Best naval fighter II

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant
Apr 29, 2004
So the Corsair pilot can escape where the Shiden has the advantage and the Shiden cannot do the same. Above 20,000ft the Shiden is losing power at a ridiculous rate (which is about where the R-2800 on the Corsair really gets going). So only below 20,000ft and only if the Corsair is tied to a specific location can we begin to consider the Shiden better. By the way, the -4 Corsair is 10mph faster at sea lever that the Shiden is at its best altitude.
If the Shiden is above the Corsair at sea level it can dive down on it. Putting it that way, the Corsair is only better above 20,000 ft and on a fighter sweep.
If the Shiden managed to come out of the Sun, or cloud when the Corsair was none the wiser those 4*20mm would rip it apart.
And that proves nothing because it is the same if the positions are reversed. If the Corsair comes out from a cloud of behind the sun it will make short work on the Shiden. And the Corsair is superior to the Shiden above 20,000ft regardless of the mission because the Shiden has no power (which means no sustained maneuvers of any kind) and the speed differential is approaching 100mph.
The Shiden was much harder to kill for the Corsair as the the Corsair was for the Shiden.
you make it sound like as soon as the corsair pilot sees the shiden he can floor it and he'll be safe, it would take him a while to get up to speed, the shiden would have been able to keep up with it for a while.......................
Well at 100ft the Corsair pulls back on the stick and waves bye-bye. The Shiden can't climb with it either. Also, I'm having trouble finding info on this, but I believe the Corsair would have been a match for the Shiden in a roll. In tests between a F4U-1D and an A6M5 the Corsair was equal or better to the Zero at all speeds. I know that's not the same plane but I don't see the Shiden being much (if any) better than a Zero in a roll.
Never assume, check. No military thinking at all. :lol:
I don't have anything here that would confirm or deny that. And I'm always a little skeptical of what someone just sticks on their website.
Well, ideally, an editor and or publisher have checked the book. Nobody ever checks the websites.
it's the same with me, out of the many many books i have on the subject, most give different information, the biggest difference had to be that one source says the meteor F.3 could hit 415mph, another says the same planes could do 548mph..........
Most of the sources I've seen have been closer to the 415mph mark. In the case the 262 would have been clearly superior the the Meteor.

Users who are viewing this thread