# Best Pacific Fighter II



## Catch22 (Jun 12, 2009)

As Dan put it, the old one's soggy and the results are bogus. Plus it's missing the best Japanese planes, so time for a new one. Hope I didn't mess this one up. I think I got the major ones, but if I missed anything, let me know.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 12, 2009)

The Corsair. It had better performance values than anything in theater, indeed, almost anything in existence (other than jets of course) plus was an excellent ground attack plane. Basically a near perfect all in one plane, and it's not a "jack of all trades, master of none", as it was superb at both and WAS the master (in the PTO and in my mind anyway) in regards to fighters.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 12, 2009)

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


----------



## diddyriddick (Jun 12, 2009)

I'll go with the Corsair. Not to take anything away from the P-38, but since the F4U was carrier capable, it has a huge leg up.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

diddyriddick said:


> I'll go with the Corsair. Not to take anything away from the P-38, but since the F4U was carrier capable, it has a huge leg up.



But the P38 had the range to go where the F4U's couldnt go when there were no carriers.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

The Hellcat, not as good as the F4U, but it was used on a carrier before the corsair.


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2009)

But the P38 could not land or take off from a carrier. The Corsair also took less fuel, less maintenance, was easier for a low time pilot to get proficient in combat in, was a better dive bomber and was a much smaller target for groundfire or enemy AC fire. I don't know what the loss rate of the P38 was but doubt it was as good as the Corsair's.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

P-38 could take off a carrier? Interesting.


----------



## DBII (Jun 12, 2009)

I have seen, P-40s, P-47, P-51s, Spitefires and Hurricanes. I think that I read about the Bf-109 being design for capapult launching. I don't remember see the P-38 on a carrier. 

DBII


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 12, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> The Hellcat, not as good as the F4U, but it was used on a carrier before the corsair.



How does that make it a better plane though?  The British seemed to do just fine with it before the US, it was just in landing doctrine. Performance-wise, the Corsair beats the Hellcat in every area (except maybe climb rate and turn rate, I'm not up on those stats, but certainly speed, range, and payload).

As for P-38s taking off from a carrier, it's certainly possible. Taking off isn't the problem, it's landing that's the issue.


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2009)

It is not productive to spend time saying this or that landbased plane could takeoff or land on a carrier. What is important was whether an AC could successfully conduct operations from a carrier. P47s were launched from a carrier, Hurricanes(not Sea Hurricanes) landed on a carrier without arresting gear, a P51 was launched and recovered from a carrier. That did not make any of those land based planes a carrier borne fighter.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2009)

DBII said:


> I have seen, P-40s, P-47, P-51s, Spitefires and Hurricanes. I think that I read about the Bf-109 being design for capapult launching. I don't remember see the P-38 on a carrier.
> 
> DBII



I believe it was the Bf-109N designed for the Graf Zepplin


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2009)

Overall I would have to say Hellcat simply because of it's combat record.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Overall I would have to say Hellcat simply because of it's combat record.



But a majority of those kills were against poorly trained Japanese pilots.

It was the Corsair, Wildcat and the P40 that really gutted the best pilots the Japanese had.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 12, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> How does that make it a better plane though?  The British seemed to do just fine with it before the US, it was just in landing doctrine. Performance-wise, the Corsair beats the Hellcat in every area (except maybe climb rate and turn rate, I'm not up on those stats, but certainly speed, range, and payload).
> 
> As for P-38s taking off from a carrier, it's certainly possible. Taking off isn't the problem, it's landing that's the issue.



Perhaps I jumped the gun, I'm more of a hellcat then corsair fan. I'll admit, the F4U had the better performance.

Besides, I have a tendency to root for the underdog.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 12, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But a majority of those kills were against poorly trained Japanese pilots.
> 
> It was the Corsair, Wildcat and the P40 that really gutted the best pilots the Japanese had.


The Hellcat entered combat service before the Corsair did(by 3 months) so they had plenty of experienced pilots to fight. Cosair had a 11:1 kill ratio but the Hellcat had more kills. The only real advantage the Helcat had over the Corsair was ruggedness. The Hellcat could take more punishment.l


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 12, 2009)

I guess what I'm saying is the Cosair was the best all around fighter in the Pacific. JMO.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> But a majority of those kills were against poorly trained Japanese pilots.
> 
> It was the Corsair, Wildcat and the P40 that really gutted the best pilots the Japanese had.



I have to disagree, even after Midway the IJN was still a formidable force, and it certainly did not effect the IJ Army's combat aircraft.

I thought the Corsair went into action around the same time the Hellcat did.

While I think the Corsair, Wildcat, and P-40 were great planes, I just don't see any data where they shot down a massive amount of enemy planes, even trained ones.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 13, 2009)

I would rather be in a F4U then any other Pacific crate. The performance is what matters to me.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 13, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree, even after Midway the IJN was still a formidable force, and it certainly did not effect the IJ Army's combat aircraft.
> 
> I thought the Corsair went into action around the same time the Hellcat did.
> 
> While I think the Corsair, Wildcat, and P-40 were great planes, I just don't see any data where they shot down a massive amount of enemy planes, even trained ones.



The Corsair entered service before the Hellcat, but only by a few months. The reason the Hellcat has such a high kill ratio too is because the Navy didn't use the Corsair, as only the Marines did, until '45 (minus VF-17, but they were basically a Marine unit in function as they flew off of land bases). Swap places and I think the ratio would have been higher towards the Corsair instead.

Performance wise, nothing in the PTO beats the F4U.

I'm probably a little biased, I admit that, but I'm not delusional or anything haha.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

I will have to go with the Corsair for the reasons that renrich has posted. It was the ultimate fighter in the pacific. 



renrich said:


> It is not productive to spend time saying this or that landbased plane could takeoff or land on a carrier. What is important was whether an AC could successfully conduct operations from a carrier. P47s were launched from a carrier, Hurricanes(not Sea Hurricanes) landed on a carrier without arresting gear, a P51 was launched and recovered from a carrier. That did not make any of those land based planes a carrier borne fighter.



Don't tell that to sys. He will argue with you that the B-25 was a carrier borne bomber!


----------



## Maestro (Jun 13, 2009)

I must play the Devil's advocate here... Even though I like the F4U for its look and general performances, I must say that I think the Hellcat was better...

I saw a ducumentary on the Historia channel about Hellcats pilots. It was said that the Hellcat has the best kill ratio of the PTO (19:1) and has the best armor... So if I was a navy pilot, I think I would choose the Hellcat.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 13, 2009)

in less 4 years war (talking on pacific) 6 months aren't so few time


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree, even after Midway the IJN was still a formidable force, and it certainly did not effect the IJ Army's combat aircraft.
> 
> I thought the Corsair went into action around the same time the Hellcat did.
> 
> While I think the Corsair, Wildcat, and P-40 were great planes, I just don't see any data where they shot down a massive amount of enemy planes, even trained ones.



Beginning in summer 1942, it was P40 pilots in NG (ANZAC included) and F4F's in (or near) Guadalcanal beginning the attrition of the Japanese forces.

Through out 1943, it was predominately Corsairs, and some 13th AF P38's and P40's that engaged the rapidly declining Japanese AF over Bougainville and Rabaul. Over in New Guinea, it was a mix of P40's and P38's that whittled down the IJA forces there.

There was a USN Hellcat squadron based in the central Solomons for a short time in mid 1943, but it was reassigned as soon as the Corsairs were available in quantity.

By 1944, the quality of the Japanese air units was a fraction of what it had been in 1942. And the Hellcat didnt really get into the big battles untill summer 1944 with the invasion of the Mariana's. Untill then, they only had periodic combat, as opposed to the other types that were flying everyday the weather allowed.

And ..... consider the navy's decision in 1945 that the Corsair (over the Hellcat) was the best interceptor of Kamikazi's. 

As for which plane was stronger, Hellcat or Corsair, the F4U was superior and was just as strong as the Thunderbolt. That was proven in the P47 vs F4U thread we had last year.

Now for what airplane you wanted to be in when flying 500 miles from the nearest landing strip, and a water ditching or jump into the jungle usually meant you will perish ..... what was better .... a single engined F4U or the twin engined P38?

As for the B25 being a carrier bomber; Leonard showed us pics of a PBJ going through carrier trials on the USS Oriskany dated, 1945. And dont tell the Doolittle raiders that the B25 was not carrier capable.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 13, 2009)

Would anyone be able to direct me to the P-47 vs F4U thread? My search didn't bring anything up. All I need is which section it's in and I can find it from there.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

The reason why the USN pushed the Hellcat so much was due to the early problems with the F4U which were not ironed out until April of 1944 HowStuffWorks "Chance Vought F4U Corsair" when they were finally approved for carrier use. That's why it had been given to the Marines.

Summer of 44? 4 Carriers worth of Hellcats were used to attack Markus Island in Sept of 43 (shooting down 22), then struke Rabual in Nov of that same year.

The Hellcat acheived a 19-1 kill ratio (USN Marines) and the F4U acheived an 11-1 kill ration. If they were put into service around the same time, then the F4U would also be flying against the same quality of japanese pilots.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 14, 2009)

Im split on this... To be honest, the choices are too basic for me to catagorize... The F4U for example, has several variants that are vastly different...

The Top 2 for me would be the F4U-4 and the N1K2-J Shiden KAI, both for different reasons.... From a purely air to air aspect, the N1K2 had it over the Corsair if marginally so... It all came down to the pilot in the end.... My Grandfather also thought the Shiden KAI, if properly produced and maintained with proper fuel, was the Best in the Pacific....

But all around Champ has got to be the F4U-4....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I believe it was the Bf-109N designed for the Graf Zepplin


Think that you mean 109T, T for Trager.

Anyhoo, I'm stuck between the Corsair and the Lightning. The lightning had one upper hand in having two engines, get hit in one, you had a slim chance to make it home, get hit the engine on a Corsair and you're shafted!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Think that you mean 109T, T for Trager.
> 
> Anyhoo, I'm stuck between the Corsair and the Lightning. The lightning had one upper hand in having two engines, get hit in one, you had a slim chance to make it home, get hit the engine on a Corsair and you're shafted!



Yup, that's the one.


----------



## renrich (Jun 14, 2009)

The Corsair went into combat on Feb. 14, 1943, the Hellcat near the end of August, 1943. That is a little over six months difference, in a war that was something over four years. The number of combat sorties flown by both was about the same. The Corsair more air to ground than the Hellcat. The Hellcat had more than twice as many kills as the Corsair and I think it would be accurate to say that the Hellcat kills came mostly against second rate Japanese pilots although some of the Corsair kills did also. It would be interesting to know how many kills for both were registered against Japanese fighters flying in the kamikaze role but the Corsair kills were 1662 fighters and 478 bombers, where as the Hellcat had 1445 bombers and 3718 fighters. A lot of the Corsair kills against fighters came in 1943 flying escort for bombers in the Solomons, probably against Japanese veteran pilots. The P38 had 1700 kills in the PTO. I would like to know how many combat sorties it flew but do not have that info. Because an airplane took off from a carrier doesn't make it carrier capable. I think I saw a video of a C130 being launched from a carrier. I doubt a C130 or a B25 ever tried a landing on a carrier much less completed one.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 14, 2009)

> Now for what airplane you wanted to be in when flying 500 miles from the nearest landing strip, and a water ditching or jump into the jungle usually meant you will perish ..... what was better .... a single engined F4U or the twin engined P38?



I think I would take ditching into the water. The Catalina did a good job at finding it's lost sheep!

The F4U was probably the best all around, but I do like the P-38, for it's long range and speed. 

The Hayate was also a excellent plane, but like the N1K2 appeared in limited numbers.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 14, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I think I would take ditching into the water. The Catalina did a good job at finding it's lost sheep!



That wasnt exactly true. If the PBY found the downed airmen, they were usually saved. But if not ......


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2009)

F4U Corsair, no doub about it.

The Japanese did have aircraft such as the Ki-84 which could prove a mouthful for any US fighter though, but the F4U-4 was a better a/c.


----------



## Butters (Jun 14, 2009)

This is a tough call, but all in all, I give the nod to the Corsair.

The primacy of carrier operations in the PTO rules out land-based AC like the P-38, and the late-model Japanese fighters like the Frank and George.(The Japanese planes also suffered severe reliability problems. A plane in the hanger is not an effective combat weapon...) Either the Corsair or Hellcat could have accomplished most of the tasks of the Lightning, but the P-38 was no carrier fighter.

The Hellcat had the advantage of being easier to fly, esp in regards to carrier operations. The F4U's nickname, "Ensign Eliminator", is a demonstration of that. And for relatively inexperienced pilots, a docile handling machine allows them to concentrate on fighting the enemy rather than flying the AC. That alone probably accounts for much of the discrepancy in kill ratios over the F4U. As does the fact that the majority of VF units were equipped with Hellcats, whereas many of the Corsair's missions were devoted to ground attack. 

Still, in the hands of a skilled and aggressive pilot, the Corsair had enough of a performance edge over the Hellcat to entitle it to top honors as an air-to-air fighter. It's kinda like the Me 109/FW 190 contest...The '190 may have been a better AC for the rank and file, but it seems that most of the experten preferred the '109. At least from what I've read.

In any case, either the F6F or the F4U would have been able to defeat the Japanese air forces on their own. They were both very versatile and efficient combat aircraft.

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

Ok here is some real data. The chart below shows USN/Marine Kills by Plane (F6F vs F4U) by year. I got this data from page 68 of http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf

It does *not* include Allies flying these planes.







Interesting enough, the number of combat sorties flown during 1943 were almost the same, even though the F4U had 5 more months worth of data.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 14, 2009)

Interesting data, thanks for putting it together.

About the same number of sorties though, the F6F also had almost 2 years longer naval service than the F4U did, and there were more VFs than VMFs, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 14, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> Interesting data, thanks for putting it together.
> 
> About the same number of sorties though, the F6F also had almost 2 years longer naval service than the F4U did, and there were more VFs than VMFs, if I'm not mistaken.



2 years? Both were flying combat missions in 1943.

Look at it this way. In 1945, the Hellcat was already a dated design, while the Corsair was just getting into its prime.

And for the Hellcat vs P38; the P38 was pretty much superior to the Hellcat in most flight regimes.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 14, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> 2 years? Both were flying combat missions in 1943.
> 
> Look at it this way. In 1945, the Hellcat was already a dated design, while the Corsair was just getting into its prime.
> 
> And for the Hellcat vs P38; the P38 was pretty much superior to the Hellcat in most flight regimes.



*Naval* service, meaning carrier service. Wasn't clear I suppose.


----------



## Butters (Jun 14, 2009)

I checked out that site, VB. It's a fantastic source of info!

Thanks,

JL

PS: Is the link to this site archived somewhere in this forum?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanks Butters - I really don't know.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 15, 2009)

Which was better at absorbing damage and still get the pilot home...?


----------



## Butters (Jun 15, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Which was better at absorbing damage and still get the pilot home...?



I was looking thru the PDF that VB linked to last night, and there were at least two or three references to the Hellcat's superior ability to absorb battle damage and survive. There was a comment to the effect, that the F6F's superior kill/loss ratio vis the F4U was at least partly attributable to the Hellcat's superior durability. However, it was the SBD that really stood out as a survivor. It had the best safety record of all the USN/USMC aircraft.

JL


----------



## renrich (Jun 15, 2009)

Butters, I thought your post was well thought out, informative and logical. One point about flying characteristics of the Hellcat versus Corsair though. The Corsair, especially early before the landing gear debouncing, seat raising and tail wheel strut lengthening could be a handful on landing which is where it earned one of it's names, "Ensign Eliminator." It had a lot of torque characteristics also on takeoff and in a wave off or go around. However once in the air, everything I have read seems to indicate that it was a sweetheart to fly and maneuver, much more biddable, for instance than a P51 and in some ways easier to fly than the Hellcat. Until the spoiler on the right wing was installed the slow speed stall with the left wing drop caused some anxiety but that was a characteristic of several fighters, including the FW190. The pilot of the Corsair had lots to do with the manually shifted two speed two stage supercharger, prop, mixture and throttle controls but that was no different than the Hellcat so I believe that disregarding takeoff, the Corsair was at least no more difficult to handle in combat than a Hellcat.


----------



## renrich (Jun 15, 2009)

VB, that website you found with all the USN and USMC numbers in it is a really good find. Thanks for posting it. I have the total numbers for all US fighters in the PTO and there is a slight difference in the totals for both Hellcat and Corsair but not enough to worry about. The interesting thing about the table you posted is that the Corsair in 1943 had the majority of it's kills against fighters which, I believe, is the result of all the escort missions the Corsair flew against Japanese bases in or near the Solomons. These would have been against some of the IJN crack pilots still left. The Hellcat did not have many landbased kills in 1943 so most of it's kills must have been in air strikes from US carriers. The kills registered by both AC in 1945 showed a lot of fighters many of which might have been Japanese fighters in the kamikaze role. Some of the kills against fighters though in 1945 were against fighters encountered during air strikes against the Japanese mainland which would have included Jacks, Georges and Franks.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2009)

Renrich is correct.

In 1943, the last of the quality pilots that Japan had was in NG and the Northern Solomons. Most of the kills the Corsair and P38 had in that year was against those pilots.


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2009)

Debating, discussing best PTO or ETO fighter is fun, educational and stimulating. Having said that however it is pretty much futile to reach a definitive conclusion that is not just an opinion. The more you study WW2 fighters, the more you begin to understand this. To begin with, so much depends on the pilot. If one takes as gospel that the premier recip fighters in WW2 were the BF109, FW190, Spitfire, Tempest, P51, P47, P38, F6F, F4U and perhaps KI84 and the different variations of those, and you put a Erich Hartman, Saburo Sakai, Johnny Johnson, Dick Bong or Joe Foss, etc. in any of them, being familiar with that type, and another of the premiers being piloted by an average pilot, the chances are the average pilot is going to get waxed. EXCEPT and this is a big EXCEPT. If the Erich Hartman is in the latest BF109 and the average guy is in a P51D and the fight is 600 miles away from base, Hartman is not going to win because he has probably already run out of fuel and ditched. If the two pilots are roughly equal and the fight is between a F4U1D and a P47D and is at 35000 feet, the P47 has an edge with it's turbo charged engine but if the fight is down in the weeds, the F4U has the edge. If the fight is between a P51B and an FW190, optimised for shooting down bombers with a bunch of heavy cannon and tubes for rockets, all things equal the FW is at a severe disadvantage. The early P38s did poorly in the ETO, partly because in the cold air over Europe up high they got into compressibility problems in a dive. They did better in the PTO at lower altitudes with warmer air. Speed is good but a 15 or 20 mph edge on paper does not mean much because most Vmaxs are quoted at optimal altitudes so where is the fight taking place and besides that some aircraft were harder to keep tuned and rigged for max performance so lots of time the planes could not do what the factory said it could do. What it boils down to is that all the premier fighters were pretty good at the jobs they were supposed to do if flown well. Even so, if I am a new, well trained USN pilot with little combat experience flying along in my brand new F4U4, all shiny and polished and I see Saburo Sakai tootling along in a Zeke, in spite of my almost 100 MPH speed advantage, if I am not careful I could find myself in a heap of trouble.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 16, 2009)

The Marines and soldiers on the ground remember the F4U as "the sweetheart of Okinawa". It could carry a very heavy payload, was aerodynamically "clean" with its spot welding and flush wheel wells, and sported a supercharged P&W. It was fast as hell with the F4U-4 being clocked at 446 mph at 26,200 ft. It was also a capable nightfighter and carrier capable. Being so dynamic really put it at the top of the list for the PTO and if assigned to the ETO I have no doubt that it would be up with the P-51D in ratings.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 16, 2009)

I'd reiterate what I said in a previous version of this poll. The F6F was the most *important* Allied fighter in the Pacific. Sea control was the key to moving the war rapidly toward Japan; carriers were the key to broad area sea control; the F6F was the key to carrier survivability close to large concentrations of Japanese land based fighters. And the F6F was the definitely superior carrier plane operationally (ie. in terms of ease of landing, even after the F4U's worst characteristics were corrected, it always had a substantially higher accident rate).

'Best' always tends to focus on the last version of each plane, so for example F4U-4, but that was not an important plane in WWII, nor was the P-38L. The war was virtually won before either entered combat. F4U-1 v F6F-3 and -5 is the most relevant WWII comparison and the F4U-1 was somewhat superior to the F6F-3 but had no substantial advantage over the -5. Official speed stats were somewhat different, but the actual trial of both v A6M5 showed the best speeds of F4U-1D and F6F-5 as almost the same. And Navy stats for both in combat in 1944-45 (which even includes a few F4U-4 units) showed claimed kill ratio v Japanese fighter types also to be almost the same (slightly higher for F6F). As mentioned, in that period 'fighter' was sometimes kamikaze, and those stats are claims so can't be taken literally as number of aircraft really shot down, but the comparison of F4U to F6F is apples to apples for that period: v. the same opposition they achieved almost exactly the same air combat results, but the F6F had a notably lower attrition rate to accidents and AA fire (again same period, comparing carrier operations v. same kind of AA opposition).

Moreover I've seen several Japanese statements saying the F6F was their most formidable fighter opponent, and while the F4U and P-38 have been mentioned as also important types turning the air combat tide against them, I know of no statement singling out any fighter but the F6F. This was partly a function of the situations in which the F6F was encountered. For example one such statement is in a USSBS interview about US fighter ops over Japan, favorably comparing the F6F to the P-51; saying the F6F units were more persistent and aggressive therefore more dangerous; but that would have been in part because of P-51 fuel worries operating over Japan from Iwo Jima v F6F's operating from carriers much closer. Also the Japanese opinion of USN/USMC fighters v USAAF generally mirrored the US opinion of Japanese fighter arms: they generally believed the naval service fighter units were superior. But again I'm going for most important, not pure technical superiority of the latest version of each to see any action at all.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2009)

How does one evaluate the period of time from February, 1943 to almost September 1943, when the Hellcat was not even present in combat anywhere and the landbased Corsair, still competing against some good IJN pilots helped the Allies to attain air supremacy in the Southwest Pacific? It was not the F4U4 that changed the mind of the Navy about carrier borne Corsairs. On May 16, 1944, " After a series of comparative fight tests a Navy Evaluation Board concludes the F4U1D is the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier aircraft. It is recommended that carrier fighter and fighter-bomber units be converted to the F4U type." Somehow the supposed vulnerability to ground fire of the F4U must have been outweighed by other qualities. The Hellcat shot down a little more than twice as many enemy AC than the Corsair. The Corsair dropped a lot more than twice as much tonnage of bombs than the Hellcat. The Corsair operated off of carriers when the Kamikaze risk was at it's greatest. The F4U4 could do 380 mph at sea level, where as the F6F5 could barely get to 335 mph at SL. Perhaps it's performance edge over the Hellcat played a major role then.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 16, 2009)

if were talking "Best Fighter" in knife range, I'd have to give it to the KI-84..

superb aircraft

Best all around would be the Corsair or Hellcat.

if i'm on a long=range assassination mission.... the P-38

.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 16, 2009)

renrich said:


> 1. How does one evaluate the period of time from February, 1943 to almost September 1943, when the Hellcat was not even present in combat anywhere and the landbased Corsair, still competing against some good IJN pilots helped the Allies to attain air supremacy in the Southwest Pacific?
> 
> 2. It was not the F4U4 that changed the mind of the Navy about carrier borne Corsairs. On May 16, 1944, " After a series of comparative fight tests a Navy Evaluation Board concludes the F4U1D is the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier aircraft. It is recommended that carrier fighter and fighter-bomber units be converted to the F4U type." Somehow the supposed vulnerability to ground fire of the F4U must have been outweighed by other qualities.
> 
> ...


1. Unlike other pairs of a/c we might compare the F4U and F6F *were* operated side by side in the same conditions v the same opponents. Those apples/apples cases are therefore IMO what logic says we should focus on, rather than trying to speculate about the differences in cases where they weren't operated side by side, as we'd be forced to do for types that never did operate side by side.

When land based USN F6F units operated in the Solomons from late August '43, alongside USMC (and later USN) land based F4U units, there was no obvious difference in air combat results. Again when the two types operated side by side on a larger scale in 1945, we have a large statistical sample showing no difference in combat results (claimed kill ratio's essentially identical in 100's of combats in that period). There is no evidence the F4U-1 was more effective than F6F-3 or -5 v Japanese fighters. The Japanese didn't think so either. On a more anecdotal level, Sakaida's "Genda's Blade" documents a number of F4U and F6F v Shiden-Kai combats in 1945 from both sides and there's again no obvious difference in results.

2. The AA vulnerability difference wasn't proven until 1945, when there was a large sample of F6F and F4U strike missions from the same bases (carriers) against the same opposition (sdns on same ships or different ships in same TF's operating against the same AA). The F4U loss rate was substantially higher. NASC, which makes a point of noting this AA vulnerability difference, wasn't put together until after the war. Also it wasn't till those 1945 ops that it was proven the F4U could not match the F6F's carrier accident rate, earlier it might have been hoped that carrier suitability improvements to the F4U would eliminate that gap. Considering all evidence including after May 1944, the F4U-1 was not a superior all around carrier fighter to the F6F-3/5, especially the -5, by any actual evidence of combat results. But by 1945, the comparison had shifted to F4U-4 v F6F-5 where there *was* a significant performance difference, so it was moot looking forward to postwar, but here we're talking about best or more important fighter *in* the war, in PTO.

3. Again in side by side operations from carriers in 1945, the average ordnance per sortie of F4U and F6F on strike missions was almost the same. Even more than AA loss statistics, ordnance stats were skewed by type of base: it was generally easier to lift a given load from an airfield than a carrier, so only side by side operations provide a valid comparison, and didn't happen for a large number of strike missions until carrier ops in 1945.

4. The F4U-4 had a significant advantage in performance over any F6F model which reached production. But the F4U-1 was the main example of PTO (WWII) Corsair, had definite areas of practical inferiority to the F6F (loss rates to AA and accidents) as carrier fighter, and carrier fighters had a more important impact strategically on the Pacific War than land based ones. Whereas, the F4U-1 had no demonstrated superiority in fighter combat results when flying against the same opponents, and one might even doubt its practical advantage as interceptor over the F6F-5: its best speed was apparently only slightly higher in practice (4mph in dual trial v A6M5).

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Butters said:


> ...The primacy of carrier operations in the PTO rules out land-based AC like the P-38 ....



What gave you that idea? Allied land based forces (army and naval) accounted for a majority of the missions. Carriers are "raiders" and don't have staying capacity. Land based forces can fly continuously whenever the weather cooperates and they aren't tethered to the fleet train like the carriers are.

Go look at my "this day in the PTO 65 years ago" thread and look at the land based missions flown every day, as opposed to the once in awhile carrier missions.

I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't get their deserved recognition, but lets not give them credit for what they don't deserve.


----------



## Amsel (Jun 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> What gave you that idea? Allied land based forces accounted for a majority of the missions. Carriers are "raiders" and dont have staying capacity. Land based forces can fly whenever the weather cooperates and arent tethered to the fleet train.
> 
> Go look at my "this day in the PTO 65 years ago" thread and look at the land based missions flown every day, as opposed to the once in awhile carrier missions.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the carriers get their deserved recognition, but lets not give them credit for what they dont deserve.


The Cactus Air Force is just one example.


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2009)

JB, do you have any information about the proportion of Hellcats in the Pacific fleet serving on CVEs versus Corsairs serving on CVEs when they were both in the fleet. I believe a good many of the USMC squadrons were on CVEs and that might skew operational losses. The Hellcats did not get into land based combat until the very end of August, 1943. I would suggest that the quality of Japanese pilot had begun to seriously erode compared to early in !943.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2009)

renrich said:


> JB, do you have any information about the proportion of Hellcats in the Pacific fleet serving on CVEs versus Corsairs serving on CVEs when they were both in the fleet. I believe a good many of the USMC squadrons were on CVEs and that might skew operational losses. The Hellcats did not get into land based combat until the very end of August, 1943. I would suggest that the quality of Japanese pilot had begun to seriously erode compared to early in !943.



It was about Jan 1944 that the erosion had run its course. The last of the quality naval forces in Rabaul had been used up around then.

Most of the losses were from Corsairs and P38's.


----------



## Butters (Jun 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> What gave you that idea?
> 
> What gave me this idea is the inarguable fact that a high-performance carrier-capable fighter was absolutely essential to the prosecution of the Pacific War. The F6F and F4U could operate from both land bases and carriers. The USAAF planes could not. At least in their war-time configuration.
> 
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Butters said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > What gave you that idea?
> ...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The AAF, the ANZAC AF and the Cactus AF (and later the Marine forces in the Central Solomons) were slugging it out with the Japanese for nearly two years before the first large carrier task forces made their forays into Central Pacific on a "sort" of regular basis. The P38's, P40's, F4F's and Corsairs were the ones who shattered the back of the quality Japanese air crews during that time.



How many kills did the P-38 P-40's have in the PTO?




syscom3 said:


> You might say that the Hellcat showed up late for the fight, had a good run against poorly trained Japanese pilots and then stole the glory from the real allied airmen who did the hard work against far better trained pilots.



You would have to say the same thing about the F4U as 50% of their kills occured in 1945


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 16, 2009)

No you wouldn't because 50% of their kills came before that, in some of the toughest parts of the war. I don't have figures on the Hellcat, but when were the majority of their kills scored? I'm guess mid to late 44 - 45.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> No you wouldn't because 50% of their kills came before that, in some of the toughest parts of the war. I don't have figures on the Hellcat, but when were the majority of their kills scored? I'm guess mid to late 44 - 45.



1943 F6F shot down (314) less planes then the F4U
1944 F6F shot down 2,484 more planes then the F4U
1944 F6F shot down 788 more planes then the F4U


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 16, 2009)

I assume the last number is 1945.

Do you mean that the F6F shot down, for example, 2,484 more planes than the F4U or do you mean that the F6F show down 2,484 planes, which was more than the F4U?

Not picking or anything, just trying to figure out exactly what you mean!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

Sorry about the confusion. The numbers present how many more/less planes the Hellcat shot over the F4U


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 17, 2009)

Ah k, what I thought. Thanks for the numbers!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 17, 2009)

I think the Brewster Buffalo should be on the list, it did it's job the best it could.


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2009)

In looking back at the beginning of this thread, the title is best Pacific fighter. I would interpret this as most capable not most influential. If we were trying to identify most influential or important Hellcat might be the one although the Wildcat might be a better pick. If not for the Wildcat the early Pacific battles won by the US might have gone the other way. Just think about the USN fighting in 1942 with the Buffalo in stead of the Wildcat. However the thread is about BEST PTO fighter. I would suggest that means best all around. The test of the F6F5, F4U1D versus Zeke 52 has been quoted since in that test the Corsair was only 4 mph faster than the F6F5 AT BEST ALTITUDE. I went back and looked at the test and although the F4U1D was only 4 mph faster than the F6F5, the test against the Zeke as to climb and speeds at SL, 5K, 10K, 15K, 20K, 25K, and 30K showed that the Corsair outperformed the Zeke in all those categories substantially better than the Hellcat did. Incidently, the FM2 was in that test and the Zeke 52 beat it pretty soundly. I also reviewed the test between an F4U1, F6F3 versus an FW190A4 and the Corsair showed a marked superiority over the Hellcat although both would be able, according to the Navy, be able to cope nicely with the FW, if flown to their strengths.
To try to put the legendary, famous or infamous "weakness" of the Corsair, the oil cooler, in perspective as well as the difficulties in landing, because one has visions of Corsairs falling out of the sky everwhere with oil coolers polluting the atmosphere and poor ensigns crashing on every other landing, let us look at some numbers. The Hellcat had 12275 built during WW2. They flew 66530 combat sorties. 553 were lost to triple A, 270 were lost to enemy AC,and they had 340 operational losses. They shot down 1445 enemy bombers, 3718 enemy fighters and dropped 6503 tons of bombs. The Corsair had 11514 built in WW2. They flew 64051 combat sorties. There were 349 Corsairs lost to triple A, 189 shot down by enemy fighters, and had 230 operational losses. They shot down 478 enemy fighters, 1662 enemy bombers and dropped 15621 tons of bombs. Based on the record, I submit that, as far as operational losses are concerned and as far as the famous(infamous?) oil cooler weakness is concerned there is no material difference between the two fighters. I also suggest that if the USN had gone on and deployed the Corsair on carriers as originally was intended, along with the Hellcat when it became available, the operational losses of the Corsair would have been higher but that would have been more than offset by it's performance advantages over the Hellcat. I also wonder why, if it was discovered in 1945, that the oil cooler was an Achilles Heel for the Corsair, that the Navy or Vought or Harry Truman or somebody did not relocate the oil cooler in the F4U4s and 5s built post war as was done in the AU and F4U7?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 17, 2009)

F4U. It is the superior plane.

I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 17, 2009)

davparlr said:


> F4U. It is the superior plane.
> 
> I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.



Yes. The Hellcat was good, but not good enough to take on the Kamikazis.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> Just think about the USN fighting in 1942 with the Buffalo in stead of the Wildcat.



I think the F2A-2 Buffalo would have been just as good or even better than the Wildcat. I believe one US pilot once said that he preferred the F2A-2 over the F4F, but not the F2A-3. In the end, they both did not do very favourable at the beginning of the war. It is my opinion that his was more caused by the quality and experience of the pilots then the by the supposed faults in both aircraft. I really think they both waere quite equal (apart from the later F2A-3 version and would have done equally well or bad, given the change.


----------



## renrich (Jun 17, 2009)

Marcel, one of the problems with the Buffalo was a weak landing gear. That alone was enough to keep it from being used by the USN. It could not be fitted all the way with SS tanks either. By the time it was fitted with armor and up gunned, then it 's performance was so degraded, it could not compete with a Wildcat, much less a Zeke. Remember, a carrier borne AC has certain requirements that can be omitted in a land based AC. The various Wildcats, including the overweight F4F4 held their own with the Zeke in the early war. It is a misconception that the Zeke dominated the Wildcat in 1942. The Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 17, 2009)

The Brewster Buffalo was one of the few airplanes that seemed to get worse with upgrades.



davparlr said:


> F4U. It is the superior plane.
> 
> I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.



Not trying to be a smart ass, but didn't the Navy only have 2 prop fighters in Korea (F7F Tigercat being the other)?



syscom3 said:


> Yes. The Hellcat was good, but not good enough to take on the Kamikazis.



What exactly do you base that on?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> What exactly do you base that on?



The Corsairs (and the soon to be deployed Bearcats) had the performance margins needed to take them on.

The USN needed fighters with fast rates of climb to be able to intercept them.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2009)

I went for the Ki100 for the simple reason that the JAAF thought it was a better fighter than the Ki84 a plane that was second to none in itself.
Who am I to disagree with the people that flew it.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 18, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Not trying to be a smart ass, but didn't the Navy only have 2 prop fighters in Korea (F7F Tigercat being the other)?



The F7F was used primarily as a night fighter and, as far as I know, the F8F, while a widely deployed fighter, played little role in the Korean War. After WWII, the F6F basically disappeared while the F4U soldiered on impressively.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 18, 2009)

renrich said:


> Marcel, one of the problems with the Buffalo was a weak landing gear. That alone was enough to keep it from being used by the USN. It could not be fitted all the way with SS tanks either. By the time it was fitted with armor and up gunned, then it 's performance was so degraded, it could not compete with a Wildcat, much less a Zeke. Remember, a carrier borne AC has certain requirements that can be omitted in a land based AC. The various Wildcats, including the overweight F4F4 held their own with the Zeke in the early war. It is a misconception that the Zeke dominated the Wildcat in 1942. The Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered.



I think using an adequate engine would have solved many problems with the Buffalo. The landing gear failures was a problem indeed, but a redesign of the struts again solved most of the problems, although landing gear failure still occured. 
The reason that "the Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered" the fact that these aircraft were dispensed over units with hardly any experience and most fights with the Buffalo was in the early months of 1942. So this was at a time that the wildcat wasn't doing very well, either. After this the Buffalo was already retreated. The wildcat had the fortune of being retained longer, thus giving the crew time to gain experience. Tactics (learned from experience) were the main reason why the Wildcat sometimes could hold their own against the Zero. I believe the Buffalo would have been able to that as well given the chance. 
I firmly believe that the retreat of the Buffalo had more to do with it's manufacturer than with the features of the a/c itself. We all know how inadequate the Brewster factory was, slow production and later even bad quality. The US government didn't have faith in them, so the defeats were an easy argument to get rid of Brewster. I also think the Buffalo was an easy victim to be the main reason of defeat in the first months of 1942 (f.i. Singapore). You could not blame yourself, so blame the equipment...


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 18, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I think using an adequate engine would have solved many problems with the Buffalo. The landing gear failures was a problem indeed, but a redesign of the struts again solved most of the problems, although landing gear failure still occured.
> The reason that "the Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered" the fact that these aircraft were dispensed over units with hardly any experience and most fights with the Buffalo was in the early months of 1942. So this was at a time that the wildcat wasn't doing very well, either. After this the Buffalo was already retreated. The wildcat had the fortune of being retained longer, thus giving the crew time to gain experience. Tactics (learned from experience) were the main reason why the Wildcat sometimes could hold their own against the Zero. I believe the Buffalo would have been able to that as well given the chance.
> I firmly believe that the retreat of the Buffalo had more to do with it's manufacturer than with the features of the a/c itself. We all know how inadequate the Brewster factory was, slow production and later even bad quality. The US government didn't have faith in them, so the defeats were an easy argument to get rid of Brewster. I also think the Buffalo was an easy victim to be the main reason of defeat in the first months of 1942 (f.i. Singapore). You could not blame yourself, so blame the equipment...



Even before the shooting started in the Pacific, the P40, Wildcat and Hurricane were far better fighters than the Buffalo. Anyone trying to prove otherwise will have a lot of explaining to do that wont change the final result.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 18, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Even before the shooting started in the Pacific, the P40, Wildcat and Hurricane were far better fighters than the Buffalo. Anyone trying to prove otherwise will have a lot of explaining to do that wont change the final result.



This is popular believe, yes, but I never saw any evidence that they were technically inferior. The Hurricane had an even worse score in the PTO than the Buffalo. The Buffalo had in the years 1941-1943 a better kill:loss ratio than the Wildcat (resp. 5:1 and 3.6:1). I would like to turn the question backwards: Prove that the Buffalo was technically inferior to the wildcat and would not have had the same (or better) results if been flown by the same crew as the Wildcat in later months.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 18, 2009)

From Wiki:

F4F-3

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 28 ft 9 in (8.76 m)
* Wingspan: 38 ft (11.58 m)
* Height: 11 ft 10 in (3.60 m)
* Loaded weight: 7,000 lb (3,200 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-1830-76 double-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (900 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 331 mph (531 km/h)
* Range: 845 mi (1,360 km)
* Service ceiling: 39,500 ft (12,000 m)

Armament

* Guns: 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 450 rpg
* Bombs: 2 × 100 lb (45 kg) bombs and/or 2 × 58 gal (220 l) drop tanks

F2A-3

General characteristics

* Crew: One, pilot
* Length: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft (10.7 m)
* Height: 12 ft 1 in (3.68 m)
* Wing area: 208.9 ft² (19.408 m²)
* Empty weight: 4,732 lb (2,146 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 6,321 lb (2,867 kg)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 284 mph at sea level, 321 mph at 16,500 ft (457 km/h, 516 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 171 mph (275 km/h)
* Range: 1,680 mi (2,703 km)
* Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,144 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min[5] The initial rate of climb would be further reduced with completely full petrol tanks.</ref> (744 m/min)

Armament

* 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 machine guns
* 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 machine guns
* 2 × 100 lb (45 kg) underwing bombs


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 18, 2009)

16500 feet sure it's not the best quote for buffalo


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 18, 2009)

Marcel said:


> This is popular believe, yes, but I never saw any evidence that they were technically inferior. The Hurricane had an even worse score in the PTO than the Buffalo. The Buffalo had in the years 1941-1943 a better kill:loss ratio than the Wildcat (resp. 5:1 and 3.6:1). I would like to turn the question backwards: Prove that the Buffalo was technically inferior to the wildcat and would not have had the same (or better) results if been flown by the same crew as the Wildcat in later months.


Where did you get your info. This is the first time I heard that since all that was ever told about Buffalo sqdrns being wiped out. I don't think their kill ratio would be that good. UNLESS , you're counting the Finnish pilots that used the Buffalo.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 18, 2009)

I know the Finns had a 26-1 Kill ratio with them (496 destroyed vs 19 lost). The Dutch had a 2-1 kill ratio in the PTO.

There were other issues that the USN had in regards to the Buffalo. 1/3 of the Midway pilots had joined the unit on May 26th and were fresh out of flight school and had not had time to get any operational training in and 2 weeks later were thrown against battle seasoned Japanese pilots. The unit was split in 2 so the first formation (6 F2As and 3 F4Fs) attacked 107 Japanese planes, of which 36 were Zeros. The 2nd formation (12 F2As and 1 F4F) later arrived and the Zeros had already returned to altitude after the first battle.

_"F2A Buffalo in action"_


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 18, 2009)

I knew the Dutch did ok with them but the Brits got mauled to where I question the kill ratio. At best I think it would be considered 1:1. And you count count the Finns because they were not PTO. If you did count the Finns look at what they were up against at first. I-15's and I-16's for the most part.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 18, 2009)

The Brits or more specifically the Commonwealth did well against the Japanese Army's Nates and Oscars and 3 Commonwealth pilots became aces flying them during the Malayan campaign. 

On Dec 21st, 1941 the 67th Sqd shot down 6 aircraft and another 3 probables with no loss. 
Dec 25th they shot down another 8 but losing 5.
Jan 23rd, shot down 1 fighter no loss
Jan 24th, shot down a flight of 4 bombers, no loss
At the end of the campaign most of the Buffalo losses were actually from being bombed on the ground.

It really was not until the US went against the IJN's Zero that things went badly for the Buffalo.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 18, 2009)

OK, I see now. And I knew alot of a/c were bombed not shot down.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 19, 2009)

snafud1 said:


> Where did you get your info. This is the first time I heard that since all that was ever told about Buffalo sqdrns being wiped out. I don't think their kill ratio would be that good. UNLESS , you're counting the Finnish pilots that used the Buffalo.



Of course I count the FAF with this as they were flying the Buffalo. It shows that in capable hands the Buffalo was better than can be concluded from the results in the PTO (I know some-one will claim now that the VVS were the worst AF in the world  ) . 
The Dutch pilots did not do so well. 72 a/c was way to few for the big area in NEI. They also didn't have early warning etc. The pilots were mostly inexperienced, just like their British collogues on the Buffalo. The same counts for the marines at Midway. Bad tactics, late warnings (means you won't have an altitude advantage) and inexperience meant that the Japanese would walk right over them. The B339's in the NEI did achieve a ratio of somewhere near 2:1.. The British had more problems with their buffalo as they had weaker engines (Dutch D version had 1200 hp compared to 1100 in the British E versions) and were much heavier with equipment. The Dutch considered the B339D as a decent aircraft and even preferred them over their 12 Hurricane MKIIB aircraft.

My claim is still that the bad reputation of the Buffalo is caused by propaganda and politics:
1. the allies could not admit that their pilots were inferior to the Japanese, so blame equipment (Buffalo as sheepgoat)
2. The US wanted to get rid of the very bad Brewster factory with their slow output and bad management.

With the last point you can say that it was fortunate that the USN choose the Wildcat. But I think just comparing the technically, there was not much to choose between the 2. The first point was just propaganda.

Having said this, I will never claim that the Buffalo was the best a/c in the PTO. It was just as bad, or as good, as all other allied types at the start of the PTO.


----------



## renrich (Jun 19, 2009)

Compare the Buffalo and Wildcat at Midway with comparable pilots. No doubt the manufacturer was a problem. A dud airplane built by a dud manufacurer. Brewster could not get Corsairs built either. Marcel, if you can get your hands on "The First Team" John Lundstrom, please do. It is probably the best book about USN fighter pilots in 41-42 in the PTO. I believe if you read it you will gain a different perspective.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Marcel, while the Buffalo was struggling, the F4F and P40 were holding their own.

The F4F and P40 both flew combat missions well into 1944. The Buffalo was never used again after the Midway debacle.

Most Buffalo kills were against bombers. They simply couldnt hold up against fighters. Maybe the Finns had success with them, but no one else did.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jun 19, 2009)

If the marines at Midway had F2A-2's instead of -3's, would that have made a difference?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> If the marines at Midway had F2A-2's instead of -3's, would that have made a difference?



Maybe add a minute to their lives.

They were all dead meat the moment they took off.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

I created a poll for the fighters that existed in 1942, which gives some good info on the various types flying in that year.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-fighter-pacific-cbi-theaters-1942-a-17960-10.html


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Marcel, while the Buffalo was struggling, the F4F and P40 were holding their own.
> 
> The F4F and P40 both flew combat missions well into 1944. The Buffalo was never used again after the Midway debacle.
> 
> Most Buffalo kills were against bombers. They simply couldnt hold up against fighters. Maybe the Finns had success with them, but no one else did.



for US forces yes, but finnish used it also in late '44


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for US forces yes, but finnish used it also in late '44



Out of necessity, not because they wanted too.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

same can be told for f4f and p-40 in US air forces


----------



## Marcel (Jun 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> Compare the Buffalo and Wildcat at Midway with comparable pilots. No doubt the manufacturer was a problem. A dud airplane built by a dud manufacurer. Brewster could not get Corsairs built either. Marcel, if you can get your hands on "The First Team" John Lundstrom, please do. It is probably the best book about USN fighter pilots in 41-42 in the PTO. I believe if you read it you will gain a different perspective.



I fully agree on the manufacturer. About the Buffalo I don't fully agree, as I still think the Buffalo didn't do very well because of the pilots at the Midway squadron and the massive opposition they encoutered. The Wildcats flying there from Midway didn't do very well, either.
I myself own a few volumes about the Dutch Buffalo's and still believe the Buffalo could have done at least as good as the Wildcat when properly flown. I also read a comment from a USN pilot (don't remember his name) saying he preferred the F2A-2 over the F4F any time (although not the F2A-3).

But I will try to get the book you suggest before arguing any further, thanks for the suggested read Sys!


----------



## Marcel (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Maybe add a minute to their lives.
> 
> They were all dead meat the moment they took off.



But that was more because of there tactical situation than because of the a/c as I believe.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> same can be told for f4f and p-40 in US air forces



Incorrect.

Both proved themselves to be good aircraft in 1942 and 1943 untill replaced by newer types.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Both proved themselves to be good aircraft in 1942 and 1943 untill replaced by newer types.



we were not talking of '44?, howewhere both outdated for late '43


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> we were not talking of '44?, howewhere both outdated for late '43



The point is the Buffalo was useless in 1942. The P40 and F4F were not.

The Buffalo was removed from service in 1942 because it was a death trap.

The P40 and F4F were good enough to fly well into 1944 and still go on combat missions.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The point is the Buffalo was useless in 1942. The P40 and F4F were not.
> 
> The Buffalo was removed from service in 1942 because it was a death trap.
> 
> The P40 and F4F were good enough to fly well into 1944 and still go on combat missions.


I totally agree with you...


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The point is the Buffalo was useless in 1942. The P40 and F4F were not.
> 
> The Buffalo was removed from service in 1942 because it was a death trap.
> 
> The P40 and F4F were good enough to fly well into 1944 and still go on combat missions.



Buffalo was not useless in '42 they shoot down enemy planes until october '44, and obv. was not a death trap.

They flying combat mission well into in '44 for same reason that finnish buffalo not just replacement, the CVE have trouble with larger fighter, P-40 was replaced whit P-47 or 51 when this available


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 19, 2009)

This seems to imply that the Buffalo was a death trap....

"The Brewster F2A (company Model 139) was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service during World War II. In 1939, the F2A became the first monoplane fighter aircraft used by the US Navy. In December 1941, it suffered severe losses with both British Commonwealth and Dutch air forces in South East Asia while facing the Japanese Navy's A6M Zero and the Japanese Army's Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar". It also saw action with United States Marine Corps (USMC) squadrons at the Battle of Midway. Frustrated with the Buffalo's poor maneuverability and speed compared to the Zero, the F2A was derided by USMC pilots as a "flying coffin"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Buffalo


----------



## Marcel (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The point is the Buffalo was useless in 1942. The P40 and F4F were not.
> 
> The Buffalo was removed from service in 1942 because it was a death trap.
> 
> The P40 and F4F were good enough to fly well into 1944 and still go on combat missions.



Still have to prove that this was due to the aircraft itself other than tactical situation and experience. I believe the Buffalo only flew in combat for the USN at Midway. It's hard to judge an aircraft on just one mission, especially as the tactical situation was so unfavourable.

Believe it or not, the Finns were quite happy with the Buffalo (I believe Juha can elaborate on that). And as I said, the Dutch considered it a more capable a/c then the Hurricane MKIIB.



Doughboy said:


> This seems to imply that the Buffalo was a death trap....
> 
> wikipedia,"The Brewster F2A (company Model 139) was an American fighter aircraft which saw limited service during World War II. In 1939, the F2A became the first monoplane fighter aircraft used by the US Navy. In December 1941, it suffered severe losses with both British Commonwealth and Dutch air forces in South East Asia while facing the Japanese Navy's A6M Zero and the Japanese Army's Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar". It also saw action with United States Marine Corps (USMC) squadrons at the Battle of Midway. *Frustrated with the Buffalo's poor maneuverability and speed compared to the Zero, the F2A was derided by USMC pilots as a "flying coffin",[1]"*



All allied aircraft suffered severe losses against the Japanese in the first few months of 1942.
About the maneuvrability, Dutch pilot Harry Simons:


> Although it may sound strange, I still remember *the agile maneuverability* of the Brewster B339 and in principle it was a very good aircraft as long as it had 1200 hp



Seems like the Dutch disagree here. Still sounds like a pilot problem.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

Buffalo was fastest, best climbing and best turning of Wildcat (camparision F2A-2 with F4F-3 or F2A-3 with F4F-4)


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 19, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Buffalo was fastest, best climbing and best turning of Wildcat (camparision F2A-2 with F4F-3 or F2A-3 with F4F-4)


The F4F had a top speed of 313 mph and the Buffalo had a top speed of 300 mph...So the F4F was faster than the Buffalo.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 19, 2009)

All allied aircraft suffered severe losses against the Japanese in the first few months of 1942. 



I guess you're right.


----------



## renrich (Jun 19, 2009)

Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 19, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Marcel, while the Buffalo was struggling, the F4F and P40 were holding their own.
> 
> The F4F and P40 both flew combat missions well into 1944. The Buffalo was never used again after the Midway debacle.
> 
> Most Buffalo kills were against bombers. They simply couldnt hold up against fighters. Maybe the Finns had success with them, but no one else did.



Actaully the Dutch and British did as well.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 19, 2009)

renrich said:


> Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.



14500 feet it's under fth for R-1820-40 of buffalo, w/o check the FTH it's over 20000 feet.
the FTH of 1830-76 and -86 (F4F-3 and F-4) it's the same 19000 feet so i think your data need some check.

EDIT after some research this "14500 feet it's under fth for R-1820-40 of buffalo, w/o check the FTH it's over 20000 feet."
maybe wrong


----------



## Marcel (Jun 20, 2009)

renrich said:


> Don't know where all the performance numbers are coming from but my "Bible" "America's Hundred Thousand " gives the Vmax of the USN Buffaloes as 320 mph at the critical altitude of 14500 feet. The AC at a weight of 6637 pounds had a SL cimb rate of 2600 fpm up to about 10000 feet where it began to drop off. The early F4F3 had a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a climb rate of 3200 fpm at SL. The heavier F4F4 had a climb rate of 2500 fpm at SL and topped out at 320 mph at around 17000 feet. The Buffalo was deficient in performance at higher altitudes and one suspects the Finns did a lot of fighting at lower altitudes just like on the Russian front. One USN squadron operating Buffaloes off a carrier had 12 landing gear failures out of 17 AC. The Navy did not operate Buffaloes at Midway. The Buffaloes, all shot down during the IJN air strike were USMC, however the Marines operating Wildcats in the same battle fared much better. Marion Carl being one of them.



Richard, these numbers vary between the models. For instance, the B339D in the NEI had an initial climb rate of 4700 fpm, while the British B339E only managed 3000 fpm. This was because the British version 10% heavier, while having 100hp less power. The B339-23 was also bad This a/c had only 1000 hp, while being much heavier than the 339D. It had a top speed of only 264 mph and a climb speed of 3100 fpm.



vikingBerserker said:


> Actaully the Dutch and British did as well.


No, they didn't. Let there be no mistake, the Buffalo did very poorly against the Japanese. JoeB did some excellent posting about this some time ago. But so did all types in the same area.
My point is this: *All aircraft would have done (and did) as bad as the Brewster under the same circumstances*. The negative judgement of the Brewster compared to the F4F was based on one fight and one fight alone. This is a little thin for such conclusions. I still believe the Buffalo was used to justify the early losses of allied AF's against the Japanese to the public. It was a convenient sheep goat, especially since they wanted to get rid of the inefficient Brewster company anyway.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2009)

Marcel have you info on what's the FTH for R-1820G-205 on dutch brewster?


----------



## Marcel (Jun 20, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Marcel have you info on what's the FTH for R-1820G-205 on dutch brewster?



Nope, sorry.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Marcel said:


> My point is this: *All aircraft would have done (and did) as bad as the Brewster under the same circumstances*..



No!

The P40's did well enough (ever hear of the AVG?). The Wildcats could also hold their own.

But it was the Buffalo that had the unique distinction to show so little accomplishments.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 20, 2009)

The P-40 also served with the RNZAF for quite a while, until '44 I think, and did fine there.


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2009)

There are all kinds of numbers floating around about all the fighters in the WW2. I will stick with my source as it is using both manufacturer's numbers and user's numbers(USN or AAF) Having said that, there is a huge disparity between performance data on the Buffalo and the Wildcat because they were both early( in fact the original) mono plane fighters for the USN and they went through a long gestation period. Part of the reason for this was that, as designed, neither was ready for combat in WW2. Both early versions were much lighter than the versions that ultimately served in WW2. One could almost say that the Buffalo was the mirror image of the Zeke when first designed except for armament. They both were very light and very maneuverable. Neither had folding wings. Both had good range. The Zeke had better performance up high but lower they were about equal. The problem with the Buffalo was that the USN wanted an AC that was rugged as far as battle damage, had adequate armor, SS tanks, could withstand the shock of carrier landings and was adequately armed. By the time all these requirements were even partially met, the airplane lost most of it's performance virtues. The Japanese initially were content with an airplane that had no armor and no SS tanks and was already adequately armed so it's performance remained good. The Wildcat with SS tanks and armor and good armament had a little performance advantage on the Buffalo and was very suitable for carrier landings and was a more rugged airplane than the Buffalo. Pretty simple decision to be made. The stripped down Buffalo was a good advanced trainer. Those who keep bringing up Buffalo performance in the ETO are beating a dead horse. The reason the Finns or Dutch had some success withe Buffalo is that "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing." The carrier war in the PTO was different than the air war in the ETO.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 20, 2009)

Marcel said:


> No, they didn't. Let there be no mistake, the Buffalo did very poorly against the Japanese.



_F2A Buffalo in action_ by Squadron/Signal Publications

"During the three months of combat, the four ML-KNIL Buffalo squadrons lost 17 pilots KIA, 30 aircraft in air combat, 15 to surprise Japanese bombing attacks, and a number of non-combat accidents collisions, and crashes in bad weather. Against these losses, the ML-KNIL Brewster squadrons claimed 55 aircraft destroyed, a victory to loss ratio of almost 2 - 1." _ pg 32 _

I regards to the British:
"60-70 were lost in combat, 40 destroyed on the ground, 12 lost through non-combat acidents.......The Commonwealth Buffalo Squadrons claimed at least 80 kills and Austrialian historians believe that some squads may have acheived a 2 to 1 kill ratio." _ pg 23 _

I'll give both sides:
USN Use
_Naval Aviation Combat Statistics - WWII _

The F2A flew 17 sorties to engage enemy aircraft and engaged 31 bombers and 15 fighters.
They shot down 6 bombers and 4 fighters but lost 14 aircraft in the process, a kill ratio of 1-0.7 _ pg 67 _

Overall a kill ratio of 1-1.3 to 1-1.4 , not exactly what I would call a poor performance, not the greatest but also not the worst.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> The P-40 also served with the RNZAF for quite a while, until '44 I think, and did fine there.



Yes indeed. Well into the later part of 1944.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 20, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No!
> 
> The P40's did well enough (ever hear of the AVG?). The Wildcats could also hold their own.
> 
> But it was the Buffalo that had the unique distinction to show so little accomplishments.


Ditto.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Viking, we should ignore the losses from bombing as that doesnt mean anything regarding an aircrafts performance. Bomber claims should also be looked a differently as compared with fighters.

Thus when you look at its performance against Japanese fighters, its apparent it was incapable of doing much.

And also consider this. The Wildcat was a carrier plane, the Buffalo a land based plane. The P40 was at least a magnitude better than the Buffalo, and their combat records prove it.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Not in Pacific but as info
Vast majority of claimed 478 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.
Losses were 19 in aircombats, 5 on ground and 3 in accidents.

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 20, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> Viking, we should ignore the losses from bombing as that doesnt mean anything regarding an aircrafts performance. Bomber claims should also be looked a differently as compared with fighters.
> 
> Thus when you look at its performance against Japanese fighters, its apparent it was incapable of doing much.
> 
> And also consider this. The Wildcat was a carrier plane, the Buffalo a land based plane. The P40 was at least a magnitude better than the Buffalo, and their combat records prove it.



I believe the losses from being destroyed on the ground have been ignored, if not then it would make the kill ratio even more favorable for the Buffalo and I have never seen any airplanes kill ratios stated as vs. fighters, and vs. bombers (but I could be wrong).

If however I am wrong and it is tracked that way, the only data I could find was from the USN - I could not find anything about the Dutch and Commonwealth kills vs. bombers and vs. fighters. If you have it please share, but if you don't have it then I'm not sure how you are able to judge on this criteria.

The facts and data shows it was a capable little fighter which is the only point I am arguing. I never once commented on the F4F or the P-40.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Juha said:


> Not in Pacific but as info
> Vast majority of claimed 478 kills by Finnish Brewster B-239 pilots were against fighters, which incl 48 Hurricanes, 41 LaGG-3s, 45 MiG-3s, 27½ Yak-1s, 23 La-5s, 13 "Spitfires" (Yak-1s and 7s in reality), 4 P-40s and 2 Yak-7s.
> Losses were 19 in aircombats, 5 on ground and 3 in accidents.
> 
> Juha



This is for the Pacific, not Russian front.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 20, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> No!
> 
> The P40's did well enough (ever hear of the AVG?). The Wildcats could also hold their own.
> 
> But it was the Buffalo that had the unique distinction to show so little accomplishments.



Wildcats were not fighting in the NEI, nor near Singapore.


syscom3 said:


> This is for the Pacific, not Russian front.



It's still a Buffalo, shows that the a/c was capable of something.



renrich said:


> Those who keep bringing up Buffalo performance in the ETO are beating a dead horse. The reason the Finns or Dutch had some success withe Buffalo is that "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing." The carrier war in the PTO was different than the air war in the ETO.



The Dutch didn't use the Buffalo in the ETO. It was in Nederlands Indie.
BTW, the Wildcat had their problems with undercarriage, too.


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2009)

The Wildcat's soft, narrow tread landing gear made it tricky to land on a field. It was an ideal carrier landing aircraft and pilots praised it's carrier landing characteristics. The landing gear was rugged and time tested. Eric Brown said of the Wildcat II, "For deck landing the Wildcat was superlative. The Wildcat was a great asset to the FAA, bringing it to nearly the level of the fighter opposition. It was also an aircraft specifically designed for modern carrier operations, thereby setting new standards for British designers in that field." Brown said of the F2A, " Longitudinal stability was decidedly bad and would make instrument flying difficult. A dangerously high level of carbon monoxide leaked into the cockpit from engine fumes. The service ceiling was only 25000 feet-not very impressive. The Buffalo was a true anomaly for an airplane, with delightful maneuverability but poor fighter performance. Above 10000 feet, it labored badly. The oil and cylinder head temperatures were high in temperate climates and would obviously pose problems in tropicl conditions." Those kill statistics from the Finnish air force sound fishy. Keep beating that dead horse.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Renrich
There is nothing fishy in Finnish claims, use the international average of .5 mean accuracy and you get a realistic figure of real kills. The accuracy of claiming varied from pilot to pilot but so it did in every AF. And .5 in FAF case means claims vs kills that can be verified from Soviet documents. So in reality figure might be a bit better because of some losses in Soviet docus and nowadays difficulties in access of the them by foreigners.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2009)

Thanks Juha. In looking at claims in WW2, I never know whether they have been authenticated or not. I was not implying that Finnish flyers were intentionally overclaiming but I am not sure that the 50% factor is enough for wartime claims especially if the Soviets are in the mix. Because of political issues and the disorganisation on the Eastern Front I distrust Soviet records. A similar situation, as far as being disorganised existed in the South during the American War Between the States. The casualty and strength of army figures of the CSA army in that war are all suspect because they themselves did not keep accurate records and those they did keep were often destroyed. In reading Lundstrom's "The First Team," about USN fighters in the PTO in 1941-42, discounting claims for both sides by 50% hardly is enough in many cases. The USN pilots were enthusiastic overclaimers and the IJN was even more so. In a given encounter both sides might claim perhaps 30 or so shoot downs but when Lundstrom reconciled the records in this recent book, and his research often defined the combat down to the names of the individual pilots on both sides, the true number might be less than 10 on either side. He resolved the number of USN Wildcats lost to Zekes and vice versa through November, 1942 and it was on the order of 30 on each side. The claims were way in excess of that.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Renrich
.5 seems to be a fairly good for FAF. During Winter War FAF claim accuracy was very good, on the other hand in 42-43 over the Bay of Finland there seems to be cases of bad overclaims, also in some combats during summer 44 as one easily can guess when 4 Bf 109s fought against 100 Soviet planes in mediocare visibility. And as I wrote, individual claim accuracy varied wildy, fom 100% to under 15%. I'm just going through individual claim accuracy, necessary this incl certain amount of inaccuracy, even when giving fractions to participiants time to time.
And on Soviet recors, SU having based on "scientific socialism" and "planned economy" they had used to produce surprising amount of docus.

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Jun 20, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Renrich
> ...use the international average of .5 mean accuracy and you get a realistic figure of real kills.


Juha, I haven't closely studied Finnish claims, .5 might be representative on average, but claim accuracy varied too much from case to case across all air arms times and situations for there to be any meaningful 'international average' IMO, even for fighters' claims (needless to say bomber claims were typically far less accurate than fighter claims). And whatever the overall average was in WWII, IMO it was almost surely significantly less than 50% (I can't prove that, but rates above 50 were the exception to the rule as far as I can tell). And among many variables, claim accuracy also varied with type of opponent, fur balls v opposing fighters typically among the less accurate situations, and we're often most interested in fighter v. fighter results.

As far as using NASC to estimate USN fighter effectiveness, this is valid IMO *only* to compare the *relative* performance of different USN/USMC types operating alongside one another in the same period. There is no validity to comparing Buffalo claims in their single combat for the USMC to big samples of combats later in the war side by side for F6F and F4U in NASC. I posted each side's results of that one F2A combat, at Midway, in the 'worst a/c' thread, using USMC accounts and the tactical action records of the 4 Japanese carriers. The US claims were not in fact so exaggerated (in a big wipe out a lot of the pilots on one side are killed and can't make claims, a lot of the others too focused on surviving to even think about making claims). The official USMC victories one by one were 6 'Aichi 99, 1 'bomber' and 4 Zeroes, of which 5, including 3 of the Zeroes, were credited to the few F4F-3's engaged, only 6 including 1 Zero to the F2A-3's. The Japanese actually lost 1 Type 99 carrier bombers, 6 Type 97 carrier attack planes, and 2 Zeroes, with one other Zero holed 30 times (of course all the Japanese a/c were lost later since their carriers were sunk). But the tactical action recs clearly show at least 2 Type 97's as due to AA (Marine AA made many claims) probably more were. 13 F2A's and 2 F4F's were lost. This was just one combat, but historically important as it rendered the final US naval services verdict on the F2A: POS (correct or not, that was the firm verdict).

On Buffalo and other 1942 fighters in Brit/CW/Dutch service in 1942, the results were almost invariably poor. That's clear based on many combats with well documented Japanese sides: the contrary view has no factual leg to stand on, period. Counting bombers does not change it. It really only makes it worse relatively, because then we have to count the numerous victories of Japanese fighters and USN/USMC ones over non-fighters, and they had many more opportunities, whereas the Brit/CW/Dutch fighters were almost always fighting for their lives against Japanese fighters. Brit and Dutch Buffaloes downed only a handful Japanese non-fighters. Fighters which can't cope with enemy fighters will seldom accomplish much against non-fighters, unless there are no enemy fighters around at all, and then it's pointless to compare such a situation with a situation where one side's fighters have to deal with the other side's.

Joe


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Joe
Big part of FAF combats were over own territory and because FAF used many war-booty a/c and needed Soviet engines, dials etc also for other a/c and for its own limited capacity a/c industry, Finns actively searched for wrecks. That in part might have kept overclaiming in bay to certain extent. And as I wrote, the claim accuracy was clearly poorer over Bay of Finland in 42-43, over water combats, personal rivalry among pilots in its highest (who had most kills) also during summer 44 when greatly outnumbered and everyone tried hard to relieve the pressure on ground troops, so wingmen also activively tried to shoot enemy a/c and were not so keen to protect the leaders and pairs often got separated. But even in big, in Finnish Front scale at the time, air combats over land in 42 ca 50% of Finnish claims can be verified from Soviet loss reports. Of course in smaller fights the accuracy was better.

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 20, 2009)

JoeB said:


> On Buffalo and other 1942 fighters in Brit/CW/Dutch service in 1942, the results were almost invariably poor. That's clear based on many combats with well documented Japanese sides: the contrary view has no factual leg to stand on, period.
> 
> Brit and Dutch Buffaloes downed only a handful Japanese non-fighters.Joe



Do you have any real data or sources to back this up?


----------



## JoeB (Jun 20, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Do you have any real data or sources to back this up?


See "Bloody Shambles" by Shores et al. The great majority of combats in the Southeast Asia (Malaya, DEI, Burma, Philippines) campaigns of 1941-42 are well documented in Japanese accounts and records, and covered combat by combat in that book. In further direct research in Japanese sources, such as the official history (Senshi Sosho) and the actual records (almost all JNAF records for that period are online now at JACAR.go.jp) I've found "Shambles" to be generally reliable about the Japanese side, and it also agrees with other published works about the Allied side. Counting up each side's losses in two-side documented combats by Buffalo's v Japanese fighters, Brit and Dutch (not including USMC, for which see above), as already posted a number of times:

Buffalo v Type Zero Fighter:12.5 Buffalo's lost for 4 Zeroes in 7 combats
Buffalo v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 14 Buffalo's lost for 4 Type 1's in 7 combats
Buffalo v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 13.5 Buffalo's lost for 1-1/3 Type 97's in 6 combats
Buffalo v Type 0 Observation Seaplane ('Pete') acting as fighter: 2 Buffalo's lost for no Type 0, 1 combat
Overall 1:4.5 against the Buffalo in fighter-fighter combat in 21 two side documented combats, of 28 total combats. Fractions are prorated kills and losses when multiple types were present.

There were 5 kills by Brit and Dutch Buffaloes against non-fighters which are confirmed in Japanese accounts: 2 Type 99 Twin Engine Light Bombers ('Lily'), 2 Type 99 Army Recon Planes ('Sonia'), and 1 Type 100 Hq. Recon Plane ('Dinah').

Any source which fundamentally disagrees is going by Allied claims, which were seriously exaggerated (as were Japanese claims but they are less likely to be quoted as if facts, in English at least).

Joe


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

BTW
While claim accuracy of FAF Bf 109 pilots suffered during the hectic days of June 44 that didn't have much effect on accuracy of claims made by FAF Brewster pilot at that time. Their operational area was a bit more quiet. There were 18 B-239s in strengt on the eve of the Soviet summer offensive. 
Checked time frame from 9 June (the beginning of the big Soviet summer offensive against Finland) to 17 June 44. Brewster pilots got 7 confirmed kills of which 5 can be verified from Soviet documents to be real Soviet losses plus one which was allowed only as damaged was in fact a real kill. 

Juha


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> See "Bloody Shambles" by Shores et al. The great majority of combats in the Southeast Asia (Malaya, DEI, Burma, Philippines) campaigns of 1941-42 are well documented in Japanese accounts and records, and covered combat by combat in that book. In further direct research in Japanese sources, such as the official history (Senshi Sosho) and the actual records (almost all JNAF records for that period are online now at JACAR.go.jp) I've found "Shambles" to be generally reliable about the Japanese side, and it also agrees with other published works about the Allied side. Counting up each side's losses in two-side documented combats by Buffalo's v Japanese fighters, Brit and Dutch (not including USMC, for which see above), as already posted a number of times:
> 
> Buffalo v Type Zero Fighter:12.5 Buffalo's lost for 4 Zeroes in 7 combats
> Buffalo v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 14 Buffalo's lost for 4 Type 1's in 7 combats
> ...



I just read an excert from this book, and it talks about the 67th Sqd of the RAF shooting down 4 x Ki21's on 12/23 and another 6 on 1/24 - all of which were confirmed.

Any source that disagrees is going to be based on Allied claims which were exaggerated like the Japanese claims??????? Huh?


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Which puts into perspective, who do you want to believe about combat records and was any a/c better than any other.


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 21, 2009)

Gaah!! I swear the F6F is the Rodney Dangerfield of WWII fighters..."No respect, no respect I tell ya..." 

Hellcat essentially won the Battle of the Marianas single-handedly, few planes can claim to have won a battle, but that's just not good enough for Corsair fanboys, is it?

Keep in mind we are talking about WARTIME aircraft and not who we would bet on in an air race here, okay? 

The F4U was an impressive plane but wouldn't it be important for a carrier-based fighter, to, you know, actually be able to operate off carriers without design modifications or radically altering landing techniques? 

Weird, isn't it, that the Hellcat didn't have teething problems? Maybe because it was designed to be easy to fly for inexperienced pilots, easy to produce, easy to keep operational in combat conditions, and to be rugged enough to get an inexperienced pilot back to the CV if he makes a mistake and catches some hits... and maybe such "irrelevant" or "unglamorous" qualities might just have been desirable, if, say, one had a naval force which was rapidly expanding in size over a short period of time, which, not coincidentally, would apply to the US Navy in late 43-44....

Oh ,yeah, and it was also 2/3 the price of the Corsair...and it was a good enough design initially that it was only produced in two major variants with relatively small changes between them.

Oh, and it was still plenty good enough performance-wise to shoot down the enemy in droves...

Maybe the F4U could have racked up huge kills in Marianas/Leyte Gulf if Chance-Vought designers might have thought about carrier handling characteristics, etc, instead of obsessing over squeezing out the last MPH from the airframe?

Sure, they eventually got F4U's on carriers and they did well but by that time the major naval-air battles of 1944 in Marianas/Leyte had been won...by Hellcat pilots.

But who cares? Looking cool, having your own TV show, and having awesome on-paper performance is far more important, right?

The Corsair did serve much longer but don't kid yourselves...it was for its bomb-trucking abilities rather than anything else once jet fighters came around. Grumman had an XF6F-6, which was an upgraded Hellcat, in the works, but decided to opt for the Bearcat, which wasn't as good a bomb-truck as the Corsair because the Bearcat was all about stuffing the biggest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe to get mega-performance, rather than being able to haul ordinance.

Not saying the Corsair wasn't a good aircraft, just saying that IMHO way too many people dismiss the Hellcat with the casual wave of the hand because the F6F's truly outstanding qualities aren't in the "sexy"
categories.

I can't vote for the late-war Japanese entries for the simple reason that if you ask me, they are vastly overrated, too little, too late, and what's the point of great airplanes when you have no functioning pilot-training program or can't produce reliable engines?


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Hmm....why don't you just really say what's on your mind?


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2009)

Perhaps you will explain why, on May 16, 1944, well before the war is over, the Navy concludes that the F4U1D is the best available all round Navy fighter available and recommends that carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type.


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 21, 2009)

HEh. To be honest I was sort of in a bad mood earlier today as I had downloaded and installed a supposedly uber-realistic mod for a PTO wargame I play, where they had included every F4U variant ever seen and for some reason only an F6F-3 and an F6F-5N, but no -5 day fighter or -3N night fighter and the P-51 Mustang had, somehow, a higher rating for ruggedness than either, and I sort of drifted into a rant about overrated/underrated fighters.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 21, 2009)

That's quite alright. I couldn't resist the jab. Besides, it's great to see people have passion for ANY WWII warbird.


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> Perhaps you will explain why, on May 16, 1944, well before the war is over, the Navy concludes that the F4U1D is the best available all round Navy fighter available and recommends that carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type.



Interestingly a month later the carriers went to the Marianas equipped with Hellcats and utterly annihilated Japanese airpower....would Corsairs have made any real, noticeable, appreciable difference in the kill/loss ratio in that battle to justify the time, effort, and expense involved in switching out Corsairs for Hellcats, not to mention the higher non-combat losses that would have occurred operating F4U's off carriers?

Experts also said in the 60's fighters didn't need guns anymore, how'd that one work out in Vietnam?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 21, 2009)

88l7, perhaps you can also explain why the USN started pushing for F8F's and F4U's to counter the Kamikazi threat. If the Hellcat was up to the task then there would be no need to replace it, yes?

BTW, when it came to reducing IJN and IJA airpower in NG, Solomons and the NEI, the Hellcat was noticably absent.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 21, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> 88l7, perhaps you can also explain why the USN started pushing for F8F's and F4U's to counter the Kamikazi threat. If the Hellcat was up to the task then there would be no need to replace it, yes?
> 
> BTW, when it came to reducing IJN and IJA airpower in NG, Solomons and the NEI, the Hellcat was noticably absent.


Ditto.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> Perhaps you will explain why, on May 16, 1944, well before the war is over, the Navy concludes that the F4U1D is the best available all round Navy fighter available and recommends that carrier fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type.



To be honest surprised. According to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum the F4U was not cleared for US carrier use until late in 1944. Vought F4U-1D Corsair - Long Description


IIRC it was the British that first used the F4U successfully from a carrier in April-43 which in turn sparked the idea for the USN.


----------



## renrich (Jun 21, 2009)

VB, when you get that copy of Dean's book, you will find that a USN squadron got the Corsair ready for operations on carriers well before the FAA started operations on carriers. The story that the FAA taught the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers is a myth. 88171, you might be interested to know that the Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340. A word to the wise. When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 21, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I just read an excert from this book, and it talks about the 67th Sqd of the RAF shooting down 4 x Ki21's on 12/23 and another 6 on 1/24 - all of which were confirmed.


I'm sorry, I did leave out three dates in that period in Burma, because my notes didn't correctly flag Buffalo in addition to AVG P-40. The counts you gave OTOH entirely ignore the presence and competing claims of the AVG P-40's (and Hurricanes in the 1/24 case). The fairest way to count IMO is to just prorate the opponent's real losses by the claims made by all friendly units and types in the same combat. Later on, the AVG fought mainly by itself and its claims in those cases weren't noticeably less accurate compared to reported Japanese losses than other Allied fighter units in SEA in 1941-42.

I left out, for Burma:
12/23 67th Sdn and the AVG intercepted Type 97 bombers escorted by Type 97 fighters and claimed 3 and 10 bombers respectively, the 98th Sentai lost 2 and the 62nd lost 5, see p. 245. The AVG also claimed a Type 97 fighter but none were lost. 4 P-40's were lost, 2 or 3 to bomber return fire per the description in Shambles and "Flying Tigers" by Ford. On a prorated basis, 67 sdn would be credited with 3/13*7=1.6 bombers.
12/25: Buffaloes claimed 1 bomber and 3 fighters, AVG 15 and 9. The Japanese lost 4 Type 97 bombers, and 2 each Type 97 and Type 1 fighters, p.250. The AVG lost 2 P-40's one to bomber return fire, 67 sdn lost 4 Buffaloes all apparently to fighters. Prorated score of Buffaloes was 1/4 bomber and 1/2 each Type 97 and Type 1 fighter.
1/24: Buffaloes claimed 4 as I read it, Hurricanes another, and the AVG 4 bombers and 6 fighters, for no Allied loss. 6 Type 97 bombers were actually present and 5 were lost, along with 3 Type 97 fighters, p. 265. Prorated, the Buffaloes would get credit for 2.2 bombers.
I did include Buffalo combats in Burma 1/20 and 1/23 already, and after the 1/24 combat, the RAF fighters in Burma were Hurricanes.

Altogether my previous omission would add ~4 prorated victories over Type 97 bombers for Buffaloes, so a big % addition to the 5 total non-fighters I quoted, but I don't think it dramatically changes the answer to whether Buffaloes downed a lot or few Japanese bombers: pretty few. And a reason I don't like that kind of measure, absolute number of bombers downed by fighters, so didn't' quote it originally (on the previous thread) and probably shouldn't have at all, is that omissions affect an absolute number in only one direction. Same thing with a few other cases where the Japanese result isn't clear (eg. Buffaloes claimed a single engine bomber 1/13 over Burma, combat just not mentioned in Japanese accounts).

OTOH in case of fighter-fighter result as a ratio, if you omit a few combats by accident at random, it shouldn't affect the ratio much, as my omission of the 12/25 fighter-fighter case doesn't affect the ratio much. Likewise if a combat isn't mentioned on the Japanese side it's just thrown out of the ratio along with any Allied losses in that combat. There's no apparent tendency for more successful Allied combats not to be mentioned on Japanese side: it seems random based on missing records.

I could see Buffalo results v bombers being highly important if they went 10:46 in 22 known, two side documented, fighter combats but downed dozens of bombers, but clearly we're talking a relatively small number of bombers, and not outstandingly more than other Allied types managed.

Joe


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> ....When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.



Hey, he stirred up a hornets nest right away. Not many people get to do that, LOL.

He's OK by me!


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> VB, when you get that copy of Dean's book, you will find that a USN squadron got the Corsair ready for operations on carriers well before the FAA started operations on carriers. The story that the FAA taught the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers is a myth. 88171, you might be interested to know that the Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340. A word to the wise. When first joining a forum, sometimes it pays to stick a toe in to test the water rather than wading right in and perhaps getting in over one's head.




Grrr! I had a long post going but then I lost it because I got logged out while typing. 

The short version:

In response to your post, the Hellcat was mainly a carrier based fighter so I'd imagine ops losses would be higher for carrier aircraft for obvious reasons. Do you have a breakdown of Hellcat vs. Corsair ops losses comparing land-based Hellcats to land-based Corsairs, and CV Hellcats to CV Corsairs?

As far as the Solomons and South/SW Pacific campaigns...well, Hellcat was a carrier fighter and after the USN had lost several carriers in the Solomons campaigns that weren't replaced until Essex and Independence class carriers arrived to refill the ranks - I've got VF-9 aboard Essex as the first operational F6F squadron in Feb 43, but the Hellcat not seeing action until September of that year and the first major battles being the attacks on the Marshalls. There was no such shortage of airfields on the other hand and the Corsair got into the action earlier, and it didn't hurt that the Corsair went into production first either. 

What I don't get is how if the F4U was such a superior design why the blazes didn't any of the designers think about the landing gear being too stiff or that maybe not being able to see over the nose or low-speed-low-altitude handling issues just might be a problem for an airplane that was supposed to operate on a carrier where the landing profile is low, slow, and nose-up? I mean, isn't one of the criteria of a truly great airplane design be that it accomplishes the mission for which it was originally intended, preferably with a minimum of modifications?

Hellcat had the same engine and was essentially ready to go as a carrier fighter "out of the box" and while performance was lower than the F4U was still plenty good enough to shoot down the enemy in large numbers, not to mention while 3 different companies (Chance-Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster) produced the Corsair Hellcats all came (except for prototypes and a few very early -3's) from *one factory*

I'm not saying the Corsair wasn't impressive, or I think it was a turkey, or anything of the sort, but I think it's rather unfair to sell the Hellcat short as some sort of second-rate aircraft when it was obviously a very successful fighter in its intended role with a minimum of modifications.

I'd say the Corsair is a better peacetime aircraft if you are like the prewar IJN and want a small number of elite pilots emphasizing quality over quantity, but since this is a thread about WWII aircraft I'd give the Hellcat the nod since in wartime you need LOTS of "good enough" planes RIGHT NOW instead of having a "uber" plane with lots of bugs waiting to be ironed out.

Kinda how the Panther was an awesome tank with good armor and excellent gun, but had lots of problems early on because it was a somewhat radical design, whereas the T-34/85 was less armed/armored (though still a very good tank) based on evolutionary upgrades of a proven design and was more reliable and easier to produce. There's many debates on many forums about which one is better.

As for upgrades there was the F6F-6 (same engine as F4U-4, 4-bladed prop) with significant performance increase over the -5 but it was cancelled when the war ended, whereas the Bearcat was a whole different animal from the F6F's design philosophy.

And part (though not all, admittedly) of the reason Kamikaze attacks were developed in the first place was to counter the effectiveness of Hellcats + USN radar and fighter control/direction tactics, which made conventional attacks against US carriers virtual suicide missions anyway.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 21, 2009)

Couple things.



> not to mention while 3 different companies (Chance-Vought, Goodyear, and Brewster) produced the Corsair Hellcats all came (except for prototypes and a few very early -3's) from *one factory*



What does that have to do with anything? It was for greater production numbers, it has nothing to do with the airframe. If you're going to use that argument, you may as well say that the Avenger wasn't a good aircraft because it was also made by General Motors...

I'll give you the stiff landing gear problem, Vought should have recognized that. But the nose allowed the center of gravity to remain balanced while giving it the long internal range, something the Hellcat didn't have. The Hellcat did have good range, but the Corsair had better, and having to turn into the landing really isn't a huge problem.

Basically the Corsair had better everything than the Hellcat except landing qualities. It was quite capable of operating from carriers, and did during the late part of the war, so it DID do what it was designed to do, and then some, as it wasn't originally designed to do ground attack.

And nobody's saying the Hellcat wasn't a good plane. All people are saying here is it wasn't quite as good as it's made out to be, and that the Corsair was a better aircraft. The Hellcat was a very good plane, its combat record shows that, but it's not the be-all end-all as some claim (not saying you are, I'm just saying some people do).


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> VB, when you get that copy of Dean's book, you will find that a USN squadron got the Corsair ready for operations on carriers well before the FAA started operations on carriers.



I don't believe I said anything about this. I merely stated I am surprised that the USN recommended that all fighter fighter bomber sqds converted over to the F4U before the USN had approved the plane for carrier use based on information from the Smithsonian. I do find it interesting that according to _ Combat Aircraft of WWII_ by Bookthrift, the USN still took delivery of 3,578 Hellcats from Jan-Nov 45.



renrich said:


> The story that the FAA taught the USN how to operate Corsairs off of carriers is a myth. [/i] Actually I've never heard of this myth. In regards to the FAA I only stated:
> 
> _IIRC it was the British that first used the F4U successfully from a carrier in April-43 which in turn sparked the idea for the USN. _
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB (Jun 21, 2009)

renrich said:


> The Corsair had less operational losses in WW2 than did the Hellcat. Corsair-230, Hellcat-340.


But the F4U flew a lot fewer carrier missions. In carrier ops the F4U's operational loss *rate* per sortie was around 50% higher than the F6F's. NASC Table 9, in 1944-45 operations from CV's, F6F operational loss rate was .50 per 100 action sorties, USN F4U squadrons .74, USMC F4U squadrons .79. To review the AA statistic, from NASC Table 29, the F4U loss rate to AA, 1945 carrier operations was 2.3 per 100 sorties which met AA, the F6F rate in the same period and operations was 1.4. NASC Table 11 gives tons of bombs per attack sortie (from carriers) for Nov 44 Jan 45 was .10 for F6F, .11 for F4U; Feb-Jun 45 .14 and .15; Jul-Aug 45 .19 and .18. From same table rockets per strike sorties Nov 44-Jan 45 1.5 and 0; Feb-Jun 1.94 and 2.9, Jul-Aug 2.76 and 3.04. The claimed kill ratio by F4U and F6F v Japanese fighter types in Sept 1944-Aug 1945, was 15.09 and 15.53 respectively (NASC Table 28 ).

Again I think the May '44 decision v NASC evidence breaks down as somebody else said: expert opinion believed the F4U-1 to have an advantage over F6F series as of 1944, but once F4U-1's reached carriers in 1945, this perceived advantage did not pan out in any clear advantage for which there's quantifiable evidence. The F4U had notably higher loss rates to accidents and AA in carrier ops (which together comprised the bulk of losses) without much corresponding increase in ordnance delivered per strike sortie, and it had almost identical results v Japanese fighter types in the same period. Also some trials showed the F6F-6 considerably faster than its official stats, so the F4U-1's advantage in the interceptor role probably wasn't as big as is sometimes supposed. By mid 1945 the F4U-4 appeared, w/ much better performance than F6F-5, and further F6F improvements had been canceled. But during the war the F4U-1 did not prove itself a better carrier fighter than the F6F, probably not as good all around.

Joe


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 21, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> Couple things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Well said.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 21, 2009)

JoeB said:


> I'm sorry, I did leave out three dates in that period in Burma, because my notes didn't correctly flag Buffalo in addition to AVG P-40. The counts you gave OTOH entirely ignore the presence and competing claims of the AVG P-40's (and Hurricanes in the 1/24 case). The fairest way to count IMO is to just prorate the opponent's real losses by the claims made by all friendly units and types in the same combat. Later on, the AVG fought mainly by itself and its claims in those cases weren't noticeably less accurate compared to reported Japanese losses than other Allied fighter units in SEA in 1941-42.
> 
> I left out, for Burma:
> 12/23 67th Sdn and the AVG intercepted Type 97 bombers escorted by Type 97 fighters and claimed 3 and 10 bombers respectively, the 98th Sentai lost 2 and the 62nd lost 5, see p. 245. The AVG also claimed a Type 97 fighter but none were lost. 4 P-40's were lost, 2 or 3 to bomber return fire per the description in Shambles and "Flying Tigers" by Ford. On a prorated basis, 67 sdn would be credited with 3/13*7=1.6 bombers.
> ...



Joe, are you looking at Vol 1? It's been a number of years since I have read perts of it so I really cannot debate you on the bok very well until I can go back through it - which should be hshortly. Thanks


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2009)

VB, my remark about new member testing the water was not directed at you. My apology, as I was not clear. 88171, I think your observation about operational losses being higher for Hellcat is on the mark. They had a lot more carrier launches and recoverys than Corsairs and would probably have more accidents as a result. However, I think the operational losses deal with the Corsair is a little overdone. In an earlier post, I quoted the sorties, losses, etc for both AC and the numbers are not that startling. It would be interesting to compare operational losses of all US fighters in WW2. Incidently, the operational losses for Corsairs includes 24 Corsairs that took off on a ferry flight, got lost over the Pacific, and 23 ditched. That skews the numbers some. LOL The Corsair design was really pushing the envelope in 1938. The Vought engineers were getting into territory they had never explored before. The Corsair was the first US fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight and that was in May, 1940, after the protoype had crashed earlier that Spring. Vought was a relatively small company. The F4U1 was quite a bit different than the XF4U. The AC was longer and the cockpit was shoved about 3 feet further back so that fuel could be relocated from the wings to the fuselage. That caused visibility problems at high AOA. The prototype had better visibility. At the same time, the Corsair was dealing with the issues caused by the high performance of the Corsair, they were dealing with the problems associated with a new engine, the R2800 and a new propellor. There were a lot of those problems. Vought was attempting to do something revolutionary, at that time, and that was to design a carrier fighter that could equal the performance of land based fighters. The Hellcat was a later design and somewhat of an evolution of previous Grumman fighter designs. They did not have to cope with the engine and propellor teething problems Vought had to. All they really needed to do was design a fighter that could exceed the Zeke's overall performance. The Corsair problems of visibility, leaky actuators on cowl flaps, left wing drop in stalls, tail wiggle on landing, aileron performance, relocation of CO2 bottle for landing gear blowdown, etc were all problems one could anticipate for a revolutionary new airplane design. I still don't understand why the oleos in the landing gear took so long to adjust. Vought had a reputation for pushing the envelope in AC design, Flying Pancake, Cutlass, Crusader, Corsair. Sometimes their efforts were less than satisfactory, in the case of the Corsair they hit a home run.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2009)

renrich said:


> VB, my remark about new member testing the water was not directed at you. My apology, as I was not clear.



Nope, that was my fault, I misread it.


----------



## renrich (Jun 26, 2009)

Following is an interesting quote from John Lundstrom's second book, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign." which I think sheds some light on the relative performance of US fighters in the PTO. " Due in no little measure to the severe losses inflicted during the Guadalcanal Campaign by Marine, Navy and USAAF fighter pilots, the number of experienced Japanese pilots declined greatly. Replacements proved to be inadequately trained and the worsening war situation forced the Japanese to commit masses of green pilots to battle with disastrous results. BY MID 1943 MOST OF THOSE THROWN INTO COMBAT WERE LITTLE MORE THAN STUDENTS WITH MINIMUM FLIGHT TRAINING. ( my caps) After the defeats in the Marianas and the Philipines, Kamikaze tactics became the Imperial Naval Air Force's only alternative to surrender." The Hellcat went into combat at the end of August, 1943, and unless unlucky, the pilot of the Hellcat would face an IJN pilot with little experience, poorly trained and in an inferior aircraft.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 26, 2009)

renrich said:


> Following is an interesting quote from John Lundstrom's second book, "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign." which I think sheds some light on the relative performance of US fighters in the PTO. " Due in no little measure to the severe losses inflicted during the Guadalcanal Campaign by Marine, Navy and USAAF fighter pilots, the number of experienced Japanese pilots declined greatly. Replacements proved to be inadequately trained and the worsening war situation forced the Japanese to commit masses of green pilots to battle with disastrous results. BY MID 1943 MOST OF THOSE THROWN INTO COMBAT WERE LITTLE MORE THAN STUDENTS WITH MINIMUM FLIGHT TRAINING. ( my caps) After the defeats in the Marianas and the Philipines, Kamikaze tactics became the Imperial Naval Air Force's only alternative to surrender." The Hellcat went into combat at the end of August, 1943, and unless unlucky, the pilot of the Hellcat would face an IJN pilot with little experience, poorly trained and in an inferior aircraft.


That is the thing, the Hellcat faced the inexperienced pilots(in outdated aircraft might I add), so how can it be considered the best plane in the pacific?


----------



## 88l71 (Jun 26, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> Couple things.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything? It was for greater production numbers, it has nothing to do with the airframe. If you're going to use that argument, you may as well say that the Avenger wasn't a good aircraft because it was also made by General Motors...



My point being the Hellcat was easy to produce quickly in large numbers. The # of Hellcats and Corsairs built is very close, with a slight margin to the Corsairs, but the Hellcat was made over a much shorter period in a single factory by a single company. From what I understand the gull wing assembly of the F4U was somewhat complicated to produce.

As for quality of Hellcat opposition, it's interesting that Warrant Officer Toshiyuki Sueda, with 9 kills, was one of the first Hellcat victims. At any rate the fact remains that had the F6F been introduced earlier it would still have been a superior aircraft to the Zero and Oscar. I suspect had the roles been switched and Corsairs been on carriers while the Hellcats were land based the Marianas, Leyte, and Truk would still see a very good kill ratio by USN pilots while the fighting around Rabaul would also see Hellcats racking up plenty of kills and the overall pace of the Pacific war would have changed essentially not a whit.

As for kamikaze tactics and pilot quality, part of the reason Japanese kamikaze tactics developed was the combination of Hellcats and US fighter direction had made conventional attacks against US carrier TF's virtual suicide missions anyway.

I don't see the F6F as being the "be all end all" as someone said but it always seemed to me like the Corsair has gotten most of the credit despite shooting down fewer enemy aircraft and having a rocky development history. For whatever reason while the Corsair had high profile aces like Boyington and Kepford, strangely the F6F is about the only fighter I know of where none of the top aces in the type ever published their memoirs. Film and TV have largely ignored the Hellcat and the battles she fought in, while the Corsair is something of a pop culture icon.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2009)

If you take that stance, then you can say that about any allied fighter flying during that tim - not just the Hellcat.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2009)

88l71

The Hellcat was a great plane being at the right place at the right time.

But a look at its performance and combat record says a little more.

Both the P38 and F4U were superior in most categories.
Both the P38 and F4U fought among the best (remaining ones at least) Japanese pilots in 1943.
Both the P38 and F4U were more versatile than the Hellcat.

And one thing is for sure, both the P38 and Hellcat were at the end of their development potential by spring 1945.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 26, 2009)

The 'better Japanese pilots in 1943' thing would make sense if we were only trying to compare F6F success in 1944 (or 45) to F4U success in 1943. But that's just not the case.

There are figures available for both a/c types in each year. In 1943 F4U's (all landbased) claimed 636 of which 83% were fighters, for 94 losses, 6.8:1. Or assuming all losses were to enemy fighters (probably close to the truth), fighter-fighter ratio 5.6. Landbased F6F's in 1943 claimed 71 (also 83% fighters) for 17 losses, 4.2:1, but carrier based F6F's in 1943 claimed 251 (though only 59% fighters) for 18, 13.9. Combined land/carrier based the F6F's claimed ratio in 1943 was 9.2. Assuming all losses were to fighters (which is a harsher assumption when such a high % of kills were non-fighters, they probably scored some kills v F6F's in fact) then fighter-fighter ratio 5.9, v 5.6 for F4U in same year under same assumption. See NASC Table 21. For the late war operations as already noted from NASC Table 28,which gives claims and losses v fighter types only, Sep '44-Aug '45, the two ratio's were again almost the same (15.09 for F4U, 15.53 for F6F). The land based ratio in 1944 (mainly the climax of the Rabaul campaign early that year*) was 10.0 for F4U, 10.8 for F6F both against similarly high % of enemy fighters. The fighter combat results of these two types in the Pacific in comparable situations and periods were consistently similar. It's not a matter of comparing apples to oranges to give the F6F an unfair advantage.

*there were almost as many land based claims for each type '44 as 43, early 44 featured very intense combat in the Solomons.

Joe


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 27, 2009)

Many times is told the accuracy of claims can have a very large range, so imho the claims/loss has a little reliability. Other, a best fighter would put on more hard missions/campaigns.
Corsair performances are superior to Hellcat in near all points. 
With this i don't want tell that Corsair it's the best in Pacific, i need more know.


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2009)

JB, would not it be true to assume that in the six months or so the Corsair served in the Pacific without the Hellcat being present the quality of IJN pilot in all types would be better than later in 1943. A lot of the Corsair missions flown in early 1943 were escort missions with AAF bombers and the IJN fighters probably would strive not to accept combat with the escort fighters unless the conditions were favorable to them. All those factors would, it seems to me, place a little higher value on the Corsair kills then than later in the war. 88171, there were more Hellcats built during WW2 than Corsairs and the Corsairs were more expensive. There were three companies building Corsairs since Vought had smaller facilities than Grumman.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 27, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> If you take that stance, then you can say that about any allied fighter flying during that tim - not just the Hellcat.


True...So that's a moot point.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> JB, would not it be true to assume that in the six months or so the Corsair served in the Pacific without the Hellcat being present the quality of IJN pilot in all types would be better than later in 1943. A lot of the Corsair missions flown in early 1943 were escort missions with AAF bombers and the IJN fighters probably would strive not to accept combat with the escort fighters unless the conditions were favorable to them. All those factors would, it seems to me, place a little higher value on the Corsair kills then than later in the war. 88171, there were more Hellcats built during WW2 than Corsairs and the Corsairs were more expensive. There were three companies building Corsairs since Vought had smaller facilities than Grumman.



And once again (not to you renrich), I don't see how sub-contracting has anything to do with the quality of the design of the plane and its role in the war. It was just the easiest way to get as many produced as possible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> I don't see how sub-contracting has anything to do with the quality of the design of the plane and its role in the war. It was just the easiest way to get as many produced as possible.


The quality of the design may not differ but the quality and delivery impact may suffer or be enhanced depending on how well the subcontractor performs. Case in point - Brewster produced Corsairs which had documented production quality problems.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 27, 2009)

Quality was so bad in fact the Brewster built F4U's never were issued to combat units. IIRC around 700 were built?

In regards to the 6 months or so that the Corsair served vs when the Hellcat started - all of 43, the F4U only shot down 636 a/c, and between the time they started and the Hellcats started operations, they only flew 745 sorties.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 27, 2009)

renrich said:


> JB, would not it be true to assume that in the six months or so the Corsair served in the Pacific without the Hellcat being present the quality of IJN pilot in all types would be better than later in 1943. A lot of the Corsair missions flown in early 1943 were escort missions with AAF bombers and the IJN fighters probably would strive not to accept combat with the escort fighters unless the conditions were favorable to them. All those factors would, it seems to me, place a little higher value on the Corsair kills then than later in the war.


I don't think there was necessarily a big difference in Japanese quality in Solomons from early to late 1943. The general trend was wearing down of Japanese fighter arms, but OTOH the Japanese deployed their carrier fighter sdns to land operations at Rabaul in November 1943. This force represented an attempt to rebuild a fresh high quality force during the war, as opposed to frontline units continuously in action continually being worn down. Also, part of the fighter opposition in early-mid 1943 in the Solomons was JAAF, whereas in 1942 it was all JNAF, and later in 1943 went back to all JNAF.

So I don't think types which operated in the Solomons in early '43 drastically changed the situation for those which operated later in '43, made it drastically easier that is. Late '43 early '44 combat was still fairly tough, and F4U's and F6F's results were almost the same. In 1945 it was a stratified situation of often easy, sometimes tough (there were defeats of both F4U's and F6F's over Japan in 1945) and the two types results were again very similar. I think the simple conclusion is that they were essentially equal a/c in fighter combat effectiveness against typical Japanese opponents, when flown by same or similar type of units, which they generally were.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2009)

Not to beat a dead horse but Lundstrom, who I consider the leading authority on USN fighter combat in the Pacific indicated that after mid 1943 the quality of IJN pilot drastically declined. The middle of 1943 would be around 2 months before the Hellcat went into action and four months after the Corsair was first blooded. In reviewing the evaluation of the F4U1D, F6F5 versus Zeke. The Corsair had a significant advantage in speed and climb rate over the Hellcat at every altitude starting at 5000 feet and up in 5000 foot increments. I am probably splitting hairs but I would choose the aircraft with those performance advantages. The Hellcat had a slight advantage in visibility and survivability while the Corsair was a better gun platform because of better control modulation. No question the Hellcat was more than adequate against Zekes, Vals, Kates, etc. especially with the average IJN pilot in late 43, 44 and 45. Against the best Japanese designs late in the war, especially if a Sakai Saburo was the pilot, I would take any edge I could get.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 28, 2009)

You're not so much beating a dead horse as really insistently rejecting the logic of the comparisons given. We are *NOT* taking F4U victories claim/loss ratio's of certain period and comparing them to F6F victory claim/loss ratio's of a later period, and we are not counting either types' victories against non-fighters. In case of 1944 land based comparison we are taking strictly the same period for both, which we know from the history of operations to be heavily concentrated in the first few months of 1944 in the Solomons, a period of heavy fighting with similarly high % of targets were fighters for both, and where things were not going all the Allies way (eg. Boyington shot down, some rough handling of P-38 units over Rabaul, etc.) and the F4U and F6F claimed ratio's are essentially the same. Again in Sep 1944- Aug 1945 land and carrier based, stats just against fighter types, again ratio's basically the same. You are not only claiming the environment of Feb-Aug 1943 was so much different than later in the 1943, but also much be somehow the F4U and F6F would perform differently in that environment when they performed the same in a just slightly later time frame. 

As to late war Japanese fighter types, claim v loss by type was once again not more favorable for the F4U. NASC Table 28 gives claims and losses by enemy type. Against a/c identified as Frank, George or Jack, the F6F claimed 175:12, 14:1 the F4U 44:7, 6:1. Vs. 'Tony' and 'Tojo' iin that same period (Sep 44-Aug 45) F6F's claimed 558:20 28:1, F4U 113:6, 19:1. Around 60% of claims (for both F6F and F4U) were still against Zekes and Oscars, even that late, and the two ratios in that case were both ~13. Those enemy a/c ID's were subject to error, but it just continues the pattern of lack of evidence that the F4U was more effective in fighter combat than the F6F in periods where they fought alongside one another. It seems extreme to reject that based on speculating about the only short period of the war, a few months in 1943, where they didn't fight alongside one another.

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2009)

I am not rejecting the logic you are using. I said that the Hellcat was more than adequate as a fighter in the PTO. I believe they were both more than adequate, especially with most of the Japanese pilots being poorly trained "rookies." I keep referring to the Feb. 1943- mid 1943 period because the Corsair was fighting in a difficult environment against better pilots then than later and it was very effective. If you want to ignore that period and that environment in the discussion then so be it. The question is "best pacific fighter." I choose to say that means the most competent. The Corsair has the edge in performance numbers and the Navy, that was the ultimate referee, says the Corsair was a better carrier fighter and fighter bomber and went about replacing the Hellcat with the Corsair. That is good enough for me!


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 29, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The quality of the design may not differ but the quality and delivery impact may suffer or be enhanced depending on how well the subcontractor performs. Case in point - Brewster produced Corsairs which had documented production quality problems.



Yes, that I am aware of, but that's one company. My point is it doesn't really affect which was the better fighter, because if quality is consistent, the plane itself doesn't differ from company to company (usually, there are some minor variations such as FG-1As not having folding wings, and were delivered to the Marines, but that would have been specified by the Marines). If you look at the Avenger, most of them were built by GM, but the quality of those planes were fine and most would agree that that was a superb aircraft.

My point is, sub-contraction did not affect the F4U's combat record, so I don't see why it should be brought up at all.


----------



## fritzie 101 (Jun 30, 2009)

I chose the corsair because it was the most versatile fighter in the Pacific it was a great fighter and an excellent ground attack fighter (Marine corp pilots wrote the book on CAS.) It also had a longer service life than any of the other aircraft listed.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 7, 2009)

Corsair.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2009)

In threads like this, it is best to explain why. Don't just post the name of the plane. It sparks up conversation if you say why your picked a certain aircraft.


----------



## zoul310 (Jul 7, 2009)

Sorry for that but I feel repeating what as been said before and better than me (and my english).

So, i think it was the best all around fighter / fighter bomber. Very versatile and long life after WW2. Korea, Indochina for example. 
But it's difficult to not think about F4F, F6F and P38 for the pacific theater...
Endless subject.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> P-38 could take off a carrier? Interesting.



If a Mitchell bomber can take off from a carrier, no reason a P-38 couldn't. Just couldn't store one on a carrier except topside.

Corsair, by far and away the best fighter- F/B in the PTO. On top of it's impressive combat abilities, it was a comfortable and stylish plane to fight a war in 
The only major drawback was it's long nose. Made for bad visibility during take off and landings.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2009)

carbonlifeform said:


> If a Mitchell bomber can take off from a carrier, no reason a P-38 couldn't. Just couldn't store one on a carrier except topside.
> 
> Corsair, by far and away the best fighter- F/B in the PTO. On top of it's impressive combat abilities, it was a comfortable and stylish plane to fight a war in
> The only major drawback was it's long nose. Made for bad visibility during take off and landings.



While I agree that the P-38 could take off from a Carrier, and I believe it did happen on some occasions (could be wrong however...), it however was not a carrier fighter based off of its size. Nor was it the best design for carrier ops.

Remember the B-25 was modified to take off from a Carrier. Just because it took off from a Carrier, does not make it a carrier capable aircraft. In order to make a Carrier capable version, it would have had to be heavily modified including strengthening of the structure.

We had a really interesting discussion about this a while back here on the forum.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

No I realize that the P-38 isn't a carrier based fighter. And certainly the B-25 is no carrier aircraft either. 
I was just pointing out that if you can launch a B-25 from a carrier, you could certainly launch a P-38 from one. Not that either is a really good idea.


----------



## 88l71 (Nov 20, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> Yes, that I am aware of, but that's one company. My point is it doesn't really affect which was the better fighter, because if quality is consistent, the plane itself doesn't differ from company to company (usually, there are some minor variations such as FG-1As not having folding wings, and were delivered to the Marines, but that would have been specified by the Marines). If you look at the Avenger, most of them were built by GM, but the quality of those planes were fine and most would agree that that was a superb aircraft.
> 
> My point is, sub-contraction did not affect the F4U's combat record, so I don't see why it should be brought up at all.



I know I haven't been here in awhile, but talking about Hellcat vs. Corsair production rate and subcontracting...my point was not about any supposed inferiority of sub-contracted airframes (FM-2 and TBM Avenger worked just fine.) My point was:

12,571 Corsairs produced total, 12,275 Hellcats, so a single Grumman plant producing Hellcats output virtually the same amount of airframes as 3 different firms producing Corsairs from multiple production facilities over a much longer time period: I.E. the Hellcat was the easier aircraft to produce.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 20, 2009)

Didn't the Hellcat shoot down more than any other fighter?


----------



## 88l71 (Nov 21, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Didn't the Hellcat shoot down more than any other fighter?



I think that record goes to the Bf-109 unless you mean more than any other *American* fighter.

IIRC the Mustang shot down the most aircraft of US types, though the F6F is definitely up there. Hellcat has the all-time top spot for carrier-based fighters though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 21, 2009)

88l71 said:


> 12,571 Corsairs produced total, 12,275 Hellcats, so a single Grumman plant producing Hellcats output virtually the same amount of airframes as 3 different firms producing Corsairs from multiple production facilities over a much longer time period: I.E. the Hellcat was the easier aircraft to produce.



That is way too simple a way of looking at it.

Not all factories were the same size and not all factories had the same number of workers.

The Hellcat MAY have been much easier to produce. I don't know, but unless you can break it down to man hours per plane or planes per month per 10,00 sq ft of factroy spoace or some other figure like those just giving number of factories doesn't mean much. Especially if one of the "factories" was Brewster which was notorious for slow/late/ non delievery.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2009)

88l71 said:


> I think that record goes to the Bf-109 unless you mean more than any other *American* fighter.
> 
> IIRC the Mustang shot down the most aircraft of US types, though the F6F is definitely up there. Hellcat has the all-time top spot for carrier-based fighters though.



The F6F edged the Mustang out by a hundred plus total air credits (US only) stats - but I'm still looking at RAF records to make sure those are included in the totals.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Dec 10, 2009)

Face it guys. The Hellcat was the top scorer in the pacific by a large margin. Yes it's performance was inferior to the F4U and P-38 in some regards but it was rugged, maneuverable, fast and available in great numbers. Give it the due it deserves and accept that your better performing aircraft did not outscore it or replace it because of all its good qualities.


----------



## renrich (Dec 10, 2009)

Why did the Navy replace the Hellcat with the Corsair on carriers if they did not think it was a better choice?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

I'll try to answer to that. USN was receiving F8F from Grumman lines. So, F6F was already being phased out by Grumman itself 
So when the WW2 ended, USN found itself with a developed tested fighter-bomber (F4U) and a new un-tested fighter (F8F). Since F8F was only slightly, slightly better as a fighter, while F4F was much better all-rounder, and the jets were seen as future, they simply went for they had in inventory and forgot about the 'former' (F6F) and 'future' (F8F) designs.


----------



## renrich (Dec 11, 2009)

TP, in May 1944, after a series of comparative tests, a Navy Evaluation Board concluded the F4U1D was the best all around fighter available and a suitable carrier fighter and that all fighter and fighter bomber units be converted to that type as soon as practicable. There were no F8Fs being produced at that time and the F6F was in full production.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks for the info 
But then, how did F8F managed to compete with F4U-1D and/or F4U-4? The -4 was faster then F8F IIRC.


----------



## renrich (Dec 11, 2009)

The Bearcat was designed as a fleet defense fighter to be used off of CVEs. It did not reach the fleet until the war was over and the F4U1D and F4U4 were superior to the Hellcat in that role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 11, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> Face it guys. The Hellcat was the top scorer in the pacific by a large margin. Yes it's performance was inferior to the F4U and P-38 in some regards but it was rugged, maneuverable, fast and available in great numbers. Give it the due it deserves and accept that your better performing aircraft did not outscore it or replace it because of all its good qualities.



A lot of the F6Fs combat record comes from being in the right place at the right time, in other words a combat rich environment. The F6F had many attributes that made is a world class fighter, but in technical terms there were a lot of characteristics found on the P-38 and F4U that made them a superior aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 11, 2009)

renrich said:


> The Bearcat was designed as a fleet defense fighter to be used off of CVEs. It did not reach the fleet until the war was over and the F4U1D and F4U4 were superior to the Hellcat in that role.



Then why was it deployed on a fleet carrier as the war ended?

The navy had every intention to make it an interceptor on CV's right from the beginning.


----------



## renrich (Dec 12, 2009)

From Linnekin, "80 knots to Mach Two." " There are several theories about the reason for the Bearcat. One is that it was designed to combat not only the newer Japanese fighters but also the Kamikaze threat. Considering that the first prototype Bearcat flew in August of 1944 and that the Kamikaze threat did not peak until early 1945, I doubt that theory. A more probable explanation and the one cited in "The Illustrated History of Fighters" is that it was designed to fill the need for better fighter performance on the smaller carriers, specifically the "Jeeps." In 1944 the small CVE escort or "Jeep" carriers carried improved Wildcat FM2 aircraft built by General Motors. They proved surprisingly effective but were substantially outperformed by the Hellcat." Linnekin was a career Navy pilot and flew the Bearcat operationally for quite some time in the late forties and early fifties.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 12, 2009)

Answer the question ..... if it was designed for light carriers, then why was the first carrier the first Bearcat squadron it was assigned to, (and under way to join the fleet in the Western Pacific when the war ended), a fleet carrier?

Sounds like some early ideas on its usage got preempted on the realities of the war.


----------



## renrich (Dec 12, 2009)

I don't think I am in court and don't think I have to answer any question. I am just quoting someone who I know knows more than me and possibly even more than all the "authorities" on this forum. Because it was first deployed on fleet carriers does not rule out what it may have been designed for, which I thought was the question. According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" the P47 was designed as a high altitude fighter but was used most effectively as a tactical ground support fighter bomber during the latter stages of the war. That does not change the fact that it was not designed for that. It seems to me that a lot of aircraft on both sides during WW2 got used in a different manner than perhaps the designers envisioned. Personally I couldn't care less.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 12, 2009)

I can answer the question. The F8F was not the result of any USN specifications, rather its specifications, Design 58, were drawn up by Leroy Grumman, himself, in July 1943, just as the F6F was entering combat - and yes, it was influenced to a degree by the FW 190 and, perhaps surprisingly, also by the GeeBee racers. Grumman pitched the F8F to BuAer as a replacement for the FM-2s operating off CVEs; the word Grumman actually used was “converted,” which, of course, meant CVE-type carriers. From hence comes the thought that the F8F was designed for use on CVEs. This was, however, a simple marketing ploy to get BuAer's attention. Grumman knew that in meeting HIS spec's he had probably one of the hottest, most maneuverable, and, certainly one of the fastest climbing, piston fighters ever to come off the drawing board. The Grumman concept presented to BuAer a fighter with the potential for a better power-to-weight ratio than either of the then serving F6F-3 or F4U-1 - ultimately, the production F8F-1 would exceed the 8,500-pound limit set by Grumman, rising to 9,430 pounds. It would exhibit, nonetheless, a power-to-weight improvement 25% better than the F6F-3 and 27% better than the F4U-1, not to mention 10% better than the FW 190 - he was banking on BuAer drawing the same conclusion and seeing the F8F as the replacement for the F6F. And evidently they did, telling Grumman not to worry about the CVEs as they wanted the design for the new CVB class carriers as well as CVs. The flip side would have been that if BuAer decided it was only interested in replacing the FM-2s, then here was the absolutely perfect replacement designed to exactly that. No, the Navy was so impressed with the design that by November 1943 BuAer had authorized construction of two XF8F-1s and thinking about how to get them to the CVs.

So, the plan was developed to gradually eliminate F6Fs and replace them with F8Fs; push the F6Fs down to the CVE VC Rons and make them all F6Fs in complement, discarding their TBMs as they had no torpedo targets anyway and the IJN submarine fleet was seen as of little consequence (perhaps a somewhat premature conclusion). The thought was that there were sufficient F6Fs constructed already or in the pipeline to outfit the CVEs so that Grumman could concentrate on F8F production. There were even contracts for Eastern to build F3M's, the Eastern F8F, under license and discontinue FM-2 production. Eventually F8F production would catch up and the venerable F6F's, probably reaching the ends of their true combat usefullness aboard the CVEs would be replaced by F8Fs. And Leroy Grumman's originally pitched plan would finally come about. But not until the F8F was firmly in place on the CVs and CVLs. Note there were a total of 5253 F8F-1s plus the 1876 F3M-1s (total 7129) in those F8F contracts that were OBE and canceled; more than enough to fill both combat and training requirements for the plan.

Now, why replace the F6F with the F8F instead replacing the F4U? While acknowledged as a excellent fighter,the F4U was equally valued as a strike fighter, that is it's ability to haul and deliver ordnance. And, yes, so could the F6F, but if the F4U were eliminated, that presents the problem of Grumman having to producing both the F6F and the F8F, not to mention the F7F. It was not that the Navy was unhappy with the F6F, it was simply an economic/production issue. So, the F6F got the chop. Probably, IMO, much to Leroy Grumman's relief for, as with the F4F when it was replaced by the F6F, there was really not much more that could be done to improve the design. 

Actually, this fell right in line with the Navy's thinking on fighters in the latter 1940's and into the 1950's. What BuAer wanted on carriers was a fast moving, fast climbing fighter for fleet and point defense and a second fighter for long range interception with a heavy strike capability. The F8F/F4U team fit this bill perfectly. After the war we see the same pattern; in fact, it was the F4U that was the type that stayed in service. So also, perhaps BuAer’s enthusiasm for the F8F was also a hedge on the potential operability of jets (remember the FD-1 was also authorized in mid-1943). In the end, overtaken by the end of the war and technological advances, F8Fs were replaced by jets (F2Hs and F9Fs, mostly) and F4Us remained the duty fighter-bomber type as it was a better ordnance deliverer than the smaller F8F. 

If you look at Navy planning documents written in late 1945 for naval aviation organization in the post war years the first thing that jumps out at you is that by December 1945, the plans show CV's with four possible air group configurations:

A - 49 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
B - 49 F4U; 4 F4U-P; 4 F4U-N; 24 SB2C; 20 TBM
C - 31 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 36 F4U; 15 SB2C; 15 TBM
D - 25 F8F; 4 F8F-P; 4 F8F-N; 24 F4U; 12 SB2C; 20 TBM

CVL air groups were specified to have complements of 22 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 9 TBM.

CVE air groups were specified to have complements of 16 F8F; 2 F8F-P; 12 TBM.

CVG(N) were specified to have complements of 1 F8F-P; 36 F8F-N; 18 TBM.

The only place you see F6Fs mentioned is their possible use as nightfighter and photo-recon types until the newer F8F and F4U types for the same missions become available.

The F8Fs bread and butter was the rapid climb to altitude as a fleet defense fighter. With an R2800 engine on such a, comparatively, light frame the F8F was capable of some remarkable performance. Indeed, on one occasion, at the Cleveland Air Races in November 1946, a couple of F8Fs performed back-to-back climb to times, from a dead stop to 10,000 feet, the first in 100 seconds and then, the second, 97.8 seconds. The 97.8 second record, including a 115 foot takeoff run, was a record for piston aircraft that stood for many years and, I believe, still stands for standard equipped military piston aircraft. 

Rich


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 12, 2009)

Leonard, youre a walking encyclopedia.

BTW, even though the TBM's didnt have any ships left to torpedo, were they not still usefull as level bombers?


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 12, 2009)

Of course they could, but why clutter up a CVE with TBMs when you can put aboard 25% more F6Fs that can easily haul 1000 lbs of bombs.

At least that was the way it was explained to me.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 12, 2009)

Leonard, that was a great post!


----------



## renrich (Dec 13, 2009)

Rich, Many thanks for your post. Most informative and interesting to read. Linnekin, in " 80 Knots to Mach Two," relates many of his experiences flying the Bearcat. He flew the Stearman, SNJ, Hellcat, Corsair, AD, Panther, Cougar, Banshee, Crusader and Phantom II. I believe he said the Bearcat was his favorite.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 13, 2009)

Yeah, if your timing was good., you could have gone from biplanes to supersonics. 

My father started in N3N’s at Pensacola in July 1940. In May 1957 he flew an F8U-1 he’d borrowed from VX-3. Later still, in August 1966, while in duty with DDR&E he had an opportunity to drive an Air Force F4D, though they insisted that someone ride in the back seat, just in case.

50 different types; 35 variants of 16 of those types; 85 total types/variants

In order of first type flight:
N3N-1
O3U-2
SNJ-2; SNJ-3; SNJ-4; SNJ-5
F4B-4
SBC-4
SU-2/3
F3F-1
SBU-1
F4F-3; F4F-4; FM-1; FM-2
P-40E
F6F-3; F6F-5
SBD-3; SBD-5
F4U-1; F4U-1A; F4U-1C; F4U-4C; F4U-5N; F4U-5; F3A-1
TBF-1
XFR-1; FR-1
A6M2; A6M5
F7F-2N; XF7F-2; F7F-3N
JRB-4
SOC-1
SC-1
F8F-1; F8F-2
P-59B
XF2G-1; F2G-1; F2G-2
P-51C
SB2C-4; SB2C-5
Mosquito
P-80
XF8B-1
XF15C-1
XBT2D-1
FD-1/FH-1
AM-1
FJ-1
AD-2; AD-3Q; AD-4Q; AD-6; AD-5N
F2H-1; F2H-2; F2H-3; F2H-4
F9F-2; F9F-5
F-86-A5; CF-86
F9F-6; F9F-7; F9F-8; F9F-8T
TV-2 
F3D-2
F7U-3 (J36); F7U-3 (J46)
FJ-3
F3H-2N
F8U-1
T28-B
T2V
TF-1
S2E
F4D
T-39

Rich


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 13, 2009)

He actually flew a Mosquito? How did he manage that?


----------



## renrich (Dec 13, 2009)

Wow, What an odyssey. Must be some kind of record. I would bet that Linnekin was acquainted with your father. He graduated early from the academy and served in surface ships in 1945 and then came back to go into aviation. Flew Panthers in Korea and I think his last flying in the Navy was the Phantom II. I left off a few AC he flew earlier, including the A4 but his list was nothing compared to your father's.


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 14, 2009)

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

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


----------



## dragonandhistail (Dec 19, 2010)

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


----------



## stug3 (Dec 30, 2010)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2010)

stug3 said:


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



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


----------



## R Leonard (Dec 30, 2010)

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


----------



## stug3 (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

stug3 said:


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



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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2011)

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

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


----------



## stug3 (Jan 1, 2011)

R Leonard said:


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



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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2011)

stug3 said:


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



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


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## evangilder (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 4, 2011)

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Rich


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Doughboy said:


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



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

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


----------



## R Leonard (Jan 5, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Rich


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2011)

cimmee said:


> It was also a gas hog, hard to make, and hard to work on...
> 
> I saw no mention of the P-51 Mustang. Why's that?



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


----------



## renrich (Jan 7, 2011)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2011)

renrich said:


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


Yep...

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


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2011)

And you flushed it, Joe.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

Both the Hellcat and the Corsair were outsnading aircraft that played ther roles successfully, it would be hard for me to choose between the 2. Thats why i voted for the Ki 84, good performance characteristics and a lot easier on the eye compared to the rugged but..chunky USN birds


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 6, 2012)

Gotta go with the F4U, it outlived virtually all its contemporaries (except the P-51). Still fighting and shooting down jets in its twilight years and still flying military missions when supersonic aircraft had replaced its predeccessors in its dotage. What a plane!


----------

