....its so difficult to know where to begin with this - you made so many points! 

In this country (Great Britain) the BBC's documentaries are the gospel - they can't just make up the information they use in their programs (i don't know about the law in canada but over here we just aren't allowed) the documentary was long and detailed with the testimonies of many american crews/airmen etc, unfortunately i myself did not see the program..my father did. HE told me yesterday about what happened and i do beleive a certain amount of confusion may have arised over this inside this thread heres the story - The Americans had the corsair designed and built originally (i'm fairly certain of this) as a land based aircraft for coastal defence kind of operations flying from shore - It is true that apart from a few minor ajustments the British did NOT make many alterations to the corsairs design (though the ones we did make were vital) BUT before any of you unstable patriots (yes viper i'm talking about you  ) get overexcited at having proved me wrong.............drumroll please The British DID enable the Corsair to be launched from aircraft carriers!    
The Americans had tried previously to land their corsairs on carrier decks BUT their pilots had complained they couldn't see over the nose of the big fighter to land the plane - the silly buggers kept crashing or overshooting the deck and ending up in the drink!
The Yanks decided that they should use the corsair for land based operations only - Britain however was desperate at that stage in the war to have a modern fighter like the Corsair for their carriers - the British engineers examined the corsair and asked the Yanks if they could try and see if they could use them for their carrier operations - the yanks agreed and the brits started on the job...we (yes, we Brits!) developed a very clever and daring system to enable the corsairs to land on our decks without crashing - it was known as the 'landing on' system and it is briefly mentioned on this link 

http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/corsair.htm


If one of you lazy know-it-alls had bothered to go to a search engine and looked instead of giving me grief you would have found it out for yourself...  

The 'Landing on' system involved the corsair pilots bringing their fighters in with the left wing turned down toward the sea - the pilot would be looking at the bridge of the carrier - right at the top of the control tower (bridge) of the ship there would be a man holding a bat in each hand (no, not the furry kind) those bats you see aircrews waving planes on with - he would wave the airman on and direct him onto the deck using those bats - the pilot wouldn't even look at the deck - he would just look at the man with the bats and rely on him 100% to guide him in - if the bat guy got it wrong it was goodbye vienna - not ideal but clearly without British intervention the Corsair would NEVER have been used on carriers - which would have dramatically reduced its usefulness....lets see one of you smartarses argue with me now

I'm sure one of you will jump down my throat about previous incorrect or misleading statements i may have previously made when i wasn't 100% certain of my facts - (i'm NEVER less than 99% sure of my facts ) I am sorry for those but ultimately i'm right and thats what counts isn't it?  

Have a field day guys - i hope i won't have to ever hear about this again - those who stuck by me - thankyou, you know who you are and Archer...i respect you mate - you know you're stuff just try to be a little more patient in future huh? 8) and please try not to brow beat me too much 


Cheers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

oooooooooook


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 13, 2004)

Oh and Viper... :fist: 

Now Archer...THATS immature 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

wow, go bronzewhaler!


----------



## Viper (Mar 13, 2004)

know what? im leaving this site,i came here to talk about ww2 planes and you show up and be a prick so....im gone ,bunch of assholes


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 13, 2004)

Wow! Now I understand what bronzewaler said


----------



## Archer (Mar 13, 2004)

Because I like to argue (well not really, it just keeps us talking about the Corsair  )...



> The Royal Navy were the first, operationally, to use Corsair's on Aircraft Carriers and their first action was against the German Battleship "Tripitz" in March 1943. The first Royal Navy Corsair Squadron, No. 1830, was formed at U.S.N.A.S. Quonset Point, Rhode Island on the 1st June 1943.


Anyone see a problem with this statement from the website? Supposedly the first missions were before there was even a Corsair squadron....Tirpitz was 1944.

Anyways, back to your post BronzeWhaler:


> The British DID enable the Corsair to be launched from aircraft carriers!


Hmm, Corsairs were launched from carriers quite easily, landing was the hard part  



> The Americans had the corsair designed and built originally (i'm fairly certain of this) as a land based aircraft for coastal defence kind of operations flying from shore


The Corsair was originally intended for carriers - but the negative traits of the early Corsairs led the Navy to not put them on carriers originally, so the Marines got them. 


Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea said:


> the F4U's origin dated to early 1938 when the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics sponsored a design competition for a new carrier fighter.





Vought F4U Corsair said:


> In 1938 the US Navy ha ddecided that the time was long overdue to bring carrier-based aviation up to the same performance as land-based aircraft. On 30 June 1938 the US Navy ordered...the Vought XF4U-1


You're quite wrong  

However, the early problems are a good thing for the Brits. According to Norman Hanson, a No.1833 Squadron Corsair pilot,


> The fighter had originally been ordered by the Navy for carrier use to replace the Grumman F4F, the Wildcat (Martlet to the Royal Navy), but it had proved to be such a handful in Fleet trials, and particularly in deck landing, that the new Grumman F6F - the Hellcat - had been adopted instead. This meant that the F4U - the Corsair - could now go to the shore-based squadrons of the Marine Air Corps, and to the Royal Navy, if they wanted it.


So be happy very early Corsairs had so many problems. And now, to continue (and off-topic, included solely because it makes fun of Seafires and Sea Hurricanes)


> The Royal Navy accepted it willingly, since the only alternatives in sight were the Seafire and Sea Hurricane - and these were just not carrier material. Their range was pathetically limited, even with drop tanks, and worse still their structure, whilst perfectly adequate for airfield flying, was not up to the rough and tumble life of carrier decks. In both cases a heavy landing, caused either by the vessel's pitch or by the pilot's hamfistedness, often brought the undercarriage through the wings.




And back to Corsairs now

On 2 October, VF-17 flew their Corsairs off the Bunker Hill to Ford Island (Pearl Harbour). The reason for them not being deployed to the Pacific aboard the Bunker Hill was not due any fault of the Corsair or the VF-17 pilots, but logistics and the brasses continuing to not think the Corsair was carrier qualified even though VF-17 had qualified on F4U-1s (and was sent to Hawaii with -1As, which included many designs they suggested and that were found while training on carriers) proving it was fit for carrier duty. No other carrier had Corsairs aboard, they were all with Hellcats or Wildcats (escort carriers), and as such there were no parts for Corsairs on any other carriers should a Corsair need to land on one with damage. This decision was also in part due to some high ranking officers who thought Corsairs didn't belong on carriers (or still had problems) although VF-17 clearly illustrated that the Corsair could operate from carriers. Either way, VF-17 had fully carrier qualified and had set out to the Pacific aboard a carrier in late September-early October 1943. When given the opportunity to stay with AG-17 by converting to F6Fs, the pilots of VF-17 decided they would rather keep their Corsairs.

VF-17s credentials to fly from carriers was illustrated again on Noevember 11. VF-17 flew took off from Ondonga (New Georgia) at 0420, flew to a task force comprising of the Bunker Hill, Essex, and Independence until their fuel reserves got low. At which point they would land on the Essex and Bunker Hill (VF-33 landed their Hellcat's aboard Independence) to refuel and ream beofre resuming CAP. Around 0830 the Corsairs got low on fuel and VF-17 made 23 landings (all of the Corsairs involved) without a single wave off after several weeks without practice.

Before VF-17, there was VF-12, who I would assume carrier qualified as they flew off the USS Core and USS Enterprise. At the time VF-12 was flying from the carriers, they had many problems with the Corsair (which were soon corrected) and switched to the Hellcat before deploying so they would remain aboard the USS Saratgoa.

The Yankees could land it aboard carriers, they just deemed the Hellcat the better aircraft for carrier ops (easier to fly and land on carriers, which is quite important when the new pilots won't be getting much training), Hellcats were in the fleet before the Corsair was ready to be deployed (no Corsair spares - but lots of Grumman Hellcat and Wildcat parts), and the Navy brass (some simply not liking the Corsair, and some just believing that it was a handful to use on carriers - which I'd agree with).

Although yes, the Brits did have Corsairs aboard their carriers in numbers and operational before the US (not to mention the Brits were actually smart enough to use armoured flight decks).

And BronzeWhaler, no one ever disputed (as far as I remember) that the Brits didn't come up with a method to recover Corsairs better than the standard straight in approach 


Almost entirely off topic (other than being about Corsairs, Brits, and Yanks):
If the Brits had wanted (and been able to clip the wings off the Corsairs on the carriers) a Major flying Corsairs form the Victorious found an airfield full of F4U-4s waiting to be shipped back to the US for overhauls, they had completed 500 hours while the British Corsair IIs had almost 2000 hours. Major Ronnie Hay (the one who found them) found the Navy Officer in charge and curiously asked if he could swap his Corsair II for a F4U-4, the Navy officer said he could since he was flying on the frontline, but he didn't because he figured the Admiral would see the gloss sea blue Corsair amongst the grey Corsair IIs on deck...he really should've had all the Corsair IIs from the Victorious fly back and swap them all for F4U-4s


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 13, 2004)

Well i think even you would agree with me that its not much good launching a fighter from a cerrier...if you can't land it afterwards - if the corsairs were originally designed for carrier operations it just goes to show exactly how much thought the designers put into their work...they designed a plane that had to have its own particular landing method cos it was so hard to land on carriers!  and another country had to develop this method! the Americans had given up trying to land the corsair on carriers so the brits did it for them. end of story - i want to make it clear (though its difficult to see how much clearer i can be to you on this  ) that i don't in any way want to Britainise this amazing aircraft (i still think you guys made this word up!) but i think we deserve our due, don't you?  8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 13, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Well let's settle this once and for all:
> 
> http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html
> 
> ...



Well Hotspace that was a waste of your time then wasn't it mate...cos we did! \/ \/ \/ \/


----------



## Archer (Mar 13, 2004)

Of course you do, and personally I love Brit Corsairs, they did several interesting (and effective) attacks on Japanese oil refineries and harbours on the Asian mainland and Japan itself, not to mention several Canadians flew them.

I'm just pointing out mistakes (or what I think are mistakes), not trying to take any credit away from you Brits (and the Commonwealth pilots you had in the RN FAA) 

Why not have have planes that can't land on the carrier deck? The US had observation aircraft that could land "on" landing craft and I believe most navy's had floatplanes launched from battleships. The Corsairs would just need to be picked up out of the water before they sank  

Lastly, Britainize (or Britainise) is a cool word. I'll be sure to use it as much as possible from here on


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 13, 2004)

Archer,

You know all Serial Number or Bu No for Vought F4U-1(Just -1 Birdcage), right? Just asking


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 14, 2004)

Well of Course!

Don't you??

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## Archer (Mar 14, 2004)

Why yes, with the help of a nice book (no, I don't memorize Bu Nos or a lot of other things about Corsairs in detail - just enough so I have a pretty good idea, then I look in books to make sure if I'm not fairly certain). 

Flipping to Appendix II US Navy Corsairs and Appendix III Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Corsairs...

Books are good, they give you information  

(Did you actually want them?)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

I'm sure the US would rather have a system of landing planes like the corsair (expensive aircraft) rather than ditching them in the sea! supposing the sea is too rough? or its in the middle of a battle? the plane might sink and the pilot would drown! thats nonsense 

Thats precisely why i sometimes feel like people are trying to take away or detract from the fact that britain helped the corsairs career by saying things like.."oh well they didn't NEED to land them on carriers they could just ditch them" i'm sure with thought you'll admit thats a bit extreme, besides if the americans were willing to do that they would've gone ahead with using the corsairs on carriers instead of removing them and waiting for the brits to pull through with the 'landing on' idea

Archer, i get the impression that you and I are going to differ on this particular subject til doomsday  , whatdya say we just agree that Britain undoubtably helped with the Corsair but overwhealmingly it was an American effort? 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

even though i have no part in this conflict i say we agree with bronzewhaler, cos after all, its true 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

i don't think Viper's coming back people...........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Good Riddance i reckon


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

could you imagine what would happen if i left the site?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

huge party me thinks...........................


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 14, 2004)

Archer said:


> Why yes, with the help of a nice book (no, I don't memorize Bu Nos or a lot of other things about Corsairs in detail - just enough so I have a pretty good idea, then I look in books to make sure if I'm not fairly certain).
> 
> Flipping to Appendix II US Navy Corsairs and Appendix III Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Corsairs...
> 
> ...


I have already got some books that's about Corsair and mostly more about US Marines squadron in WWII and little know for Korean War. I know some Bu No for F4U-1, but hardly they seem disappeared and mostly was giving to FAA and RNZAF. 

*.:::*Vought F4U Corsair*:::.* 

XF4U-1 

# 1443

F4U-1

02153—02736;	03802—03841;
17392—17515;	17517—18191;
49680—50359;	55784—56483;

F4U-1D

50360—50659;	57084—57983;
82178—82852;

XF4U-3

02157;	17516;	49664;

----------------------------------------------------------

Like Ken Walsh plane

F4U-1 with number 13
Bu No 02189

Before he enter second tour, some pilot from VMF-213 probably took it away and Ken would take whichever aeroplane was available.


----------



## Archer (Mar 14, 2004)

LOL, BronzeWhaler, I was (obviously) joking when I said they could ditch them in the sea, although the US did have recon planes (Cubs and L-5s if that isn't the Cub) that could land and take off from landing craft (ie no decks) with the use of a trapeze. I couldn't agree more than the Brits figured out the best way to land Corsairs on carriers.

The book I'm looking at differs from your BuNos slightly:
F4U-1 
02153—02736; 03802—03841; 
17392—17515; <===17392-17456 are -1s, 17457-17516 are -1As acording to my book
17517—18191; <=== Until 18121 are -1As
49680—50359; <=== 50350-50659 are -1Ds
55784—56483; <=== More -1As

All the -1s according to the book I'm looking at are
02153-02705, 02706-02736, 03802-03841, 17392-17456, 18122-18141, 18142-18166
F3A-1s are supposedly 04515-04774, 11067-11293
FG-1s aren't listed or are lumped together with the FG-1As

The RN FAA had 70 Corsair Is, JT100-JT169, I'm pretty sure those are all the -1s they had.

As to the XF4U-3s, 02157 isn't listed, although 76450, 92252, 92253, 92283, 92284, 92300, 92328, 92232, 92338, 92341, 92344, 92345, 922354, 92359, 92361, 92363, 92364, 92367, 92369, 92382, 92383, 92384, 92385, 92429, 92430, 92440 were converted FG-1s to FG-3s (XF4U-3)

Anyone know of any really good books about RN FAA Corsairs and/or RNZAF Corsairs?


----------



## Archer (Mar 14, 2004)

http://www.aerofiles.com/f4u-regs.html has 02157 as a XF44U-3 as well, among other BuNos


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 14, 2004)

Archer:

Thanks for that link, because I really want to "collect" all Bu No for all Corsairs and also, I would like to know all Corsairs status like Damage, Crash, Missing in Action, etc. 

BTW, The second prototype XF4U-1 was crash at the Golf Course, but the test pilot was lucky to be alive, because XF4U-1 was heavy damage and could "possible" kill that pilot.


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 14, 2004)

Errrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Wonder what is A2U-1 been cancel for?! Could be F4U-8?


----------



## Archer (Mar 14, 2004)

A2U was going to be a F7U-3 attack variant (but was cancelled), possibly a mistake on the part of part of the website author, possibly another planned Corsair.


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 14, 2004)

I found some rumor that Vought was going create F4U-8 during before 1950s, but I have no detail if they were going create F4U-8 for last Propeller fighter for USA and it probably left behind with Blue print drawing during Jet-Era that nobody knows. So, F4U-6/AU-1 was last USA Fighter/Attacker propeller and later Skyraider took over which they were too late to enter WWII.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> huge party me thinks...........................



There wouldn't be a huge party Lanc - you're one of the most popular guys in this forum - it would be a sad occasion  

and if both you and C.C left i fear the site would be forced to close down     

You're not thinking of leaving are you?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

ha, the lanc, leave? he needs the site to live, while its been down, his school work has been "crapper" and he has withdrawal syptoms


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

> There wouldn't be a huge party Lanc - you're one of the most popular guys in this forum - it would be a sad occasion
> 
> and if both you and C.C left i fear the site would be forced to close down
> 
> You're not thinking of leaving are you?



you have no idea how good that makes me feel, cheers, and no, i'm not thinking of leaving, i need to take on an apprentice before i can do that, train him in the art of spam an give them a love of the lancaster............


----------



## Rafe35 (Mar 21, 2004)

Welcome back


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 21, 2004)

I'll drink to that!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

i will too 8) is that moonshine all rond then?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

WELL....now that the site is back.....hello everyone....now the insults, abuse and endless spam can once again begin......i'm so happy! Would be happier howver if i could load up the smilies!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

oooooo a double 8) must be the moonshine....


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

I prefer a wee dram of the glenlivet! Mines a double on the rocks as its a special occaision


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

i'm waiting....where is it !?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

look for pidgeons.....


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 22, 2004)

Just as a cool side note, the only US Navy ace of the Korean War flew the F4U Corsair. And one Corsair even managed to shoot down a MiG-15! Not bad! 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> viper....
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news but trying to tell Mr bronzewhaler he knows squat is not the best way to make friends and influence people! From the pages before, it is clear to myself and others that bronze appears to have his facts straight whereas you, as bronzewhale so equontly put it...are a tad mentally unstable.
> Whilst i am here and in a particulary viscious mood...True American?????Dont make me laugh please....coming from a country all of 200 years old...the country is a joke as well as the people! f**k hell Viper....sort it out!



Sir, I am an American, and I can assure you that I am not a joke, nor is my country.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Oh lighten up mate - he honestly didn't mean it

He just says things like that sometimes...no hard feelings


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

honestly.........No am only joking mate....Viper just stuck in my claw...I apologise to all you americans out there! Sincerely


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 22, 2004)

havent seen you in a LONG time mate!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 22, 2004)

Let's calm things down here, please 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

hey i'm calm.....just apologising to all the septics out there!


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 22, 2004)

8) 

Hot Space


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

happy with that>?????? :fist:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

im should be doing work but im not hehehehe


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

well.....i was in here half the bloody night.....now been in here half the bloody morning researching for my Ju88 thread! Christ this forum is addictive!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

yup sure is


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

christ.....thankgoodness i'm not on pay as you go internet access...would cost me a small fortune!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2004)

would cost me a large one


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

Right then CC, thankyou sooo much for your idea of Ju88 vs The Wooden wonder....it is all up now so please, help me argue the Ju88's case....i have a funny feeeling that I am gonna get hammered by everyone who is gonna proclaim the mossie as a better aircraft! (Although i dont think so!)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

Oh dear - you're very mistaken!!


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

Quick on-topic post:

I'd go for either Sea Fury (if it counts - a bit late I know), or if not then the F4U and N1K2-J get my vote.


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

i really cant comment as i know jack about it!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

wasnt the N1K2-J one of the only fighters the japs didnt use for kamikaze? i believe the japs called it the "Devil Queller" or purple lightning but not sure..... Wasnt the sea fury basically a Tempest MkII for carriers? they sure do look the same....

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

The Sea Fury is a little late for WW2 isn't it?

Did anyone know the Dehavilland Vampire first flew in 1941 (apparently!)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

oh


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

i don't think it was that early.................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

The de Havilland Vampire was the second of the RAF's first-generation post-Second World War jet fighters to enter service. It began life as an interceptor but was soon re-tasked in the day fighter/ground attack roles with the 2nd Tatical Air Force in Germany from 1948 to 1954, and with the RAF's Middle and Far East Air Forces.
Throughout its 46-year career it collected many notable firsts: it was the first jet fighter to cross the Atlantic, the first jet to land on an aircraft carrier, and the first jet trainer on which student pilots actually qualified for their 'wings'.

In addition to playing a full part in the RAF's battle order during the 1940's and '50s, the Vampire also served with the Fleet Air Arm and quickly became an export success story for the British Aircraft industry, with hundreds of aircraft sold to dozens of foreign air forces world-wide. For a short spell during the early 1950s the Vampire formed the backbone of thr RAF's nightfighter force and, imporantly, between 1952 and 1967 the Vampire trainer wsa responsible for a steady flow of trained pilots for the RAF, Royal Navy and for foreign air forces. 

First flown on 20th September 1943 the Vampire was the UK’s third jet aircraft to fly and although it was too late to see action during World War II, the type remained in service for over 30 years.

The first examples arrived in New Zealand during 1951-52 and became the first operational jet aircraft in Royal New Zealand Air Force service when they were taken on charge by No’s 14 and 75 Squadron at Ohakea.

Utilised in the day fighter/ground attack role a total of 58 flew with the RNZAF until replacement by the Strikemaster in 1972. Disposed of to private collectors and relegated to scrap, few now remain in New Zealand and none are airworthy


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

I hate to say it mate, but after some research, i think that you were wrong...the Vampire didnt fly until 1943. Hope the above helps


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Yep - 1943 is right - i knew it was somewhere around then - cheers JJ1982

Only 2 years off...not bad - its still alot earlier than most people think!

:grab:


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

I'm so glad that occaisionally i do make sensibly relevant comments....amazing what stuf you find on google!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

hehe....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> honestly.........No am only joking mate....Viper just stuck in my claw...I apologise to all you americans out there! Sincerely



Apology accepted.  Nice picture, BTW.


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 24, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> havent seen you in a LONG time mate!
> 
> Reichsmarschall Batista



I've been having a lot of real life problems lately; losing this site was one of them. I only rediscovered this group when a moderator e-mailed me with some news. It's good to be back, I must say.


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 24, 2004)

N1K2-J was called 'Shiden-Kai' by the Japanese, 'Shiden' meaning 'Violet Lightning', and 'Kai' meaning 'higher' or 'improved', sice it was an improved version of the Shiden mid-wing fighter.

The Sea Fury was an improved Tempest Mk II (If you look closely, the Sea Fury has a sloped nose ahead of the cockpit for improved pilot view on landing, and a larger tailfin than the tempest Mk II, which had a straight nose, and so loked slightly sleeker [slightly] - and it also had a five-blade prop for the beast of a Centaurus engine they strapped on the front). And yes I know it was too late - but only by four or five months I thought...?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2004)

hey corpcassbury, nice to se you back, remeber all those arguments we used to have?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

hi corpcasselbury, you probably dont know me bu im the lancs friend, youll get to know me soon enough 8)


----------



## Crazy (Mar 25, 2004)

Welcome back Corp! Haven't seen you in a while


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

ive never seen him, he left just as i joined


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

Welcome back...whoever you may be!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2004)

oh yeah, and Corp, I've given up my B-17 bashing days...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)

i know otherwise.....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> oh yeah, and Corp, I've given up my B-17 bashing days...................



Since when????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

no really i have, well on the site atleast.................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

I think one of the best naval fighters was the A6M 'Zero'. The Zero first appeared in 1939 and was used to escort Japanese bombers to China and back during the Sino-Japanese war that began in the early 30s and continued into WW2. The Zero entered service with the Japanese Imperial navy in July 1940 - it was completely dominant in the Pacific theatre proving superior to anything the Allies could put into the air - it was robust, manouvorable and had a lightweight construction. Instead of being structured in many different pieces it was only built in two parts, these were attached to each other using a ring of 80 bolts. The only disadvantage it had against Allied fighters was that it had no armour for the pilot and it had no self sealing fuel tanks which meant it could not absorb as much battle damage. As records show one well placed burst of fire could cause the plane to disintegrate - which meant the Japanese pilots had to be more skilled and vigilant than Allied pilots as their plane was more fragile and vulnerable to attack (hence why Japan produced so many excellent pilots)
One of its many success stories was the Battle for Java. On the last day of fighting (8th March 1942) Zero fighters engaged the Allies and shot down 550 allied aircraft including large numbers of fighters such as Brewster Buffalows  , Curtiss-Wright CW.21 'Demons'  , Curtiss Hawks, Curtiss P-40 (a sad day for the Curtiss company for certain  ) and Hawker Hurricanes  Japanese losses in that battle were extremely light.

A supercharged model of the Zero was built and flew into service shortly after this battle in 1942 - it was named the model 32 and had a supercharged 1300 Sakae 21 engine.

By 1943 it was becoming obvious that the Zeros dominance over the Allied fighters was coming to an end so the Japanese developed the Zero Model 52 retaining the supercharged engine but making the wings shorter, more ammunition on board and the wings were strenghened. Various other sub-types were designed around this model with more improvements such as more armour, rockets and cannon weapons installed  as well as self sealing fuel tanks (one wonders what took them so long! ) in an attempt to keep the Zero on a par with its opponents. The model 63 was designed for use on Kamikaze runs of which 465 were built. A version was even designed with float planes on for out-to-sea patrol usage.

All in all great and varied career for any fighter and greatly loved by Japanese pilots (among the bravest during the war i think)

Although i wouldn't be silly enough to say it was 'the best' i still think it was one of the best and deserves credit as an outstanding fighter that easily belongs somewhere near the top of great fighters of WW2.

I've seen one cut open at the imperial war museaum and i must say it is very simple in design - although all planes from that period looked pretty bleak this one really was rough and ready but it really did the job!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

i agree, ive always liked the zero


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Hey! hes back!

#For hes a jolly good fellow for hes a jolly good fellow for hes a jolly good felooooow! and so say all of us!#


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

less of the praise, ill leave again   just joking 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 29, 2004)

You left??? oops i didnt notice!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

It was only a few days ago and they deleted his thread stating he was leaving


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

should we start a thread complaining about it?


----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

there is no such thing as a "good naval fighter" unless your talking about japanese ones. if you are then it has to be the zero


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

Oh I don't know?

I like the Zero, my pick for 'best naval fighter of ww2' but the Hellcat, Corsair, Sea Spitfire, Sea Hurricane were nothing to laugh at.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

yeah, that hugh janus person may have a funny name but he doesnt appear to be very smart


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

Yes, He seems a bit..."lost" shall we say to be polite... 8)

He sounds like someone whos taking the piss to me  


and by the way C.C...starting a thread to complain about it won't achive much - if you want a complaint to be acknowledged your best bet is to privately E-mail one of the Admin guys...may i suggest Horse? hes a reasonable guy who will listen to anything you want to say...as long as you aren't abusive   (I know you won't be)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

By the way...an announcement for all you FAA freaks out there (I mean the word 'freak' in a positive way  )

My grandfather recently passed away and left my family some of his treasured wartime photos

He was a Royal Navy Photographer and served aboard the vessel HMS Implacable throughout the war - he flew up on recon missions and often took pictures of enemy ships and positions (most notably a picture of the Tirpitz during its final days) 

As a keen photographer when he was onboard with nothing else to do he often took pictures of aircraft on the carrier's deck for posterity i guess...he never would have guessed that one of his grandkids would grow up to be a WW2 aircraft freak  ...anyway

I have some unique pictures of all kinds of seaplanes including Seafires, Fireflys, Barracudas, Corsairs, DH Mosquitos and some shots of damaged planes being ditched over the side - i plan to have these old pictures scanned and i will open a thread posting these pictures for all to see as soon as i can...I hope you guys wil appreciate the pictures as much as I do

Cheers

8)


----------



## Crazy (Mar 30, 2004)

It's good to see that you're back, C.C  

I'm not sure why the thread about your leaving was deleted


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

cheers 



> as long as you aren't abusive (I know you won't be)



you dont know me too well then


----------



## Oleanna (Mar 31, 2004)

Best navel planes i think would be the japanese. The kamikaze piliots were guarenteed a kill....Oh by the way, did you hear the one about an irish Kamikaze piliot who flew 22 missions???? LOL. Sorry hope there are no irish or irish decendants on here. They are a nutruel country after all!


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)

I'm a full 1/4 Irish, fly for the Fighting Irish Virtual squadron, and will take that as a compliment to Irish resilience! 


And to keep things on track, I'm going to agree with Oleanna. It makes sense that the Japanese would have good naval aircraft, as the majority of their ops were over or near water

But then, the American's delivered pretty well in the Pacific also


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Yep, although i'm a loyal Brit I must say the best Naval planes of the war belonged to the Japs and the Yanks....


----------



## Crazy (Mar 31, 2004)

Yeah, but don't forget, the Brits had the uhhh.... ummmmm.... oh dear...


Well, you have the Spitfire, hurri, and Mossie to console you


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

The British have got the Mossie, which caused havoc in the North sea for the Kriegsmarine. With it's 57mm cannon it could do significant damage to the cargo vessels. 

Best naval fighter, I'd say Zero. Although it was matched late war, and the Japanese George was better than it, the Zero lasted all war which is a great feat. 

The Americans had the Hellcats and Corsairs, which could match the Japs, and did great jobs in stopping the bomber formations. 

British weren't really in need of Naval aircraft as much as America or Japan. For a start the Germans didn't have any since the only Aircraft carrier they had was only 80% complete. And they had good land based fighters that could reach out from Britain. Apart from that the Seafire was a good Naval aircraft but it never really got to show it's worth against Japanese aircraft.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

I heard the Firefly and the Fulmar were quite effective as fighters (despite their size)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 1, 2004)

> navel planes


i sure do love those belly-button planes!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

the best naval fighter for me is the corsair.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

i like the lightning and the zero more


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

newsflash, the lightening wasn't a naval fighter....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

maybe im talking about the japanese plane that had lightning in the name......


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

If you are thinking of the Japanese plane then you're thinking of the 'Magnificent Lightning' but that wasn't a Naval plane either...and it came too late in the war to see service 

Also I think the Corsair was an excellent plane and most definately faster than the Zero but the Zero was smaller and more agile - also it was pretty much the only Japanese fighter that was particularly effective during the war - it was far more useful to the Japanese anyway than the Corsair was to the US -after all they already had excellent naval fighters in the shapes of the Wild/Hellcat


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

whereas the Shiden could kick any U.S. fighter's ass!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

so now you know about the shinden all of a sudden? :wink


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

Crazy said:


> Welcome back Corp! Haven't seen you in a while



My prolonged absence is due to real life problems my wife and I are having (not with each other, however!). We had to give up our computer, which means that I can only get online at our local public library. This limits my access. So I will only be able to pop in here intermittently.


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> whereas the Shiden could kick any U.S. fighter's ass!!!!!!!



Horse feathers! The Shiden could indeed, in the hands of a skilled pilot, take a Grumman Hellcat, but a Corsair or a Mustang was another proposition. Given that the Shiden had a lot of engine problems, any assumed superiority must be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Once again it seems,

It is not a question of the hardware (ie the plane) but the wetware, (ie the pilot)!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Not nessasarily - i've never thought the Hellcat was that much cop - the yanks had better naval planes than that (i.e the Corsair) 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

and the wildcat 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Yeah the wildcat wasn't a FANTASTIC plane but i do have a soft-spot for it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Hate the Hellcat though - think its ugly...just goes to show its the subtle differences that give aircraft character - the Hellcat looks a bit like the Wildcat but the latter is one of my fav fighters from that period


----------



## plan_D (Apr 7, 2004)

I prefer the Hellcat, even if it is ugly. Although, the Wildcat in my eyes is ugly as well. Well, as ugly as the planes of World War 2 can get since they are all good looking.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

> Well, as ugly as the planes of World War 2 can get since they are all good looking.



except the fw-189 

btw, nice siggy 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey! whats the prob with the FW 189!?







As my esteemed male parental forebear would have said

"Its a little ripper!"

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

> Hey! whats the prob with the FW 189!?



the fact that it's pig ugly....................................


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 12, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I prefer the Hellcat, even if it is ugly. Although, the Wildcat in my eyes is ugly as well. Well, as ugly as the planes of World War 2 can get since they are all good looking.



I hate my wife; now that's damn ugly   

Hot Space


----------



## Oleanna (Apr 12, 2004)

> Not nessasarily - i've never thought the Hellcat was that much cop - the yanks had better naval planes than that (i.e the Corsair)
> _________________



I may have been mistaken but did I read somewhere else that you were defending the Corsair as not a wholly american plane??? I seem to recall reading that you defending the integral part that the britsh played in the design of the plane?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 12, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the Hellcat, even if it is ugly. Although, the Wildcat in my eyes is ugly as well. Well, as ugly as the planes of World War 2 can get since they are all good looking.
> ...


what happened to the "now this is the kind of babe you need to fly" and "woman. 36-24-36" posts a while back?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2004)

> I seem to recall reading that you defending the integral part that the britsh played in the design of the plane?



and why not, we made that planes great after all....................


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Hot Space said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...



I'm on strike this week   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2004)

yeah, but by the time you'd figured it out, the war would be over...............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Oleanna said:


> > Not nessasarily - i've never thought the Hellcat was that much cop - the yanks had better naval planes than that (i.e the Corsair)
> > _________________
> 
> 
> ...



I never said the Yanks MADE better planes than that all i meant was they USED better planes than that "Oleanna"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

and just remember we would have flown 1st 50 years before the americans if the bloke hadn't run out of money...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2004)

noooooo im so out of place now  someon tll me wats going on?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

It would take too long C.C 8) 

By the way...how was your trip to Yeovilton? see anything interesting?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

he didn't go into te fleet air arm museum, unless there's something he's not telling me..............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Thats odd - C.C told me he was going over easter...i wonder why he didn't


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

we WAS going, but dad decided is too far and hes not taking us


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

us being me and C.C....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

who said anything about taking you.......


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Now now girls, play nicely


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

sorry miss


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

> who said anything about taking you.......



you....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

oh sorry, my memory aint what it used to be 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

that's not saying much, it never used to much in the first place...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

valid point


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

best naval has to be the shiden.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

na zero for me 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

that's 'cos you've never piloted a shiden, if you had of done, belive me, you would change your mind.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

and youve piloted a REAL shinden?


----------



## Archer (Apr 19, 2004)

Actually he's implying he's flown a Shiden not a Shinden


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

hmmmm 8) sorry, my mistake


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

i meant on CFS2, it easily is better thatn every other plane in the game...............


----------



## TimT1 (Apr 21, 2004)

No argument here, but I'm going with the Corsair for all of the above mentioned reasons. Also, it stayed in service for about ten years after WW II ended and it was very versatile when itcomes to mission profiles


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

the shiden would have carried on after the war if the nation it flew for hadn't surrendered..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

wow, this topic aint been posted in for a while


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

yeah it has, just not by you.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

no but the last message was on the 21st, then the next message on the 27th 8) anyway, best naval fighter has to be the zero 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

na, the shiden...........


----------



## Archer (Apr 28, 2004)

Corsair. Now that we've settled that, let's let this topic die


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

the corsair was great but i think japan had better naval fighters 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

the japs had more manouverable fighters, the americans had more powerfull ones.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

americans dont really care for manoeverability though  as long as it goes fast in a straight line they're happy 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

and aslong as it's wel armed............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 29, 2004)

6x .50cals aint too well armed compared to Deutsch flugzeugs


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 29, 2004)

A lot of factors to consider here. Are we talking best in terms of overall performance? In that case it's the corsair hands down. But what if we factor pilot quality in? An average pilot in a Corsair will prove why it was called the "Ensign Eliminator." And what if we are talking about impact? The F6F Hellcat flew more sorties that any other American carrier plane, had far more kills, was easy to fly. Furthermore, it is hard to overlook a 19:1 kill ratio. For that reason alone, the Hellcat gets my vote.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

But according to you on the 'Best Fighter' thread we should consider only planes that were there from start to finish, that's the Corsair and the Hellcat out of the running. 
So, the Zero is the best. 

In reality the Shiden is the best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

i'm with Plan_D here, the shiden could easily beat a corsair in a dogfight............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Yeah, as far as planes there from start to finish it was the Zero. I think the Wildcat was the only other fighter there from start to finish. The Shiden was more maneveurable than a Corsair, but it didn't have the power (aka speed and climb) or dive of a -4 Corsair meaning a Corsair pilot can disengage almost at will. Furthermore, the Shiden couldn't do a thing a high altitude. Get above 20,000 feet or so and the Corsair should own it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

the shiden could easily beat a corsair in a climb, and in level flight............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

A quick glance at some resources I have show that the Shiden's top speed was 369 mph and I haven't seen anything higher listed. A -4 Corsair could make 446 mph at altitude and climb at 3800 fpm.

Another note, the Shiden wasn't carrier capable (as far as I know). Are we defining Naval fighters as fighters operated by the navy or ship-borne fighters? Plus I think that the A7M would have been even better that the Shiden (if it had reached service that is).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

the shiden was designed as a land based intercepter, but the only reason it wasn't used on carriers, was because the japs didn't have any to put them on.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 1, 2004)

A couple of notes, believe it or not, the Wildcat's kill ratio against the Zero was actually slightly in favor of the Wildcat (incredible when you consider that diving was about the only thing a Wildcat could do better). I know it didn't see combat, but the F8F Bearcat was operational before VJ Day and it's maneuverability was nothing short of phenomenal. Any thoughts about it as best naval fighter?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it was pretty good, but like you say, it didn't see combat before VJ day, but i'm sure it would have beaten anything the japs could throw at it..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

It's a pitty too. Gruman finally managed to make a plane that looked as good as it flew.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i don't really think it exelled itself in terms of looks..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Well, you've got to admit that it was prettier than the Wildcat or Hellcat, and that's a start.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i don't really think they were that ugly................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

They always seem kinda portly to me, especially the Wildcat. I guess it was the bubble canopy on the Bearcat that helped it in that regard.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

nothing wrong with the wildcats looks  8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I'm just saying the Wildcat lacked the smooth lines of something like a Spit or a Mustang.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

i see what you mean, but i dont think you could call the wildcat ugly


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Ugly may have been the wrong choice of words on my part.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

dont worry bout it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

na, the 'stang is the only plane that can pull off that sort of bubble canopie............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I think it looked pretty sporty on the Bearcat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

not really, it made it look small and stupid..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Well regardless of how it did or didn't look, the Bearcat would have been more than a match for anything the Japanese cared to throw at it. Did you know that a modified Bearcat held the world record for time to 10,000ft until a F-16 broke it sometime in the '80s?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Did you know that, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard?

The F8F held and still does hold the record for: from stand still to 10,000 ft in the quickest time for a piston engined aircraft. The Lightning (not the P-38) held the 0 - 10,000 ft for 30 years until it was beaten by the F-15 which was the first aircraft with higher thrust than weight. 












Now, Lightning Guy, this is a good reason to have that name. This was one of the best fighters ever built and nothing could match it until the 70s. And it was designed in 1949.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

i prefer the p-38 lightning to the EE lightning 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Nothing could match the EE Lightning, those things were intercepting the Soviet 'Bears' all through the Cold War and those 'Bears' didn't exactly fly at low altitudes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

does the fact that jeremy clarkson has one in his garden make you jealous?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Not really since I've seen loads because my dad worked on them for years, he says they were great aircraft but a b**tard to mantain. I've heard plenty of stories about them. 

Advise for anyone who ever might be working on an EE Lightning while in Cyprus or Malta (Anywhere hot for that matter), if its in its original all metal scheme watch your hands, they get hot.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

cool 8) i wish i had a plane in my garden


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Same here, but I'd have a Hurricane Mk. IV or F-5 Freedom Fighter


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

> it was beaten by the F-15 which was the first aircraft with higher thrust than weight.



not true, the lightening weighed just 29,000lb but produced 30,000lb of thrust...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I'm not sure how a discussion on "best naval fighter of WWII" ended up discussing the thrust-to-weight ratio of the EE Lightning. It may have been my fault. Sorry to get this thread so off topic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

it doesn't matter, we're not spamming so it's ok, but back on topic, i think the best naval fighter would have been the carrier based shiden, but it never took off (excuse the pun)................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The EE Lightning did not, if it did it could have carried on and on up to its service ceiling without losing speed, this it could not do.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The Shiden was a great plane. But I think the A7M would have been the best the Japanese produced, but they had only built a dozen of them or so by VJ day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

atleast the shiden saw a lil service, to late to change anything though..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

True. And, to the Japaneses' credit, at least they saw fit to put they few good pilots they had left in the Shiden.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

good pilots for an outstanding plane..............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Too bad it wasn't outstanding pilots for an outstanding plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

what, so its the american fault for killing all the good ones, if olny they'd left a couple, then in years to come Plan_D could say "outstanding pilots for an outstanding plane."


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Don't you think they should have..  

No but I was saying it as they shouldn't have wasted their pilots like they did because you have to admit they did.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The 343rd Kokutai, which was equipped with the Shiden was truly a group of outstanding pilots (Nishizawa, Sakai, and virtually every remaining ace in the IJNAF) for an outstanding plane. There is a reason they were called the "Squadron of Experts."


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

So, it was outstanding pilots for outstanding planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

at least with the kammakazi they didn't have to train them to land


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

That's always a plus...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Too bad for them the 'one plane, one ship' theory was completely wrong.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Well, when that "one ship" is defended by a few hundred Hellcats and Corsairs and a few thousand AA guns and that "one plane" is being flown by a kid with virtually no time in a cockpit, it's not going to be very effective.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

But even when that 'one plane' hit that 'one ship' it still didn't take it down. It normally took about 4...and sometimes more.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Depending on what it was, yeah. Some of the American destroyers took several Kamikaze hits and stayed afloat.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I read the average was for but of course if it was a transport carrying fuel and ammo..then...well BOOM!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Merchant ships were never as tough as military ships. Of course if a military ship got hit in a magazine (like HMS Hood) or a carrier had it's fueled planes hit (USS Princeton, and IJN carrier at Midway) . . . well it was BOOM for them too.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, it was very unlucky for the HMS Hood, well unlucky and slightly idiotic of the gunners. They stacked up all the cordite around the turret, they did go up against the best battleship ever gracing the oceans though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

The Bismarck the best battleship ever? You may find this site interesting . . . http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

When I say best I mean best through it's record and on how the Royal Navy, the greatest Navy ever were so scared by the beast. The Bismarck could go toe-to-toe with any other battleship, it beat the 'greatest' Battleship of the Royal Navy, and took 7 other Battleships plus an aircraft carrier with two Swordfish strikes to bring it down. And even then it was scuttled
Quite an operational record, for it's maiden voyage.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

The Hood was technically a battlecruiser and not a battleship which is why it was blown up so tragically (not enough deck armor to stop plunging fire from battleship guns). The British were also terrified of the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, Graf Spee, etc. They didn't consider these ships to be a general threat to the Royal Navy but realized that they had the potential to deciminate merchant shipping.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well the Tipitz was taken out of the Atlantic occasion when the Commandos blew up Nazaire harbour. 

The Hood blew up so dramatically because the Navy gunners stored cordite around the turret to increase fire rate but storing cordite around the turret is against Royal Navy regulations, even then, after the Battle of Jutland in World War 1. If they had kept it down below and kept the fire doors closed it wouldn't have been so bad, but in the heat of combat you want to be firing as much as possible, they were just unlucky. 

The Bismarck was, to save argument, one of the greatest Battleships ever.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

> The British were also terrified of the Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, Graf Spee



why would we be skared of the Graf Spee, w bought it off them and it still had their latest RADAR onboard, bonus or what, and the two ships that were technically the biggest of the war, the japanese ones, can't remeber their names, are said to be the biggest sakrafice, they only carried enough fuel for a one way voyage.................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

We still had the largest navy in the world anyway. Plus the Bismarck badly damaged the Prince of Wales, a King George V class Battleship which was with the Hood at the time of its demise.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

the thing about the prince of whales was that it was still getting kitted out when it met the bismark, it still wasn't up to full armourment or armour, it went on to see servise in the pacific, where it was sunk in an air attack.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I read it got sunk by at least 5 Torpedos but they think it might have been 6. Which is pretty good for survival.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

At the time of the Bismarck battle, the Prince of Wales was having serious trouble with he 14in guns. Nevertheless she severly damaged Bismarck with some shots that hit below the Bismarck's belt.

The Japanese ships were the Yamato and Musashi, 72,000 tons loaded and 18.1 in guns. At Okinawa, Yamato was carried only enough fuel for a one way mission because that was all the Japanese could scrap together, not because that was all she could carry.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Bigger doesn't always mean better, but I think in terms balance the Bismarck had it. The Prince of Wales was not fully operational, and did have troubles but the fact is the rookie crew hit it, and took it out of the intial fight with the Bismarck. 
It did rejoin as they hunted it towards France though. The only thing that stopped the Bismarck was the Swordfish striking its rudder.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

No bigger doesn't mean better. The American Iowas were better than the Yamato and a better balanced ship that the Bismarck.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

The Bismarck one on one without aerial support on either side could probably match and beat them. Then again, as with aircraft it depends on the crew. The Bismarck crew were well trained but green.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Match at beat who, an Iowa? Not likely. Iowa - best battleship guns ever, better armor scheme that Bismarck, better shells, better fire control. One-on-one Iowa takes Bismarck.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

It only had an extra inch on its gun size and one extra gun. The 5 inch would not really make much difference as it would have had to get close for them. Plus the Bismarck had several 6 inch and 4 inch cannons if you wanted to bring the 5 inch into the equation. 
It comes down to the luck of the day, and skill of the crew.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

The Bismarck also looks better...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

I will agree on looks. To mean the German ships always looked, well, mean, which is how a warship should look.

Yes the Iowa only had a 1in advantage in shell diameter, but look at the stats. Iowa's shells were nearly 1,000lbs heavier than Bismarck's and that is a huge difference. That equates to a broadside salvo 10,000lbs heavier. A huge advatage to Iowa.

That being said, human skill and luck are probably the two most important factors in detemining the outcome of any battle in any arena. Still, Iowa was the better ship.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, I can't deny that. The Bismarck crew, I imagine would have seen more action if they both met, unless the Iowa was crewed with already veteran crew, I don't know.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

best naval fighter has to be the zero 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

I think somebody is just trying to get these threads back on topic. The Zero has got to rank behind the Hellcat, Corsair, Sea Fire, and Shiden.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

i dont think so, the zero is a great plane 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Didn't say it wasn't, I simply said those others mentioned were better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

nah, the zero was consistently good throughout the war 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

NOTHING, not even a shiden could out manouver a Zero, but to get that manouverability it had to give up allot of armourment and armour, not so good, but if it had both like the shiden, the americans wouldn't stand a chance..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the shiden came to late though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

i'm just saying, if the zero had both, or if the shiden was in service at the start of the war, the americans wouldn't stand a chance..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

It saw service during the war. But even if you want to negate the Shiden, you've still got to deal with the Hellcat, Corsair, and Seafire.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

im sure the shiden would have been a challenge to american planes had it been in service earlier, but as it wasnt we cant be too sure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

> But even if you want to negate the Shiden, you've still got to deal with the Hellcat, Corsair, and Seafire.



believe me, the shiden was better than all of them.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The Shiden would have been a match for the Hellcat or the marks of the Seafire that saw service during the war, but it wouldn't have been able to handle a -4 Corsair.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

belive me, it could out turn and gun down a corsair............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Can't out run it. Can't out dive-it. Can't out climb it. So the Corsair can disengage at will. The Shiden lost all power at altitude so the Corsair is clearly superior there. And by the time the Shiden was in service the American pilots had learned to use speed, diving, and climbing rather than trying to turn with Japanese fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

but 4 hits from them 30mm cannon would take it out..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

To the best of my knowledge, the Shiden never carried 30mm cannons. I know it carried 4 20mm guns. And you still have the problem of being able to bring those guns to bear. The smart pilot in the Corsair can use his plane to determine when and where combat will occur and that is a HUGE advantage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

not if he's a novise caought by supprise.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

In which case the pilot is better, not the plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

but but it makes the plane look good 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Maybe, but no way to argue for one plane being better than another.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

ok, we'll just say this, the shiden had better range, manouverability and looks, now you list where the corsair was better............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

the Corsair, especially the -4, was faster, better climb, better dive, better fighter bomber, and better at just about everything once you got above 20,000ft or so.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

the shiden could beat the corsair in a shallow climb.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

but overall, the corsair was better 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I do like the Corsair, but the Shiden was better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

on paper, yes it probably was 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

The ONLY respects that the Shiden was superior to the Corsair was in maneuverability and firepower. A decent pilot in a Corsair can use his plane's speed to not got suckered into a maneuvering fight and the Corsair's 6 .50cals weren't equal to the 4 20mms of the Shiden but they were perfectly fine for shooting down fighters.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Exactly, the Corsairs pilot needs to be decent.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

And the Shiden pilot needs to be great.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

No he doesn't, if the Cosair pilot is average he fails to realise he can't use manuverability the Shiden pilot can walk all over him.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

the shiden didn't need a good pilot, just think about it, they didn't have good pilots to fly tham and they got on fine, as soon as the corsair was in his sights, a small press of the "tit", and he was dead...........


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Exactly, and it wouldn't have been hard (as easy as you could get in a dogfight because dogfighting wasn't exactly easy) to get him in his sights.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

and aren't i right in thinking the corsair couldn't accelerate that fast in a strait line?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

The Corsair accelerated pretty well straightline. If you have ever heard of the 343rd Kokutai, it was (as far as I know) the only unit equipped with the N1K2 Shiden. The 343rd Kokutai was called the "Squadron of Experts" because it was made up of the last great pilots the IJN had (Nishizawa, Sakai, etc.). Dogfighting requires incredible acrobatic skill, you can't just use one maneuver you've got to be SKILLED in several. You also need to have excellent awareness of the situation. How much skill does it take to put the stick and throttle forward? That's all that a Corsair pilot in trouble had to do.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

If a Shiden got him in his sights he wouldn't have long to realise he was in trouble. Plus a Shiden in a Corsairs sights could out manouver it's problem.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

Again if the Shiden has a pilot that knows what he is doing. Look at it this way, neither the Corsair, nor the Hellcat, nor the Lightning could outmaneuver a Zero but the Americans learned to use their speed to decimate those planes. It would have been the same with the Shiden. It closed the performance gap on the Americans but was still not nearly as fast. The only way the Shiden beats a Corsair is if the Shiden pilot is an expert.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

The Corsair pilot needs to know what he is doing, there's one thing going into a dive but you have to keep out of the Shidens way. You dive down that's not the end of it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

it depends if the corsair pilot "put's the pedal to the metal" as soon as he getis into trubble, if he stays and fights, he's dead, if he runs like a wimp, he lives.............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Then he's lost the battle, either way.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 9, 2004)

So if maneuverability is everything why did the Hellcat, Lightning and Corsair have such success against the Zero? Answer: they used superior speed to engage in combat where they had the advantage and flee when they didn't. The Corsair held all the same advantages over the Shiden.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

No, they succeeded because 1) the Zero couldn't take any damage 2) the Zero wasn't armed with 4*20mm. Hellcats and Lightnings could take punishment, but from 4*20mm not much is going to stay up in the air.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

They key to succeeding in combat is avoiding your enemy's strengths. The -4 Corsair posessed a speed advantage of nearly 70mph over the Shiden. Combat between the Hellcat, Lightning, Corsair, and Zero showed that the superior speed of the American fighters allowed them to avoid the maneuvering fights which favored the Zero. It would have been exactly the same between the Corsair and the Shiden.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

but to win, you would have to run like hell, and that isn't a win, you soon any speed advantage in a turning fight, where the shiden wins, and remember you can't keep up top speed for long...................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

The Americans fighters used to fly head on at the Zero as their best way to take it down, or you can dive out of the sky. If you haven't the height advantage, or you don't get dead on with him, you're screwed.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

The Corsair didn't have to maintain top speed to keep ahead of the Shiden as it was 70mph faster!!! The Shiden can't maintain it's top speed either so the speed advantage of the Corsair continues. Because of its speed advantages, a Corsair can choose when to engage (like from above or from out of the sun or behind a cloud) or when to run away (because smart pilots do that). A Corsair with an altitude advantage can dive, attack, and climb back to altitude and the Shiden can't do thing 1 about it. The Corsair without an altitude advantage can avoid combat. The Shiden was the better dogfigher but there is NOTHING the Shiden can do to force a Corsair into that type of combat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

true, but if he did stay and fight, he was dead..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

In a traditional, turning fight, yes the Corsair is dead. But the pilot of a Corsair has the advantage of avoiding that kinda fight because of his speed. There is nothing the Shiden can to do force a Corsair into a dogfight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yup, being a wimp and fleeing is much more sensible than staying to fight and die


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Because that is what good pilots did. You NEVER fight to your enemy's strengths and you NEVER fight where you enemy has the advantage (if you can at all avoid it). The Corsair had all of the advantages that allowed it to choose when and where the fight occurred.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

If you're escorting bombers running isn't an option. Or if the Shiden is escorting bombers running isn't an option. You fight to either get your bombers through, or stop theres. 

And the Shiden could get out of the way of a diving Corsair, turning would be able to get out of the way, if the Shiden pilot sees his opponent.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

which was very likely, the japs gave the shiden to all their remeining aces, they knew what they were doing..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Which again means a better pilot NOT a better plane. And you don't have to completely run away to be successful escorting. Again, look at the records of the Hellcat, Corsair, and Lightning. They all did perfectly well escorting bombers against more maneuverable Zeroes. And did every miss my post in the Aces thread about the AVG? They PROVED that maneuverability isn't everything in a fight and maneuverability was the only advantage the Shiden had over the Corsair.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

as wel as better armourment...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Barely. The P-40s of the AVG were only armed with 2x.50cals and 4x.30cals. Hardly overwhelming firepower.

If you won't believe me, maybe you will believe Saburo Sakai. "The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performace, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster that the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men." I know he was talking about P-38 v Zero but Corsair v Shiden would have presented exactly the same situation.

And to borrow from your logic, I guess the Mosquito must have been a death trap when fighting a 190 since the 190 easily beats the Mossie in a turning fight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

i'm talking about the shiden, the shiden had better armourment................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

But armament doesn't change the fact that the Corsair picks when are where the battle occurs.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

You can't pick where to fight when on an escort mission, or if attacking an escorted formation. You have to fight, or you've failed when the bombers start dropping like flies. 
The Mosquito didn't enjoy meeting FW190s, lets put it that way. And we never said the Corsair was a death trap against the Shiden, just that the Shiden was better.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Even on an escort mission, the Corsair can use it's speed to disengage. Not totally run away, but pull out of range until it can turn back on the Shiden. And if it's an escort situation consider this 1) the Shiden will be focusing on attacking bombers, not the Corsairs and 2) depending on the type of bomber being escorted, the altitude can be quite high and the Shiden was lousy at alititude.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

If it's on an escort mission and it pulls out that gives the Shiden a lot of time to concentrate on the bombers. There might be two groups, one for the fighters and one for the bombers, the Corsairs need to be there to hold them, not run away enough to turn back in. 

When attacking the Corsair needs to be able to take down the bombers, you can't keep going up and down all the time especially at altitude. You need to be getting those bombers, while trying to (and failing) outturn a Shiden on your tail.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

There can be two groups of Corsiars. The take shifts diving down and forcing the Shidens to break away from their attacks on the bombers. In general, the turning dogfight was made obsolete by the American tactics.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

If one group of Shiden was chasing the first group that dived, the second gets dived on but doesn't pursue that's two groups of Corsairs leaving to come back around with one group of Shiden caught in between and the other group mauling the bombers


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Either way we have digressed to an argument on tactics rather than on which plane was better.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Well your argument is that the American tactics (which were very good to combat the Japs) was what could beat the Corsair, this does not make it the better plane.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And you argument that the Shiden was better are dependant on the tactics the Japanese use.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

There we go then..so it seems this isn't going anywhere...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

My whole point is that the advantages of the Corsair (coupled with the right tactics) allow if to avoid combat that favored the Shiden. The Shiden doesn't have that luxury. It can't run away from trouble.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes but in some circumstances you can't run away or if you do your base is going to be destroyed by the bombers the Shiden was escorting.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

In that instance the Corsair could use it's same advantages (high altitude performance, dive, climb) to repeatedly bounce the bombers and escorting Shidens.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

You can't carry on doing that though, eventually you're going to run 'out of steam' and the Shidens will be all over you, or you'll have to leave the fight then your airfield or carrier is dead.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

But the Shiden can't just turn to infinity. Each turn bleeds off more steam and it will eventually either become a sitting duck or stall out.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

But the Shiden doesn't have to turn like crazy because the Corsair leaves times when it's done its pass.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

If a Corsair makes a pass, the Shiden will have to turn out of the way. That will give the Corsair the time he needs to return for another pass. As long as the Shiden is turning away from Corsairs it's not doing any damage to anything else.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

No because turning doesn't mean a full 180 turn.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

OK. Let's look at it this way. A group of Corsairs comes across a group of Shidens. The Shidens CANNOT force the Corsairs into combat nor can they easily avoid a fight. So far, your arguments have centered around tying the Corsairs to a ship or a group of bombers (and even then the Corsair's performance advantages are too much to be overcome). But will you at least admit that the Shiden cannot force a group of Corsairs into combat?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I never said it could. I'm saying if the Corsair did leave it hasn't beaten the Shiden.


----------

