# Best Naval Fighter



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

you realise it'd be ilegal to stay overnight in a laybuy or car park...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

OK, lets retry this topic in a different manner..... Lets list the possible Top 5....

Whos got a list???

F6F-5 Hellcat
F4U-4 Corsair
A6M5 Zero
F4F-4 Wildcat
Seafire MkIII

Ummmmm.... Any others that deserve mention???

I still think the F4U-4 Corsair was the Best Naval Fighter....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Yeah the corsair was damned good.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

But was it the best???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

I think so. I cant think of a better one right now.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Me neither....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Im still thinking...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Thinking just gets me into trouble.. i quit doin that 10 years ago....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 13, 2004)

Definitely the F6F Hellcat and the Corsair. Alot of pilots that nursed the Hellcats home owe alot to those birds. Eugene Valencia, top Navy ace with 32 kills once said about the Hellcat; "I love this airplane, if it could cook, I'd marry it". I love the old Grumman Iron Works birds.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 14, 2004)

UMMMM..... Valencia only had 23 air to air kills... McCampbell had 34 air to air, making him the highest ranking Navy Ace, and 3rd all time....

Are u counting ground kills Evan???


----------



## evangilder (Oct 14, 2004)

Argh, forgot to engage my brain before I used my fingers! Correct, 23, not 32 kills and he was one of the top Navy aces, not the top. Geez, I think I let my brain wander out and it went walkabout! 

The F6F we have in our museum is painted up as Minsi III, McCampbell's plane. Unfortunately, it is on temporary assignment to the CAF HQ in Texas.  

Here is the correct listing of top 6 aces in Hellcats:
1. David McCampbell- 34 (unit VF-15)
2. Cecil Harris- 24 (unit VF-18)
3. Eugene Valencia- 23 (unit VF-9)
4. Alexander Vraciu- 19 (unit VF-6/16)
5. Cornelius Nooy- 19 (unit VF-31)
6. Patrick Fleming- 19 (unit VF-80)

Am I vindicated now?!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 14, 2004)

Yup......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 14, 2004)

evangilder said:


> Argh, forgot to engage my brain before I used my fingers! Correct, 23, not 32 kills and he was one of the top Navy aces, not the top. Geez, I think I let my brain wander out and it went walkabout!
> 
> The F6F we have in our museum is painted up as Minsi III, McCampbell's plane. Unfortunately, it is on temporary assignment to the CAF HQ in Texas.
> 
> ...



Man, that's awesome about the Hellcat!

I saw it in FlyPast a couple weeks ago!


----------



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

i think it looks pretty cool...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 15, 2004)

Does anyone have stats on which aircraft shot down more enemy planes, the Hellcat or the Corsair???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Does anyone have stats on which aircraft shot down more enemy planes, the Hellcat or the Corsair???



Nope but im guessing th Hellcat. I could find out, but guessing is more fun


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 21, 2004)

The ekranoplan is nither ship no plane no ground transpot so what the hell is it ??? it can go over water. ice ,and level ground, a perfect soviet invetion, just like the RD-180,


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 22, 2004)

Looks like something out of thunderbirds... Hehe!


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 22, 2004)

Thunder Soviets 
Primary Function: transport
Length: 348' 2"
Wingspan: 131' 8"
Speed: 300 mph
Ceiling: 10 feet
Range: 1,850 miles
Year Deployed: 1966


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2004)

> Ceiling: 10 feet



is that a typo??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2004)

Nope. They just hover over the water like that at great speeds. This is going back years, but i remember an item about it on _Top Gear: Waterworld_ several years ago.

They're kinda freaky if you ask me...


----------



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

looks pretty cool though....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Hell yeah...I'd forgotten it even existed before now  Thanks to whoever brought it up  it was GrG in the "Airborne Oddities of WW2" I think


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

The Hellcat shot down considerably more aircraft than the Corsair. A margin of nearly 3 to 1 I believe.


----------



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

largely to do with the fact it saw allot more action...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

Yes. There were more Hellcats and they were in the thick of it from the day they arrived. Corsairs were more often employed with the USMC where many more ground attack sorties were flown.


----------



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

and the jap's carrier force was pretty much spent.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the jap's carrier force was pretty much spent.....................



What do you mean by that? Because although not really a naval plane, the P-38 shot down more Jap planes than any other...

Question: Did the P-38 ever have experiments for use on carriers?


----------



## Maestro (Oct 27, 2004)

I don't know... But logically, I don't think they tried because the plane was pretty big for a fighter. They tried with the P-51 though, but due to the lack of visibility the pilots had, it was next to impossible to successfully land a P-51 on a carrier.

But I seriously doubt that they tried with P-38s. Even if the plane was able to land on a carrier, I think they would have preferred any smaller plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

I thought that as well. But I recall reading somewhere that they did try. I might have imagined it though


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 27, 2004)

Hell, they might have...

They tried the Mustang (yes, I know it's smaller and more logical than a P-38), as well as a Mossie (entered service; before you go on a rant about its size, I'm not familiar in the size/dimensions of either)...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

I think the P-38 was relatively small.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 27, 2004)

When I was researching the Lightning for a presentation, I did read that Lockheed designed a P-38 for carrier duty, complete with folding wings, arresting hook and a strengthened undercarriage. The Navy wasn't keen on such a big plane on their decks and they disliked liquid cooled engines for carrier based aircraft. The Navy did fly some lightnings from land bases though. The carrier version never made it off the drawing board. 

It's bigger than you think really. If you have stood next to a P-51 or a Spit, then next to a Lightning, it's big!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Ah ok thanks 8) I knew id read about it somewhere 

Hmmmmmmm, I was always under the impression that for a twin-engined plane the lightning was fairly small. (I'm saying this based on the size difference between my 2 models of a P-38F and an Fw-190D-9)


----------



## evangilder (Oct 28, 2004)

It was big for a fighter. If you compare it with Navy fighters of the time, it was considerably larger. Compare the Lightning and the Hellcat:
Lightning
Wing Span: 52ft. 0in.
Length: 37ft. 10in.
Height: 12ft. 10in.
Hellcat
Wing Span: 42ft. 10in.
Length: 33ft. 7in.
Height: 13ft. 6in.

The wingspan was almost 10 feet wider. On an aircraft carrier, space was always at a premium.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

Ah, but it is lower, wich must make things easier when landing on an enclosed carrier though


----------



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

when you're landing the height of your aircraft makes very little difference...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

It was a joke lanc...


----------



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

it didn't cem like it at the time..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Didnt the "  " and the fact that enclosed a/c carriers dont even exist give the game away a bit?


----------



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

a touch.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

Then why did you say it didnt seem like a joke?


----------



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

because it's only now i realise it was meant as a joke, i went back and read it again..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

Hmmmmmmmm....


----------



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

fine, be like that, see if i care.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2004)

We appear to have strayed off topic, lets get back please 8)


----------



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

it's hard to call on this one then, it could be the zero because it was one of the most feared planes of the war in the early years, one of the best dogfighters and the mainsty of the jap's air force?? could it be the wildcat for having the best kill ratio of the war?? could it be the hellcat for finally tipping the scales against the japs?? or could it be the corsair just, well for being the corsair!!! it's hard to call it.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Did the Wildcat really have the highest kill ratio? What was it?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 31, 2004)

I have never heard before of the Wildcat having the highest kill ratio...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

Me neither, I thought it was the Brewster B-239...


----------



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

25:1......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

B-239's was higher.


----------



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

wot was it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

26:1


----------



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




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

Whats so funny?


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 27, 2004)

Back to the topic, Supermarine Seafire, Hee,hee.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

I like the seafire 8)


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 27, 2004)

The Seafire is cool, we have one in our Naval Museum. It was in service till sometime around the fifities I think.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 27, 2004)

Yeah, it served the RCN until mid 1954. They last operated from the deck of HMCS Magnificent.  

Btw, I didn't know there was a naval museum in Calgary.
Seems like an odd place to find one.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

I'm gunna go with the A6M2 , slow but turns on a 6'pense 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 27, 2004)

A Seafire F.47 could just about stay with it as it had a Contra-Rotating Prop  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

The Zero had phenomenal range as well though 8)


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

well Said 8)


----------



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

and was more suited to carrier operations................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yep, as thats what it was designed for, where as the Seafire was simply modified from an existing design that was designed to take off from land 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

True, the Zero did handle extremely well at low speeds, making it easy to operate from a carrier, and it's range _was_ pretty phenomenal as well. 
I don't agree that makes it the best naval fighter, however.
In combat it was just far too out classed by Allied, and even later Japanese types.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

In the wars early years it probably was the best 8)


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> True, the Zero did handle extremely well at low speeds, making it easy to operate from a carrier, and it's range _was_ pretty phenomenal as well.
> I don't agree that makes it the best naval fighter, however.
> In combat it was just far too out classed by Allied, and even later Japanese types.



On IL2Pacific Fighters the val can dofight seafires and hellcats 8)


----------



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

well the japs favoured manoverability for most of their planes............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Thats the kinda thing i'd do..


----------



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

i'd go for a mix of everything.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Id either have to be really slow and manoeverable, or really powerful but cumbersome. I like to have qualities that I KNOW will get me out of trouble if I ever get into it.


----------



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

i'd rather have power...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Nah manoeverability.


----------



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

check out my new thread, you can desighn your own fighter..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Ok, I just glanced at the title of it and I thought it was about the best fighter that didnt see service, ill check it out though 8)


----------



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

ok sorry if that confused people..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

And I had my answer planned as well  Curse you lanc...


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 28, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Zero had phenomenal range as well though 8)



Yep, nothing could beat the Zero for range  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Fighterwise anyway


----------



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

definatly single engined fighterwise, a few twin engines could beat it..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

I cant think of any.


----------



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

well recon mossies and P-38s could hit over 3,000 miles (well i know the mossie could, not sure bout the P-38, CC??)............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Yeah but not 3000 miles there and 3000 miles back, neither could. 3000+ total range yeah.


----------



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

and the zero could do 940 miles on internal fuel??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

1940, yeah I think so.


----------



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

as such there are twin engined planes than could beat it's range, the defence rests...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Fighters, no there werent...


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 6, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Does anyone have stats on which aircraft shot down more enemy planes, the Hellcat or the Corsair???




The Hellcat had over 5,000 and the Corsair had a littlke over 2.000. The hellcat was carrier qualified over a year before the Corsair so the Marines got it first and used it primarily for ground attack which it did very well.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 6, 2004)

That's good info!
Since the subject's come up, any kill stats for British Corsairs?


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 6, 2004)

i think that the hellcats and F4Us are excellent fighters but i also thinks that the Nakajima Ki-84 Kayate "Frank" is a better fighter because it's more stable, has faster climb rate than the cors and hells, the ki-84 is slower than the cors(faster than the hells), but all three aircraft manuver almost the same, but when engaged in a dogfight, the ki-84's 2X20MMs and two 12.7 MM guns could outgun the hells and cors's 6 to 8 50cals. anyway i think that the reason why the ki-84 is not as famous because the japanese pliots are not veterans(most were killed be4 the ki-84 came out) at all compare to the U.S fighter pliots(some of them had been veterans fighting in europe be4 coming to the pacific), so that's my opinion...


----------



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

> any kill stats for British Corsairs?



i don't know but i would imagine they'd be too high..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Haha


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> i think that the hellcats and F4Us are excellent fighters but i also thinks that the Nakajima Ki-84 Kayate "Frank" is a better fighter because it's more stable, has faster climb rate than the cors and hells, the ki-84 is slower than the cors(faster than the hells), but all three aircraft manuver almost the same, but when engaged in a dogfight, the ki-84's 2X20MMs and two 12.7 MM guns could outgun the hells and cors's 6 to 8 50cals. anyway i think that the reason why the ki-84 is not as famous because the japanese pliots are not veterans(most were killed be4 the ki-84 came out) at all compare to the U.S fighter pliots(some of them had been veterans fighting in europe be4 coming to the pacific), so that's my opinion...



Good points. By the last year of WWII all sides had truly excelent aircraft and the pilots/numbers made the difference. Example, the Hellcat was only a medium performer it's strenghts was that it was an honest and tough plane but with tactics and numbers it rolled over it's foes like a steam roller.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

> By the last year of WWII all sides had truly excelent aircraft and the pilots/numbers made the difference.



I couldnt agree more. The Ta-152 backs up this statement perfectly, as it was probably the best fighter of the war, but it was too late in the war and only saw limited service.


----------



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

as was the case with the Do-335, another contender for best fighter of the war.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

Despite the fact it never saw combat and was only used for a factory defense aircraft, like the Heinkel He-100.

The Do-335 cant really be counted...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 8, 2004)

Hah! People do use my random facts I post!


Awesome... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)




----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

It terms of Multi-Tasking, the Corsair is second to none..... The Ki-84, while a great plane, still had some difficulties in dealing with the F4U-4......


----------



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

i duno, in terms of naval fighters the F7F wasn't a bad multi-tasker..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Wasnt really used that much though was it...


----------



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

it was after the war..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Have you ever wondered why this website is called WW2 aircraft?


----------



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

it was a world war two aircraft though 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Never...

But it wasnt used an awful lot, being too late.


----------



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

it was still a world war two aircraft, you can't deny that..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Im not...

Stop posting stuff thats been established several times.


----------



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

you've also repeated yourself...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Not really im just trying to make it clear what I know, cos you obviously think I dont understand what the hell youre on about. To be honest I find it kinda patronising.


----------



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

but you seem to think that because it "wasn't used that much" it is exempt from a discussion about WWII aircraft??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

No, but because it didnt see service till late in the war it wouldnt have been doing loads of roles all at once because it wasnt necessary.


----------



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

but it was used it many roles over Korea and Vietnam...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

But that isnt WW2...


----------



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

but it was a WWII aircraft............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yes, but it wasnt used in very many roles during ww2.

Lets do a hypothetical situation.

If after the war, Spitfires were used for Long Range bombing missions, then would you class it as being a WW2 bomber? No, because it wouldnt have done any bombing during WW2.


----------



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

that's a god point but look at it this way, if the spitfire was used for fighting after the war, is it stil a WWII fighter??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yes. But the Tigercat wasnt used as a multi role during the war because it wasnt necessary.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 13, 2004)

The Tigercat like the Corsair went to the Marines first and did ok but never had a chance to impact the war.

My vote is the F-4U as the best carrier fighter probably the best single engine fighter of the war in anything but long range escort. By the way there is a F-2G still flying in Arizona (the 3,000hp Corsair).


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 13, 2004)

Glad to see an actual discussion about WWII aircraft going on. If we are going to allow aircraft designed during WWII but not seeing action (like the F7F) then the winner is the F8F no contest. The A7M might have been a possibility but it still lacked the speed at climb of the F8F.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 13, 2004)

Glad to see u back postin again LG... There have been some good discussions while u were absent/unaccounted for/MIA......


----------



## evangilder (Dec 14, 2004)

Welcome back, LG. The F8F is a real climber. It will go from a full brake stop to 10,000 feet in 96 seconds! We have one in our museum and it is quite a sight to see it take off and climb. It is quick too. The drawback is that it only carries 2 hours of fuel, so you have to stop often. On ferry flights to air shows, you can land, fuel and just give it some military power to catch up with the rest of the group.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

LOL.... Too bad our Navy boys didnt have that in Late 1944....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 14, 2004)

It would have been a real killer, that's for sure. It was designed to get off the deck and go after the Kamikaze's before they got to the ships. I guess that role kind of went out at the end of the war. But it did adapt well in Korea.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Im extremely glad you're back LG - I kinda need your help on convincing the lanc about some things...


----------



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

nice new siggy les..........


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 14, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> OK, lets retry this topic in a different manner..... Lets list the possible Top 5....
> 
> Whos got a list???
> 
> ...




I've read about one jap plane. I think it was called the Ki-100. It was an improved model of the Hien. It supposedly gave the hellcat and corsair a run for their money.


----------



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

i fell she shiden deserves a mention.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

We are talking about Naval aircraft......

And thanks Lanc..... Seein how my Grandpa was a Black Sheep, it only seems fitting...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

I still think the Zero was the best. At least in the early years of the war, it was pretty much untouchable.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Yea because tactics and competition were almost non-existant.... The Corsair was a much better aircraft on the whole...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Yeah but I still say Zero...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Ok..... Ur with the minority, but then again, someone has to be, for it to be called "The Minority" in the first place...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Good point 

I think I been saying the Zero since the beginning anyway aint I...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Yea....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 14, 2004)

Ki-100 was strickly land-based. And so was the Shiden. Yeah I know there was a carrier-based fighter in the works, but it never flew. The list of naval fighters that actually saw service is remarkably short to post a top five list since there were only three countries in the world with carriers . . . and one couldn't develop a true carrier aircraft to save its life.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 14, 2004)

The Jug Rules! said:


> lesofprimus said:
> 
> 
> > OK, lets retry this topic in a different manner..... Lets list the possible Top 5....
> ...





Ki-100 - late-war radial engined development of the Ki-61, which is soon to become flyable in PF...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

LG, for the newer posters, could u re-post which plane u feel is the Bst naval Fighter.....


----------



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

soory, my mistake with the shiden, i've done that before, i just automatically think of naval aircraft when thinking of the japs........


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

And I think of Sushi...... MMMMMM....... Ahi Tuna......


----------



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

i like tuna..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> The Jug Rules! said:
> 
> 
> > lesofprimus said:
> ...



Yay!


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 15, 2004)

Well, the F8F Bearcat was a little late in WWII but still should be considered as one of the premier naval fighters with its speed and maneuverability.

If it wasn't for the Hellcat, our Navy wouldn't be able to compete with the Zero's.

Speaking of the Zero's, the A6M5 Reisen was, without a doubt, one of the best fighters in WWII...period. Thank heavens for the Corsair and Bearcat. Otherwise, where would we have been?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

> If it wasn't for the Hellcat, our Navy wouldn't be able to compete with the Zero's.


It wasnt so much the plane, but in the tactics they used to fly the Hellcat against the Japanese...


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 15, 2004)

True, however I'm sure those tactics worked more with the Hellcat than with the Wildcat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

Hi and welcome Stallion 8) I like the signature - but it is a little large, may I ask you to downsize it a bit?

Enjoy the site


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

The tactics didnt exist when the Wildcat was first flown into combat.... And the Wildcat held its own against the Japanese onslaught during the first parts of the war..... Joe Foss started out in them prior to going to the P-38....


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 15, 2004)

Will do...thanks for the welcome.


----------



## Stallion_51 (Dec 15, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> The tactics didnt exist when the Wildcat was first flown into combat.... And the Wildcat held its own against the Japanese onslaught during the first parts of the war..... Joe Foss started out in them prior to going to the P-38....



Sure the Wildcat did well...it had to since it was pretty much the only thing we had to compete. Those tactics that were learned, coupled with the Hellcat's power and better maneuverability, gave the Zero's all they could handle.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

I agree..... And the Hellcat was a hell of an airplane.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

Best naval plane to see action was the F4U-4 Corsair. The F8F was the best of the era but it didn't see action so I am discounting it.

The idea of using speed, dive, and teamwork existed during the reign of the Wildcat. Look at what Thach was doing at Midway as an example.

And I don't think Joe Foss went to P-38s.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 16, 2004)

Yea I goofed on the Foss and P-38's......
The Thatch Weave was in fact a great defensive tactic developed by James Thatch in F4F's.... Good point LG....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

Thank you. The Wildcat was a good fighter and it "held the fort" quite capably for the first year and a half but it was clearly playing second fiddle to the other aircraft named. 

On a side note, the minor (in terms of numbers) A6M8 was definitely a better plane than the A6M5.


----------



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

some very good points there, a very nice discussion, sorry i wasn't on last night, seriously, vomit flying round everywhere....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

You're never on Thursday nights anyway...


----------



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

ah but i could have been yesterday...............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2004)

The Zero was beat as soon as the captured A6M2 was tested in San Diego. It had many flaws which were easily exploited. It reigned supreme early in the war before those flaws were discovered, but after that point, the F4F and P-40 could at least hold their own with it, against the F4U, F6F, P-38, P-51, or P-47 it barely stood a chance.

The Ki-100 was a decent plane but again too slow to fight effectively against the US planes. The best Japanese plane of WWII was pretty clearly the Ki-84 "Frank", followed by the N1K2 "George" and the J2M "Jack". All of these planes were competitive with the Hellcat, but not the P-38, P-51, or F4U - they simply were not fast enough.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

The Ki-61 Hien is a good little Jap plane, or at least ive always thought.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 20, 2004)

The Ki-100 had a top speed of 360 mph at 20,000 feet. The Ki-61 was faster at 380 mph at 20,000 feet. This made them somewhat competative with the Hellcat which did 380 mph at 23,500 feet, but still left them quite outclassed by the 400+ mph class F4U, P-38, P-51, and P-47.

Climb rates were not impressive on this plane, it reached ~16,500 feet in about 7 minutes. The P-47D-RE1 (no water injection or paddle prop) reached 15,000 feet in 7 minutes.

Like most earlier war Japanese planes, it lacked any significant armor and was easily killed if hit. It was certainly a foe to be contended with in 1943, but by 1944 it was seriously outmatched.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

Interestingly, most of those planes can in no way be considered naval fighters. The Ki-100, -84, -61 were all JAAF fighters. It is true that the N1K2 and J2M were developed by the navy, but they never operated from a carrier and IMO that is the mark of a naval fighter.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Interestingly, most of those planes can in no way be considered naval fighters. The Ki-100, -84, -61 were all JAAF fighters. It is true that the N1K2 and J2M were developed by the navy, but they never operated from a carrier and IMO that is the mark of a naval fighter.



This is true, the only operational Japanese Carrier fighters were the A5M "Claude" and the A6M "Zeke" (or Zero). I think the lack of full size carriers after 1943 along with the lack of adequate catapult capabilities limited Japanese Carrier aircraft to those which could takeoff unassisted by catapults.

Both the N1K George and J2M Jack were meant to be carrier planes, but I think the George was too heavy for this purpose, and the Jack landing gear could barely handle land operations, they'd never have taken carrier landings.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 21, 2004)

There was a carrier-based version of the George in the works, but it never flew from a carrier (not that there were that many carriers left by that time anyway). The Jack would have made a rather poor carrier aircraft with that restricted view and long nose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

is it just me or does anyone else automatically think of naval aircraft when they think of the jap planes??


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> is it just me or does anyone else automatically think of naval aircraft when they think of the jap planes??



Yes of course. But we also are thinking of the Zero. It's really the only Japanese WWII airplane.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: Please try to refrain from using "jap" - the Japanese find this offensive.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

The only one that really done much anyway. The G4M Betty was probably their best known bomber.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

The Zero was the most important Japanese aircraft of the war (numerically and strategically) but it certainly wasn't the only aircraft. The D3A Val sank more Allied shipping than any other aircraft. The B5N Kate was the best torpedo bomber in the world until the arrival of the Avenger. The Ki-43 Oscar was perhaps the most important JAAF aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

but the zero was THE fighter..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Not really, most of the Jap planes at the wars end had it beat, but in the early days it was certainly a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

It was the fighter that symbolized the might of the Japanese empire and it may have been the best fighter in the world in 1941. As I said, it certainly was the most important Japanese aircraft. But that should not detract from the vital role many other aircraft played.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

yes when i said "THE" fighter i meant more of what LG said.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Ah, the way you said it implied otherwise...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

no it didn't..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

For gods sake I knew you would say that.

You knew what you was implying so therefore its obvious to you how you implied it. You should try looking at things from other peoples points of view or you wont get very far in life...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

ha, i'll get considderable further than you.............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Children, children...I want a good clean fight, no hitting below the belt.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

He cant hit me blow the belt, its on the floor.

lanc, How do you expect to get further than me? YOU CHOSE ELECTRONICS FOR GOD'S SAKE!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

electricians are always in demand............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Even more so are graphic designers...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

not as much as electricians..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Name me a famous electrician...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 22, 2004)

Common guys. The issue was "naval" fighter - i.e. carrier plane. For that the Japanese only had one - the Zero. It had the advantage for about 6 months, then it was equal to US fighters for about 6 months, after that, it was lunch meat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 22, 2004)

I agree RG.... The Zero was tough in the initial stages of the War, but when some decent tactics were brought into play, and the strengths and weaknesses were figured out, the Zero's command of the sky was definatly reduced... 

BUT...... Thats not to say that there were some Japanese pilots that flew that plane like the wind, as their kills show quite plainly.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 22, 2004)

Plus it took a brave guy to go up in that for combat with no armor protection and non self sealing fuel tanks.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Plus until the Hellcat and Corsair, it was tactics that stumped the Zero not the enemy aircrafts ability.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 22, 2004)

I think that could be said about alot of airplanes. Having the greatest plane doesn't mean squat if your pilots are poorly trained or lack good skills. The group that replaced the Flying Tigers did fairly well against the Zero with the P-40, which was inferior to the Zero in most ways.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

True about the pilot skill but I wasn't touching on that. I was saying that the tactics, which spread throughout all units fighting the Japs, were what stumped it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

The Zero was always dangerous, especially when properly handled. It should be noted that, in terms of pure performance, there wasn't a whole lot to choose between the Hellcat and the A6M5.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it you that was digging that the Hellcat was better than the Zero all those weeks ago?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

> I was saying that the tactics, which spread throughout all units fighting the Japs, were what stumped it.


I agree... After the initial domination, once pilots learned how the Japanese fought the Zero, and that they didnt have self-sealing tanks or armor, the tide started to turn.... 

America didnt try to make a more superior plane to combat the Zero, it made planes, the Hellcat and Corsair, that with tactics and cooperation, could make the most out of the Zeros weaknesses...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

I believe the Hellcat was the better aircraft, but the A6M5 was a fairly close match in terms of speed and firepower. Mainly, I've been arguing for the F4U-4 as the best naval aircraft of the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

I think the general opinion is that the F4U-4 WAS the best Naval fighter..... I dont really see much of an argument in all these posts....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

You would have to go back a while but Plan_D was arguing for the N1K2-J (which IMO wasn't even a true naval fighter).


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

The Shiden wasnt a Naval aircraft..... I think that was clarified alittle later on in the thread..


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah, even I've given in to reason mostly for the Corsair being the best.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

hhmmmmm... planD going with the majority????

UNHEARD OF I SAY!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

Wow, you've begun to come around and see things rationally


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Well, I wouldnt say come around.. He still thinks the Mossie was a better all arounder than the -38.....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

I've agreed with a lot of things...but if we agreed all the time it'd be boring...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree.... No pun intended... Thats why i enjoy alot of RG comments.... He has his side, and wears mirrored blinders.... So he's strongly opinionated.... Makes for interesting conversation....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Yes......












...the Mosquito was better.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

No fair combining 2 threads like that....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

We'll leave it there then. Actually I'm not getting it that again, I think everything was covered in the Mosquito Vs. Lightning thread. 

The Corsair was the best naval fighter. And seeing as everything has been covered, I don't have to say much.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> I agree.... No pun intended... Thats why i enjoy alot of RG comments.... He has his side, and wears mirrored blinders.... So he's strongly opinionated.... Makes for interesting conversation....



Thanks... I think 8) 

Seriously, if you study the Zero you will see it was totally outclassed by the Hellcat. Yes the top speed of the Hellcat is only about 30 mph faster than that of the Zero, but the fighting speed of the Hellcat is 100 mph faster, and that's what really matters. Combine with it's toughness advantage and firepower advantage, the Zero had very little chance as long as the Hellcat pilot did not make a mistake (ie: slow down and turnfight with the Zero).

Once the USA had the captured Zero to study, it's day was done and it's goose cooked.



> The A6M possessed many shortcomings, which were only to be revealed six months later when a virtually intact specimen was obtained. On June 3, 1942, Flight Petty Officer Tadayoshi Koga left the flight deck of the carrier Ryujo in his Mitsubishi A6M2 Model 21 fighter as part of a task force assigned to attack Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands. His A6M2, which had been built in February, was on its first operational mission. On his way back to the Ryujo, Koga found that two bullets had punctured his fuel supply and he informed his flight commander that he intended to land on Akutan Island, designated as an emergency landing field. Koga did not make the landing field and instead made a forced landing in a marsh where the aircraft flipped over, in which he was killed, from a broken neck. Five weeks later, a US Navy PBY Catalina, making a routine patrol, discovered the Japanese fighter upside down in the marsh. This single fighter was probably one of the greatest prizes of the Pacific war. Hardly damaged, it was shipped back to the USA where it was exhaustively tested. Information gathered during testing of the A6M2 prompted the American aircraft manufacturer Grumman, to lighten the Grumman F4F Hellcat, and install a larger engine on the Grumman F6F Hellcat.
> http://216.219.216.110/mitsubishi/zero.html



After the tests on the "Akutan Zero", in Sept-Oct 1942, it's flaws were revield. Most notably, it rolled poorly much above 200 IAS, and it could not roll at all to the left at 225 IAS. While it could achieve speeds greater than this, it simply could not manuver. US pilots needed only roll and turn to the left to escape it if it was attacking. At the same time, when on the attack US pilots knew the only manuver the Zero could conduct at speed was a roll/turn to the right, so they could sit on this manuver greatly improving their chances to score.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/komachi2.htm <--- Japanese pilot's perspective.

The N1K2 Shinden was a naval fighter. It was capable of carrier ops. The fact that the Japanese never used it from carriers does not negate its capaiblity.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> We'll leave it there then. Actually I'm not getting it that again, I think everything was covered in the Mosquito Vs. Lightning thread.
> 
> The Corsair was the best naval fighter. And seeing as everything has been covered, I don't have to say much.



I think I may also hacve to go with the Corsair as well. Although the Zero may have been the best in the first few months it _did_ become totally outclassed.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

> The N1K2 Shinden was a naval fighter. It was capable of carrier ops. The fact that the Japanese never used it from carriers does not negate its capaiblity


The fact that it was never used in its intended roll as a NAVAL negates it from this poll RG..... Although I am one of the people that thinks that the N1K2 was probably the best PTO fighter in performance, for a plane to qualify as a naval fighter, it had to be operated in comabt conditions, ie carrier ops, which the Shiden certainly did not.....

Too bad it didnt.... Woulda made the dogfighting possibly alittle more even sided.....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

The Shiden was an experts plane, the Corsair was a rookies plane (and still be good) and seeing as there's more rookies than experts, then the Corsair is better.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Shiden was an experts plane, the Corsair was a rookies plane (and still be good) and seeing as there's more rookies than experts, then the Corsair is better.



How do you figure? Both planes had quirks, the Corsair probably moreso of the two. Ever heard of the "ensign eliminator"?

The Corsair was just better however you want to compare them. In the Fighter Ace newsgroup we had a member who's Granfather was an IJN pilot, flying the Zero and then the George. He said "every night before a mission I would pray that we didn't run into Corsairs".

The F4U-1d had the advantage in speed, toughness, and performance at altitude. The Corsair was also better for ground attack (unless you look at the specially modified dive bomb Shiden version, but that added weight and reduced performance). In most other respects, they were about equal. The F4U-4 totally outclassed it (but of course it's a year later model).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

> toughness



not when the shiden had 4x20mm..................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

The reason I say that is because in the hands of a skilled pilot the Shiden was an effective fighting machine. It could out-turn the Corsair and was more heavily armed. 

The Corsair was faster and had better dive, so for a rookie it's a brilliant aircraft. If in a tight spot stick the nose down, open the throttle and laugh at the Shiden you're leaving behind. The Shiden couldn't do that, so rookies were screwed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

but the japs gave all their shidens to their best pilots.............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > toughness
> 
> 
> 
> not when the shiden had 4x20mm..................



You are overcome by the size of the rounds I guess.

4 x 20mm Type 99-2 firing at 490 rpm = 1960 rpm = 32 rps @ 750 m/s
6 x .50 M2 BMG firing at 800 rpm = 4800 rpm = 80 rps @ 900 m/s

The Type 99-2 hit about 1.9 times as hard (by KE) as the .50, but the volume of fire is a huge issue, a pilot was much more likely to actually score hits with the 6 x .50's than with the 4 x 20mm's. The RoF of the Type 99-2 cannon on the George was slow enough that a target was very likely to fly through the stream w/o taking a hit on a high angle deflection shot. The same shot with 6 x .50's would land hits every time. The Type 99-2 probably carried about 8 grams of chemical payload, but the M8 API round was a devestating round from a chemical aspect as well.

The F4U was also considered "protected" from 20mm fire from the rear and from .50 fire from the front. The George on the other hand was easily taken down with .50 fire from any angle (remember, most Japanese pilots ripped the armor out of it when they got it, and its performance figures are generally based upon this configuration).

Everyone drools over the big cannon for some reason. These were necessary when facing a heavy bomber (ie: American in most cases), but for any targets attacked by the USA (ie: fighters or Japanese bombers), 6 x .50's were more than sufficient to kill quickly and efficiently, and much easier to score with.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

That said, four 20mm when striking the Corsair would obliterate it. 

And yes, the Shiden was given to the best pilots and that's the only people it was good in the hands of. The Corsair was good even with rookies.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> That said, four 20mm when striking the Corsair would obliterate it.
> 
> And yes, the Shiden was given to the best pilots and that's the only people it was good in the hands of. The Corsair was good even with rookies.



Many Corsairs sustained 20mm hits and returned home, I think I've read of one that took 20 such hits and a bunch of smaller rounds too. Remember, the Corsair was the toughest fighter of WWII! (yes, even tougher than the P-47).

On the other hand, 6 x .50's would rip a Shiden to shreads and light it on fire too. And they'd be much more likely to hit it in the first place!

You over-estimate the effectiveness of the Type 99-2 20mm cannon. It was not firing mine ammo like the German cannon, and it lacked the velocity and quality of ammo of the Hispano. And it's RoF was SLOW by WWII standards.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

The fact STILL remains that having a 20mm chunk of lead ripping into your wing is not a healthy prospect. I know that the Shiden could be ripped apart by 6x .50cals. That is why I say the Corsair is better. I am saying though the Shiden is ONLY good in the hands of experts...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Anyway the Shiden is irrelevant as it never operated from a carrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

but there was a carrier version planned...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

But it never actually operated...in my mind its not a proper naval fighter unless it operated from a carrier in proper combat situations.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The fact STILL remains that having a 20mm chunk of lead ripping into your wing is not a healthy prospect. I know that the Shiden could be ripped apart by 6x .50cals. That is why I say the Corsair is better. I am saying though the Shiden is ONLY good in the hands of experts...



And having a 12.7 mm chunk ripped out of your wing is not bad?

The main advantage to the 20mm rounds is they are large enough to pack enough HE to be meaningful - barely.

On the other hand the .50 M8 API round was a very nasty round. It had IM11 incendiary metal alloy as it's payload (1.4 grams in WW2, reduced to .9 grams post WWII). IM11 is made by alloying approximately 25% Alluminum + 25% Magnesium + 50% Barium Nitrate. The Barium Nitrate is a very strong oxidizer and when the compound is crushed on impact it ignites generating a 5000 degree spall of burning metal. Behind the IM11 rides a tungston carbide penetrator sufficient to not only crush the IM11 but penetrate a good 19 mm of homogonous steel armor plate (the only kind used in Japanese fighters) on a perpendicular strike.

At the same time, the F4U had a 3/4" tempered steel plates protecting the pilot from rear attack, plus a armored seat bucket. It also had armor protecting the fuel tank from above and below, and the engine protecting it from the front. And the wings, aft of the main spar, were covered in a dupont canvass which would not rip or tear (like tyvex) and which was soaked in an flame retardant solution (later found to be very unhealthy for ground crews). 20mm rounds hitting this canvas would pass through and through and unless they struck an interior rib or something, they'd do no meaningful damage (which was the point behind the canvass covering). Likewise, the tail control surfaces were covered in the same canvas.

And the spar itself was absolutely huge (to support carrier landings) and was probably able to take a 20mm round, and even if it did suffer severe damage from a 20mm round, there were two sub-spars which provided more than 100% redundancy. Not only that, but the box within box design of the wing itself (the metal part) was so strong that no spar was needed at all except for carrier landings.

Overall, if you look at the Corsair design, there is a relatively small area starting with the pilot and extending to the engine which contains critical systems which are protected by armor from most angles of attack, and there are control surfaces which are of course vulnerable to damage, but most of these could be damaged and the plane could still get home.

The Corsair was an extremely tough plane, the toughest fighter of WWII by all accounts. As I said before, it was considered "protected" from 20mm fire from the rear and 12.7mm fire from the front. (No I don't have a definition of what "protected" was supposed to mean).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> But it never actually operated...in my mind its not a proper naval fighter unless it operated from a carrier in proper combat situations.



Well, I'm not 100% sure I agree. The Shiden was built as a carrier fighter. By the time it was ready to perform as such, the Japanese had no full sized carriers left. It could not operate effectively from a light carrier, so it never saw carrier operations. But in every respect it was designed as a carrier fighter and capable of operating off a carrier deck, it just needed a full size one because of the lack of good catapults on smaller Japanese carriers (and I think even on the bigger ones). It needed takeoff and landing room, where the Zero did not (it had a very short takeoff requirement).

Does the lack of suitable carriers make the Shiden not be a carrier plane? To me the issue is was it ever "carrier qualified", and I don't know the answer to this question.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

it was designed as a land based intorceptor??


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

> The Corsair was an extremely tough plane, the toughest fighter of WWII by all accounts.


I agree... 

But i have conversed with several F4U pilots, one of which was on the Axis Test Flight Program, which tested out captured aircraft.... He said that the N1K2 was the best Japanese fighter he had flown in, and routinely beat the Corsair in mock combat...

Which is one of the reasons why I say it was a better dogfighter than the Corsair, which I rank #2, PTO..... The F4U-4D is #1 NAVAL fighter for sure tho.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

well if the shiden beat the corsiar in mock combat you can't argue with that..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Not from an American Ace's mouth.... As a side note, all the pilots under this testing/evaluation projest were qualified Aces with many hours of combat....

But then again, everyone has their own opinion on everything....

The big thing about the Japanese pilots fear of the Corsair was that it was very easy to dogfight, and was quite good, which made pilot quality not as important in some other fighters they faced.. An average, green American pilot could fight the Corsair VERY effectivly..... The average, green Japanese pilot in a Zero was at a very distinct disadvantage..... 

And usually paid the price with his life.....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > The Corsair was an extremely tough plane, the toughest fighter of WWII by all accounts.
> 
> 
> I agree...
> ...



Which Corsair? And was the N1K2 stripped? Almost all Japanese were stripped of armor and guns for post-war tests. Furthermore, their engines were rebuilt, often using American fuel pumps and regulators, and sometimes primary components as well. The famous tests of the Ki-84 which yielded a 429 mph top speed involve such a plane.

It's hardly fair to compare a stripped down and sooped up Japanese test plane to a stock F4U-1a.

And besides, "mock" dogfights do not reveal things like differences in gun characteristics. The F4U could score easily from many firing positions which would be pure luck for the N1K2. And finally, "mock dogfights" almost always become turn fights, something that was not really done by smart pilots in WWII.

I'd point out that my Dad, who flew both the F4U-4B and the AD-2 thru AD-4 Skyraider, said that the Skyraider typically won "mock dogfights", but in a real fight it would have had no chance.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

a double name post??


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> a double name post??



oops, i'll fix it!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 23, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Not from an American Ace's mouth.... As a side note, all the pilots under this testing/evaluation projest were qualified Aces with many hours of combat....
> 
> But then again, everyone has their own opinion on everything....
> 
> ...



Mock dogfights are relatively meaningless. They almost always degenerate into a turn fight. The fact that the opposing plane would have been dead before it got to that point is usually overlooked and it comes down to which plane can stick on the other's tail after a long series of passes. This is not what actual dogfighting was about from 1943 on, the US pilots avoided such fights.

The main advantages for American pilots were plane speed and the guns. It was just much easier to be effective with 6 x .50 calibers and 400 rounds per gun than it was with 4 x 20mm (or less) with 150 rounds per gun. The Ballistics, fire time, and volume of fire all made it much easier to score hits, and he who scores first usually wins!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

> Mock dogfights are relatively meaningless. They almost always degenerate into a turn fight.


Not so with the testing that these men did.. The went through many different attack approaches and vectors, as well as different altitudes and combat styles.... I was told this by someone who did it..... 

I do not assume that this man had anything to prove by saying the Shiden N1K2 was a better dogfighter than the F4U-4D, especially since he shot down 11 aircraft in his time flying a Hog....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

The American pilot testing the N1K2 postwar was almost certainly better than the average Japanese pilot at the end of the war. Quality control in among Japanese industry should also be considered. As was mention, quality of construction, maintainence, even fuel, were all dramatically slipping in late-war Japan. In real-world conditions, the F4U certainly enjoyed these adavantages along with many other intangibles.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 23, 2004)

You do understand, however, that the Shiden was an "aces-only" machine, and was thus saved from rookies and Kamikaze work, right?


Sorta like the Jv44 of Japanese aircraft...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

That was because of the relatively low numbers produced. If Japan had been able to produce more of them there would have been a number of poorly trained pilots in them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

Actually the Shiden was used as a Kamakazie at the end of the war....

And u bring up all very valid points LG.....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 24, 2004)

No, actually, it wasn't.


The Japanese, seeing its potential, and knowing not to waste such a fine aircraft, saved it from that duty.


Actually, I'm not sure about the N1K1, but I do know the N1K2 was saved...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

Sorry i should have been more specific.. I was referring to the Shiden in general... The Shiden-Kai was reserved as u stated...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> You do understand, however, that the Shiden was an "aces-only" machine, and was thus saved from rookies and Kamikaze work, right?
> 
> Sorta like the Jv44 of Japanese aircraft...



Actually, if you read Sabaru Sakai's statements on this subject, that is not true. Within the Japanese system, status was more significant than skill. Pilots with status got promoted over those with skill, and these pilots also got the best planes. And furthermore, "aces" didn't get a bye on Kamakazi missions.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > Mock dogfights are relatively meaningless. They almost always degenerate into a turn fight.
> 
> 
> Not so with the testing that these men did.. The went through many different attack approaches and vectors, as well as different altitudes and combat styles.... I was told this by someone who did it.....
> ...



Well, I've read over some of the Middletown Air Depot test reports, and I sure didn't see anything like that comment about the George. The plane that stood out was the (heavily rebuilt) Ki-84 Frank. Are you sure you are not confusing the two?

I assume you mean "F4U-1D" ??? (there was no -4D, and the -4 totally outclasses the N1K2 or any other Japanese fighter).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

Just to be clear, there were 971 production model N1K1 Shiden's and 415 N1K2 Shiden Kai's produced during WWII. Quite a few of the N1K2's were produced in 1945 and many of them were never delivered to combat units. Furthermore, many of the N1K2's were modified to carry 4 x 550 lbs bombs and were protected in caves awaiting the US invasion of Japan.

The point is very few N1K2's actually saw combat in WWII, probably 200 or so at best.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

Which would be a relatively small number of the total number of Japanese fighters allowing the Japanese to put only there very best pilots in the planes. That tends to skew any actual combat results in the Shiden's favor. Also, there probably was not enough combat to make any truly accurate conclusions on its effectiveness as a fighters.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Which would be a relatively small number of the total number of Japanese fighters allowing the Japanese to put only there very best pilots in the planes. That tends to skew any actual combat results in the Shiden's favor. Also, there probably was not enough combat to make any truly accurate conclusions on its effectiveness as a fighters.



Again, I have to point out that the IJN didn't operate that way. Status was more important than skill. A Japanese pilot from a "good family" even if less skilled would get promoted over one from a not so "good family", and would get better planes too.

Besides, where are you finding any results that favor the Shiden? As far as I know they may have done a little better than the Zero but they still got trounced by US pilots.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 24, 2004)

Merry Christmas Everyone take care and celebrate safely!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

There have been some records for the Shiden posted earlier in this thread. 

I am aware that class status and rank played a clear part in the advancement of Japanese pilots. Nevertheless, the key unit operating the Shiden was the 343rd Kokutai and it was not without reason that they were called the "Squadron of Experts." They were the very best pilots left to the IJN, including men like Sakai and Nishizawa.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 24, 2004)

Told ya! 

Kidding...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 24, 2004)

You are right, that was the best of what they had left. But really, after Midway and the Marianas there was not much left in terms of quality IJN pilots. Asside from a handful of real "experts" the rest of the pilots in that squadron were really just those who'd been lucky enough to survive. Remember, at this point Sakai only had one eye and other injuries, and if it were not for the severe shortage of qualified pilots, would not even have been considered for such a unit.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 24, 2004)

I heard that kamikazes had a toll on qualified pilots, too...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> I heard that kamikazes had a toll on qualified pilots, too...



Even Sabaru Sakai was sent on a Kamakazi mission. He failed to locate a target in the fog and had to ditch (or maybe he was just smart and imagined the fog 8) )

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 25, 2004)

I thought the Kamikazi were sealed in their cockpits. Not always the case?


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> I thought the Kamikazi were sealed in their cockpits. Not always the case?



I don't think it was even usually the case. As far as I know, only the Baka bombs (jet powered, dropped from a Betty) had sealed cockpits and that was to keep them cheap. The pilot got into it and the canopy was then put on and screwed down, it had no hinge mechanism.

Kamakazi's were volunteers. Their was a lot of pressure to volunteer, but their were pleanty of volunteers for such missions. It was often one of those "can't say no without loosing face when your comrades are volunteering" situations for the experianced pilots, but the inexperianced ones were pure volunteers, usually just kids.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

Even if it is, the transport is a pointless piece of crap. Hovercraft do the job much better.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Even if it is, the transport is a pointless piece of crap. Hovercraft do the job much better.



Say what? Me thinks you maybe had one to many beers this X-mas eve!

 

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 25, 2004)

Or the wrong thread.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Or the wrong thread.



That's what I meant... drink beer, confuse threads!

Hmmm... I think I'll go down two shots of tequila and go flying in Fighter Ace. Interesting to see how quickly my piloting skills go down as the alcohol kicks in!

 

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

Don't blame alcohol, that's just not nice. My computer threw a fit when putting it on another thread and I pressed back on to this thread without realising, then copy and pasted - thinking I was still on the other thread - and BAM...wrong thread.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 25, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Don't blame alcohol, that's just not nice. My computer threw a fit when putting it on another thread and I pressed back on to this thread without realising, then copy and pasted - thinking I was still on the other thread - and BAM...wrong thread.



LOL - I was just kiddin ya because of your signature m8!


----------



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

it's christmas day!!!! i've just tried running IL-2 FB but it's upside down .........................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 25, 2004)

Merry Christmas, lanc!  




the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's christmas day!!!! i've just tried running IL-2 FB but it's upside down .........................



Upside down?


----------



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

yeah the program runs perfectly, but it's upside down.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

I know Sakai considered a suicide attack on the mission he was wounded. He initially believed he was as good as dead and did not want his death to be meaningless. As I understand it, a lot of the Kamikaze pilots felt that way. They were certain they would die eventually. If you die slamming into a carrier you are just as dead as if a Hellcat had flamed you but your death hurt the enemy a lot more.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 26, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I know Sakai considered a suicide attack on the mission he was wounded. He initially believed he was as good as dead and did not want his death to be meaningless. As I understand it, a lot of the Kamikaze pilots felt that way. They were certain they would die eventually. If you die slamming into a carrier you are just as dead as if a Hellcat had flamed you but your death hurt the enemy a lot more.



Once the VT proximity fuse came into service in late 1943, the massive increase in the number of 40mm Bofors installed on US warships, along with better US fighters and their numerical superiority, any dive bomber or torpedo plane attacking a major US Fleet was a suicide attack.

I cannot stress how much of an advance the VT fuse really was. It alone suprasses all the German "super weapons" in terms of impact on the war. It made air attacks against any significantly defended target virtual suicide missions - especially naval targets using large numbers of radar aimed 5" guns.

From The World's Best Battleship: The Sequel! of the Nihon Kaigun (Combinedfleet.com) website (an excellent site for IJN info):



> GENERAL COMMENTS: Iowa and SoDak have by far the best heavy AA suite of the seven. The 5"/38, coupled with the Mark 37 fire-control system, was the best heavy AA system of the war. Period. The total throw weight of the American BBs dwarfs the other vessels, and throw weight is really important, because in a very real sense anti-aircraft fire is a numbers game: the more lead you've got in the air, the better off you are. Coupled with proximity-fuzed 5" shells (which at least tripled the effectiveness of a 5" round when it first appeared, and by 1945 had multiplied it's lethality by a factor of six), the American 5" AA battery is incomparable.
> http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_second.htm



Virtually all US warships in 1943 carried significant numbers of both 5" and 40mm Bofors AA guns, and most above the DD level had radar aiming systems. The Japanese knew this and basically felt "if you were going to die anyway you might as well make sure you inflict damage on the enemy".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

that's the way i'd look at it...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 26, 2004)

If i recall correctly, and i know i am, there were many Kamikaze attackers that did not fail in their mission after 1943....


----------



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

the kamikaze weren't as successfully as the japs had hoped or had made out it their press..................


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

They thought it was going to be one plane for one ship, when even when the ship was sunk it took around 4 planes to strike it at very least.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 26, 2004)

Actually there is a jet aircraft that the Japanese designed JUST 4 the Kamikaze use: the Kugisho Okha 22 - 
Wingspan: 4.1 m (13 ft 6 in)
Length: 6.9 m (22 ft 7 in) 
Height: 1.2 m (3 ft 9 in) 
Weight: Empty, 545 kg (1,202 lb) 
and it carried a 600kg warhead that is good 4 splitting Allied warships in half but they, like many other new models, had come out 2 late and saw very limited service.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

'Twas fast, but all in all, crap.

It was first of all, a rocket, and second, very vulnerable due to the fact that its Betty mothership was a sitting duck...


On its first operational mission, all the motherships were destroyed before they were even in striking range of the target!


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> Actually there is a jet aircraft that the Japanese designed JUST 4 the Kamikaze use: the Kugisho Okha 22 -
> Wingspan: 4.1 m (13 ft 6 in)
> Length: 6.9 m (22 ft 7 in)
> Height: 1.2 m (3 ft 9 in)
> ...



Ya, that's the baku bomb. They were not particularly successful. It was hard to hit the target with it, even if it was totally undefended. And the Betty's carrying them were quite vulnerable.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 27, 2004)

The Betty was arguably the most vulnerable bomber of the war since it carried so much fuel and so little armor. And the Baka's could avoid the fighters but still had to run a very impressive gauntlet of AA fire just to get near a US carrier. The effectiveness of the American defenses was the reason many kamikaze attacks were made against the out-lying DDs instead of capital ships.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Betty was arguably the most vulnerable bomber of the war since it carried so much fuel and so little armor. And the Baka's could avoid the fighters but still had to run a very impressive gauntlet of AA fire just to get near a US carrier. The effectiveness of the American defenses was the reason many kamikaze attacks were made against the out-lying DDs instead of capital ships.



The Betty was also hurt by the fact its tail gunner could only traverse the gun slightly to the left or right. US pilots knew they could just sit on its six slightly low and skid to fire right into the side of it with virtually no chance of taking fire from the gunner.

Again, the biggest problem for the Baka, once it was released, was that it was very hard to manuver. Pilots had a hard time hitting the target ship even w/o any defensive fire. And Baka pilots had no real hands on experiance in the thing - they had to learn on their first and only flight.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 27, 2004)

The first model Bakas (#11 and #21 I believe) were driven by 3 solid propellant rocket engines. This relied on a close launch as there was little endurance from the rockets. To extend the range jet verisons were built. A later version (#22) was the jet powered version. However the jet was a bit of an oddity. It wasnt a true jet in the sense that the compressor at the front of the jet was driven by a turbine at the back of the jet. This jet actually used a small gasoline engine to turn the compressor stages of the jet, just like the Italian Caproni Campini CC2. The Italians referred to this design as the "Thermojet". Finally the #43 was built with an actual turbojet.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

Were those versions actually used? If so did they have any success?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 27, 2004)

The only ones Ive ever read that were used were the rocket powered versions mainly the #11 but a few #21's. They really came out about the time Okinawa was invaded and a few hits were scored. Notably the USS West Virginia that was greatly damaged, other hits were made on the USS Alpine, Archerner and Tyrrell. 

On another raid the USS Mannert L. Abele was hit midships breaking the ship in two sinking it almost immediatley. The USS Jeffers hit one with AAA fire and the resulting explosion although not a direct hit did cause enough damage that the Jeffers had to leave the area. In the same raid the USS Stanly was hit by one midships, but the warhead didnt detonate. Instead it traveled through the ship out the other side. Another Baka missed the Sanly and exploded in the sea beside the ship and caused some damage.

Later on different dates the USS Shea was put out of action and deemed beyond repair, the USS Gayety was severely damaged and the USS Hugh W. Hadley was hit so severly that it was deemed beyond repair.

From the number of Bakas launched and the damage that resulted I would say they were becoming fairly effective. Combined with the waves of suicide missions using propeller driven aircraft I would definatly not want to be sitting on a ship off the coast of Okinawa and wouldnt even want to think about an invasion of Japan (anyone ever read about Ketsu-Go, the planned counter offensive to an Allied invasion??) 

The greatest drawback to the whole scheme however was that each time an attack was launched almost none of the Betty bombers would return. Japan could keep the supply of Bakas going but I dont think they were expecting the great loss of the Betty's. Thats why they tried to redesign the Baka for more range so more Betty's could survive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 27, 2004)

I don't believe the jet-powered Bakas ever saw service. What would have been interesting (and extremely lethal) would have been if the Japanese had considered making a land-based version of the Baka (similar to the German V-1). True it would not have been able to hit the carrier groups, but it would have been devestating to those lumbering invasion ships sitting just off the beach.


----------



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

if they could hit them..........


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 27, 2004)

I have to go back to the F-4U4 as best, it still held it's own in the '58/'59 for the French. I also seem to remember a skirmish in the late '60s but I can't remember for sure - maybe LG has the info as a Coursair buff.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 27, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I have to go back to the F-4U4 as best, it still held it's own in the '58/'59 for the French. I also seem to remember a skirmish in the late '60s but I can't remember for sure - maybe LG has the info as a Coursair buff.



The F4U-4 was the best, pretty much without competition.

BTW, it is F4U. Navy coding was very different than USAAF coding:

F4U-4 = F(Fighter) 4(4th type from this manufacturer) U(Vought) -4(version)

F6F-3 = F(fighter) 6(6th type from this manufacturer) F(Grumman) -3(version)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

You're saying like a He-162 with a warhead in the front, LG?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 27, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I have to go back to the F-4U4 as best, it still held it's own in the '58/'59 for the French. I also seem to remember a skirmish in the late '60s but I can't remember for sure - maybe LG has the info as a Coursair buff.
> ...



Sorry, It's a habit I need to break!


----------



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

thanks for the info there................


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

On the side subject of jet engines: I read once about a jet biplane about 1909. It also had a gas engine running the compressor stages. The builder while testing the engine on the ground lost it and the plane got into the air, flew for a short distance when the owner (he wasn't a pilot and did not want to be) delibertly crashed it before it could attain apreciable speed or altitude.

I don't remember the source and have not found the reference so I can't confirm it - boy would that have changed history.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 28, 2004)

I read about that somewhere too - fascinating really


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

The Kamakizi were never viable as a wepon, it's not possible to trade a pilot and airplane even for something as large as a ship. The fact that it was many pilots/planes for each strike and may take several strikes made it even worse.

Even dumber they were used tacticaly and not strategicaly. Had they gone for the non armored troop ships and munition ships they would have made major impact on war plans as well as attitudes tword the war - maybe even better surender terms.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> The Kamakizi were never viable as a wepon, it's not possible to trade a pilot and airplane even for something as large as a ship. The fact that it was many pilots/planes for each strike and may take several strikes made it even worse.
> 
> Even dumber they were used tacticaly and not strategicaly. Had they gone for the non armored troop ships and munition ships they would have made major impact on war plans as well as attitudes tword the war - maybe even better surender terms.



More likely they'd have gotten themselves a 3rd nuke.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

Yup.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

There were no surrender terms. We demanded unconditional surrender, even when they tried to negotiate. It may have prolonged the war, but I doubt there woudl have been any negotiated peace. There was way too much distrust.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

It was not so much distrust. The IJA didn't want to accept surrender because it surely meant their loss of power in Japan. When Hirohito finally decided to surrender, a faction of the IJA tried to institude a coup to stop him.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 29, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I have to go back to the F-4U4 as best, it still held it's own in the '58/'59 for the French. I also seem to remember a skirmish in the late '60s but I can't remember for sure - maybe LG has the info as a Coursair buff.



Your thinking of the 1969 "Soccer War" between Honduras and El Salvador. One Honduran pilot Capt. Fernando Soto had 3 kills during this short war flying an F4U-5. His first kill was an El Salvadorian P-51D. Two P-51's were attacking Sotos wingman whos guns were jammed. Soto went after the two when one P-51 broke right and tried to outturn Soto. Soto was able to turn inside the P-51 and put a burst of 20mm cannon fire into the P-51 blowing its wing off. 

Later the same day Soto made two kills against El Salvadorian FG-1 Corsairs. The first kill came as Soto and his wingman spotted the FG-1's and dove on them from above, he fired into one Corsair and it caught fire with the pilot bailing out. Soto shot past the second Corsair and it was soon on his tail. He kept trying to shake the El Salvadorian Corsair but couldnt, he finally performed a split-S and pulled out of it halfway through. The El Salvadorian Corsair continued with the split-S and Soto was then able to get on his tail. Sotos first burst of 20mm cannon fire blew off an aileron, while his second burst exploded the El Salvadorian Corsair.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

More likely they'd have gotten themselves a 3rd nuke.[/quote]

Possibly. My reference was to earlier invasions before we had/just getting operational nukes Okinawa and Iwo Jima included. The loss of life would have impacted the US attitude to the war. Of course it could have had the opposite effect to! Happily we'll never know.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 30, 2004)

The Kamikaze were unlikely to change the course of the war, but I can understand the rational behind it. It was clear to the military leaders in Japan that they were in a desporate situation and desporate measures were required. Add in the hatred and fear of Americans Japanese propoganda produced, the national code of honor, and a religious desire to die for the emperor and its not so hard to understand.


----------



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

there we cirtainly no shortage of volenteers...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

No there wasn't. There really wasn't that much of a shortage of aircraft. The Japanese had stockpiled something like 10,000 aircraft of various types to be used in Kamikaze attacks in defense of the home islands. Had the Japanese turned them loose on the invasion beaches, the results would have been absolutely horrific.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> No there wasn't. There really wasn't that much of a shortage of aircraft. The Japanese had stockpiled something like 10,000 aircraft of various types to be used in Kamikaze attacks in defense of the home islands. Had the Japanese turned them loose on the invasion beaches, the results would have been absolutely horrific.



Many, in fact most, of those aircraft were quite obsolete. The pilots they had to fly them were grossly inexperianced. US air superiorty would have been nearly absolute, newer and better radar aimed guns on dedicated AA ships were being deployed. Those planes would have had to reach the invasion fleet, and then actually hit those ships, and very few would have succeeded. Yes they would have inflicted losses, but I think it would have been far fewer than implied in your post. 

The massive pre-invasion gas attacks planned for use against the Japanese had an invasion been necessary would have been truly horrific. An estimated 5 million civilian deaths minimum, with over 10 million probable. Gas shells would also have been used against the beaches and other Japanese positions.

Also, I kinda wonder if, after having gassed a Port really hard, it could not then have been taken nearly intact by paratroopers + landing forces?

American losses would probably have ranged between 300 and 500 thousand had an invasion of Japan been necessary. But Japanese losses would probably have run well over 25 million, and there would have been nothing left of the Japanese culture at all.

The A-bomb was the best thing that ever happened to the Japanese. I know that sounds heartless, but it is really the truth.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

but the entire japaneese population (don'y know how many that was but let's just say it's not a small ammount) would be waiting for the americans, ready to attack.............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 2, 2005)

The kamikaze weren't volunteers, it was a choice between death and the disgrace of them and their family. If they refused or came back alive they were shunned by japanese society


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

but they were more than willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the good of their nation..........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 2, 2005)

For their families, not for their nation


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

no it was just as much for their nation.........


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2005)

Actually, there was no shortage of volunteers. They were ordered to return if they could not find a target. There is an excellent book about it called Kamikaze by Raymond Lamont-Brown. I have been reading it off and on for awhile.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the entire japaneese population (don'y know how many that was but let's just say it's not a small ammount) would be waiting for the americans, ready to attack.............



It is highly doubtful there would have been that many able to attack after suffering extended Sarin gas and Anthrax attacks. Without the A-bomb the invasion of Japan was going to be one of absolute annihilation of the Japanese people and culture. The Japanese were totally unprepared to defend against such weapons.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 2, 2005)

Keep in mind that there were several options on the table, including the use of gas. Would it have actually been used is pure speculation now, thankfully. But Sarin was not mentioned in the report and Antrax is a biological weapon, not chemical. The gases mentioned in the report were phosgene, hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 2, 2005)

I've read reports that the Japanese were planning on using chemical and biological weapons against the Americans had there been an invasion.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 3, 2005)

So have I... It would have been a horrible situation if it came down to it.... Give what credit u can to Truman for having the balls to drop Man and Boy....


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2005)

Yes, LG, I have seen that as well. I also read that they found somewhere in the range of 7,000 kamikaze planes in caves, ready for use. It would have been ugly, real ugly.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Keep in mind that there were several options on the table, including the use of gas. Would it have actually been used is pure speculation now, thankfully. But Sarin was not mentioned in the report and Antrax is a biological weapon, not chemical. The gases mentioned in the report were phosgene, hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas.



The British were going to supply Sarin gas. They had huge quantities of it. Anthrax was also developed and available in large quantities in Britain. Churchill had wanted to use it in late 1944 against the Germans but the USAAF (who was to deliver it) dawdled on providing delivery containers and by the time they were available, it was no longer necessary as Germany was on the verge of capitulation. Both weapons were available for use against Japan.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I've read reports that the Japanese were planning on using chemical and biological weapons against the Americans had there been an invasion.



Japan's bio weapons were, for the most part, not in deliverable form. The exception to this would be their "flea bombs", which were of questionable battlefield value (they were more for attack on civilian population centers). As far as I know, Japan had no significant chem-weapons capability, and no meaningful defenses against them either.

Research Unit 731 a bit and you will see what they had and what they didn't have.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2005)

Britain did NOT have huge supplies of Sarin gas. It was one of the G agents that the Germans developed and they only had about a half a ton that was discovered when the Germans surrendered. The report in question mentioned poison gas, but biological weapons were not mentioned.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Britain did NOT have huge supplies of Sarin gas. It was one of the G agents that the Germans developed and they only had about a half a ton that was discovered when the Germans surrendered. The report in question mentioned poison gas, but biological weapons were not mentioned.



You are right, the British didn't have Sarin. My mistake (I should look these things up but sometimes get lazy).

They did have huge stores of Mustard Gas which was to be mixed with diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP), a nerve gas agent making the mustard gas more deadly and also reducing its tendancy to freeze. This was less immeadiatly deadly than Sarin, but much more persistant.

As for anthrax, 



> With a real war on, the American Chemical Warfare Service, with British assistance, built up biowarfare research facilities, including test stations near Dugway and near Pascagoula, Mississippi; a potential production facility at Vigo, near Terra Haute, Indiana; and the master research and development center at Camp Dietrich, Maryland.
> 
> The British work on anthrax, or "N" as it was codenamed, as a weapon led in 1943 to the design of an "N" bomb suitable for mass production by the Americans. This munition weighed 1.8 kilograms (4 pounds). 106 of these "bomblets" were to be packed into a 225 kilogram (500 pound) cluster-bomb canister and dropped over enemy population centers.
> 
> ...



Project "Vegitarian" is also of interest, which involved dropping of Anthrax "cakes" for consumption by German cattle, which would wipe out the German dairy and beef industries and spread infection to the German population potentially killing millions.

Clearly the "N" bombs were available in large quantities and had Chemical weapons been used against the Japanese, I see no reason to believe these would not also have been employed.

You can find a lot of other sources on the Anthrax projects by simply searching on "Anthrax Churchill".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2005)

If you are going to "correct" someone, shouldn't you check your facts first? 

You are going on assumption only with regards to bioweapons being used on the Japanese. The report with the plan clearly stated poison gas. No mention was made of any bio-weapons. Bio-weapons also take time to kill. The goal was for quick kills, using the gases mentioned, the gases would also embed in the pores of the wood construction of the homes in the cities, making them essentially uninhabitable.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you are going to "correct" someone, shouldn't you check your facts first?
> 
> You are going on assumption only with regards to bioweapons being used on the Japanese. The report with the plan clearly stated poison gas. No mention was made of any bio-weapons. Bio-weapons also take time to kill. The goal was for quick kills, using the gases mentioned, the gases would also embed in the pores of the wood construction of the homes in the cities, making them essentially uninhabitable.



I didn't mean to be "correcting" someone, only providing new info. Again, sorry for the error.

As stated in the caption I quoted above, the whole Anthrax project was of the highest security. The chem weapons plans were not revealed until quite recently and any plan to use Anthrax would have been of even higher secrecy. The intention of using such weapons has been denied until proof has been revealed.

Also, weaponized Antrax incapacitates very quickly (a few hours to a day) and kills rather quickly too (a few days). It's a very nasty weapon, and yes it would have made regions uninhabitable for decades.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2005)

That's why poison gas, of any kind, wasn't used by the Germans during World War II. Heinz Guderian rightly stated, gas slows the advance because your own troops have to wait for it to clear. 8)


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2005)

Yep, or everyone has to wear gas masks during the advance. That slows the advance as well because visibility in masks is greatly reduced. I sure wouldn't have wanted to fight that way.


----------



## NightHawk (Feb 5, 2005)

How about this 1 M6A1 'Seiran',
Miscellaneous
Crew: 2
Span: 12.27 meters
Length: 11.64 meters
Height: 4.58 meters
Wing surface: 27.00 sq m.
Wing load: 150 kg/sq m
Weight empty: 3 301 kg
Weight loaded: 4 040 kg


Propulsion
Power (total): 1 400 HP
Specific power: 347 HP / tonne
Maximum speed: 474 kph
Service ceiling: 9 900 meters
Range: 1 189 km
1 Aichi Atsuta 32 engine (1 400 HP)
Production
From: October of 1944 
Until: July of 1945 
Quantity: 26 examples
First flight: October of 1943 


Armament
2 x 250 kg (551-lbs) bombs
1 x 13.2mm Type 2 machine gun

Aichi M6A1 Seiran
Seiran (Clear Sky Storm) is the only submarine-borne aircraft built anywhere in the world with offensive missions as its primary role. Its wings and tail folding system for tight storage. Wings swiveled to lie flat against fuselage. Could be readied for flight in seven minutes by four maintenance people. Florescent paint was applied to all moving parts for night operations. 

The war ended before it could fly its first mission. Flying from large I-400 Class Subs, of 4,500 tons from a watertight hanger capable of accommodating two attack aircraft, and a catapult on the forward deck, five were ordered, with an enlarged hanger for three planes. Plans were formulated to bomb the Panama Canal's lock gates and Navy Anchorage at Ulithi. 

About 30 Seirans were built, only one example, M6A1 1600228 exisits today in the National Air Space Museum collection, at the Udvat-Hazy Center.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 5, 2005)

It can hardly be considered the best naval fighter of World War 2 when it didn't see any action, it wasn't a fighter and there were only 5 built. Impressive idea though.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 5, 2005)

Taking out the Panama canal lock gates would have been a really bad thing for the allies! But I agree, plan_d, sounds more like a light bomber aircraft than a fighter to me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

i wouldn't call it a fighter with 1 mg..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nah me neither...but it looks pretty cool 8) And like plan_D said, it was a novel idea.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That's why poison gas, of any kind, wasn't used by the Germans during World War II. Heinz Guderian rightly stated, gas slows the advance because your own troops have to wait for it to clear. 8)



It wasn't used as an offensive tactical weapon because of the reasons stated. It wasn't used against Britain for fear of retaliation. It wasn't used against the Russians as they invaded Germany because Hitler didn't want to be remembered as the man who made Germany an unlivable wasteland (many German commanders did want to use it againt the Russians).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 5, 2005)

NightHawk said:


> How about this 1 M6A1 'Seiran',
> 
> Aichi M6A1 Seiran
> Seiran (Clear Sky Storm) is the only submarine-borne aircraft built anywhere in the world with offensive missions as its primary role. Its wings and tail folding system for tight storage. Wings swiveled to lie flat against fuselage. Could be readied for flight in seven minutes by four maintenance people. Florescent paint was applied to all moving parts for night operations.
> ...



That was the Navy plan for it. The Army wanted to use them to deliver plauge ridden fleas to US cities using specialized flea dispensing bombs, but the IJN would not cooperate with the IJA.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Feb 6, 2005)

Actually, Hitler wanted a lot of scorched earth policies doing some including gas until his generals refused on a GRAND scale. Then he thought better of being remembered as the man who destroyed Germany


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> NightHawk said:
> 
> 
> > How about this 1 M6A1 'Seiran',
> ...



wow that's a scary thought...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Its a strange thought  Flea bombs?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

do you realise the devistation an outbreak of plague bought about like fleas would spread like wildfire and kill pretty much everyone........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Yeah, but dropping fleas in a bomb from a plane sounds a little funny  Wouldnt the impact klill all the fleas anyway?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

they're very risiliant................


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Its a strange thought  Flea bombs?



Yes it is. They also had a system for dispensing them from balloons. This was the reason for the balloon fire bombing tests conducted in 1945. The fire bombs would result in reports in US newspapers which would give the Japanese intel about the effective dispersion of the balloon based bombing system.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Just shows the difference in resources. The Yanks had A-Bombs, the Japs had a few million fleas in balloons


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> do you realise the devistation an outbreak of plague bought about like fleas would spread like wildfire and kill pretty much everyone........



Not really. Human cleanliness has progressed a long ways since the dark ages. Since the disease is not easly spread from person to person, and it can be treated, it would have caused some havok and some loss of life but would not have been "devestating". Even the tests in China did not prove all that successful.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah, but dropping fleas in a bomb from a plane sounds a little funny  Wouldnt the impact klill all the fleas anyway?



The bombs were designed to fall slowly and burst well above the ground, spraying fleas over an area. The biggest technical issue was keeping the fleas from freezing (which kills them).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2005)

here's an idea to stop them freezing, keep them warm................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2005)

Central Heating systems in the balloons, and how about sleeping bags for long night operations?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2005)

hot water bottles..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)

Now youre just being stupid...go hide in the corner


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2005)

I know im late in this topic and what im going to say has almost garanteed been said, but anyway here my opinion.

The best naval fighter of WWII is in my opinion without doubt the Corsair ! It was fast, maneuverable, tough and packed alot of punch


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2005)

Yeah, not complaining with that 8)


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 20, 2005)

Amen


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 20, 2005)

Hallelujah!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Not right now, im busy


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 20, 2005)

I'll wait.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Good. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

What you laughing at, Custard Cream?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

i thought i was pasty boy??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

It is, but Med uses that phrase and I thought a type of biscuit would suffice


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 22, 2005)

Pasty and Cheese, an interesting combination


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 23, 2005)

it's perfectly normal..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 23, 2005)

Which is more than can be said for either of us!


----------



## slopes-2 (Feb 23, 2005)

joined in late again mines a swordfish and for the record judging by the last few coments YOUR WIERD!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Medvedya (Feb 23, 2005)

Don't worry, you'll soon get used to it. Won't he, Pasty Boy?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2005)

yup........

and i happen to like the name pasty boy..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

What does that make me? Jellied Eel boy?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2005)

batty boy seems more appropriate..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2005)

Indeed


----------



## zeroman (Feb 25, 2005)

For Japanese is Reppu ( A7M1) but in 1945 was too late!
8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

Ah I have heard bits and bobs about the Reppu, and how good it was supposed to be...do yuoy have any information on it? 8)

Welcome to the site as well, my fellow Italian!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah I have heard bits and bobs about the Reppu, and how good it was supposed to be...do yuoy have any information on it? 8)



There is no real info on the performance of the A7M, but like all late war Japanese planes, it was designed around an engine that didn't exist.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think the F4U Corsair was the best! i think it was the best looking too!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Aye! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

> my fellow Italian!



you're about as italian as I am anti-British..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Im good looking, tall, good dress sense and I drive like I think im Senna...Its close enough!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

hey i'm tall, good looking, amazing dress sence (for the farm atleast) and i'm a mean machine behind the weel of a tractor............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

I was actually likening myself to the Italians...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

i was likening myself to the love god that i am............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Considering your the only person here who makes out with sheep that automatically makes you the god...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

making out with sheep??

i should be so lucky........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Well if you cant get sheep how do you expect to have a chance with humans?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

as much as i wanna tell you something right about now i don't want you to compare her to a sheep...........


----------



## GT (Apr 18, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Devin Dilley (Apr 18, 2005)

ya but the f4u was not ranked the best in its class


----------



## Devin Dilley (Apr 18, 2005)

but i do agree with your sayings


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

check this bad boy out................


----------



## Chiron (Apr 19, 2005)

Best Naval Fighter?

I would vote for Corsair or any "late" American fighters, Hellcat..P-38

But, in terms of greatest Naval plane, its Zero for sure. In hands of anf ace, Zero was still a formidable weapon against late American planes.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 19, 2005)

The P-38 was not a "late" American fighter. It was in service throughout America's involvement in WWII.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

Chiron said:


> But, in terms of greatest Naval plane, its Zero for sure. In hands of anf ace, Zero was still a formidable weapon against late American planes.



????

By 1943 the Zero's day was done. Even earlier really, the Wildcat's found they could contend with Zero's very effectively using the "Thatch weave".

There were pleanty of Aces in the Mariana's... they got shot down in droves by Hellcats. Hellcats that were mostly piloted by rookies.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Chiron (Apr 19, 2005)

When I said "great", is not necessary refer to technological superiority. When I said, great, I refer to the plane's impact, and innovation. Japanese innovation in naval fighter design and principle contributed greatly to the modern naval warfare.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

How so? Just what about the Zero is reflected in our Naval fighter designs, other than range (which was always a priority in all US fighters).


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 20, 2005)

Chiron said:


> Best Naval Fighter?
> 
> I would vote for Corsair or any "late" American fighters, Hellcat..P-38
> 
> But, in terms of greatest Naval plane, its Zero for sure. In hands of anf ace, Zero was still a formidable weapon against late American planes.



How is the hellcat a late fighter...?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

well it's later than some


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 20, 2005)

yeah, i guess... not too many though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

but he is right, japan had some of the best pilots of the war, in the hands of an ace even in 1944 the zero was still a very formidable weapon..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

Yea it was - the problem was by 1944 even the best Japanese ace usually found himself in a sky filled with p-38s or F6Fs!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 21, 2005)

I would think that most airplanes that were still flying at the end of the war, fighters I mean, would be formidable in the hands of an ace. You can have the greatest airplane in the world, but it means nothing if you have a marginal pilot in it. Even Fillipino pilts flying P-26s managed to down a couple of Zeroes!  Sometimes it's a matter of skill, sometimes tactics, and sometimes dumb luck. It is often a matter of who sees who first to get the first shot.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

It's pretty darn hard to win when the enemy planes cruise at or above your maximum manuvering speed, are much thougher than yours, have better guns than yours, fly higher than yours, and have radios when you don't.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 22, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> Chiron said:
> 
> 
> > Best Naval Fighter?
> ...



Also the P-38? It kinda served the whole time America were in the war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

> the whole time America were in the war



i would like to take this oppertunnity to make a cheap shot at the americans, i would like to remind you all that the period america was in the war was considderably shorter than most nations


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

But in their defence, look at what they contributed in that relatively short period.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 22, 2005)

I wouldn't consider that a cheap shot. It's true. But the P-38 was in production before America entered the war and was in production throughout. The Hellcat came about after the Americans entered the war. You've had better snipes at the Americans in the past than that, Lanc!


----------



## trackend (Apr 22, 2005)

I'm still a lover of the Corsair once its initial problems had been solved for carrier use it in my opinion was head and shoulders above anything in a similar roll at the time . Am I correct fellas in saying the Corsair carried one of the biggest internal combustion engines fitted in a fighter?.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I wouldn't consider that a cheap shot. It's true. But the P-38 was in production before America entered the war and was in production throughout. The Hellcat came about after the Americans entered the war. You've had better snipes at the Americans in the past than that, Lanc!



i'm sorry


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

trackend said:


> I'm still a lover of the Corsair once its initial problems had been solved for carrier use it in my opinion was head and shoulders above anything in a similar roll at the time . Am I correct fellas in saying the Corsair carried one of the biggest internal combustion engines fitted in a fighter?.



Well, it was a Pratt&Whitney R-2800, same engine as carried in the P-47 and the F6F, though the supercharging/turbocharging was different.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

ok i would like to take this oppertunity to also point out that it was us, the british, that solved many of the corsair's problems, not a great snipe i know but it's sunday morning..........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 24, 2005)

I wouldn't say _many_ of the Corsair's problems. However, it was the Brits who came up with the way to land on the carrier decks. I will give them credit for that. But redoing the oleos, the tail wheel, raising the pilots seat, etc were all done by Vought. 

Still, if you have ever seen a Corsair landing on a carrier, it is a dangerous and scary thing. Good landings are scary enough, when they go bad, it looks really scary!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

hey we also cut part of the wingtip off.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 24, 2005)

The FAA at the time really didn't have a lot of choice. They were hurting for modern fighter aircraft, and the Corsair was available to them in quantity. Some of what they did was simple tricks that worked. Things like wiring shut some of the upper cowling flaps, to prevent oil from splashing onto the windscreen. They developed a unique landing approach, in order to deal with the poor visibility on landing.
In short, they _made_ it work because at the time it was really all they had. They produced some good aces with it too. 

Btw lanc, the wing-tip was trimmed in order to fit it into the RN carrier hangar decks. The head space was less than that of US carriers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

yes i'm aware of that NS, that's why sea fires had double folding wings and the firefly and suchlike had backward folding wings...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 24, 2005)

Well excuuuuuuuuse me!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

sorry skim, i love you really


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 24, 2005)

Heh, heh. Thanks...I think.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2005)

Sorry folks but I am new to this site so be patient. 
On the topic of which is the best Naval fighter can I go for the Shiden which wasn't used on a carrier but was originally a floatplane and was considered to be the best Jap Naval fighter. It had a significant advantage over the Hellcat and probably the Corsair.

As for the crab approach for the Corsair devised by the Royal Navy, it probably helped that it had always been the standard approach used on the Seafire.

PS this is the first forum of this type that I have joined as the standard of the debates by all concerned is very impressive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

thank you, please ignore us when we go off topic, unless of course you want to join in, free love for all!!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hey we also cut part of the wingtip off.........



Yep - cause the Brit carriers were too small for WWII aircraft!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 24, 2005)

Glider said:


> Sorry folks but I am new to this site so be patient.
> On the topic of which is the best Naval fighter can I go for the Shiden which wasn't used on a carrier but was originally a floatplane and was considered to be the best Jap Naval fighter. It had a significant advantage over the Hellcat and probably the Corsair.
> 
> As for the crab approach for the Corsair devised by the Royal Navy, it probably helped that it had always been the standard approach used on the Seafire.
> ...



The Shiden was competative with the Hellcat, which was designed specifically to beat the Zero, as long as the fight was below about 20K. Above 20k the Shiden (George) was in real trouble. However, it was not competitive with the F4U-1d and was no match for the -4. It simply was not fast enough.

We had a Japanese-American member of the FA community who said his uncle, a Zero and then Shiden pilot, used to prey every night before a mission that they would not run into Corsairs.

BTW: read what Sabaru Sakai has to say about the Shiden.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 24, 2005)

Glider said:


> PS this is the first forum of this type that I have joined as the standard of the debates by all concerned is very impressive.



You obviously haven't seen me trying to debate anything Gilder I'm a complete plank I still think a B29 is some kind of tax return form.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

alas i cannot tell a lie, it's true...........


----------



## trackend (Apr 24, 2005)

You rotten swine Lanc how can you say that after all the nice things I haven't said about you.


----------

