Best naval fighter II

[plan_D]

I was trying to make the point that not all the 32-35 thousand 109 (variants) were A) Not built by Germany B) Not built Pre-War or War. Many post-war 109s (that go into the overall number) were built by Spain after the war.

Besides that, we created 14, 231 Hurricanes. 20,334 Spitfires and 2,556 Seafire (excluding conversions). On top of the other many different aircraft.
Also we produced other weapons and products in equal or greater quantities. Britain had the second largest economy in the world in 1936.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

please god don't bring the P-38 into the argument MP, it'll turn into a thread where we argue about which was better, the P-38 or the mossie.....................

 

[MP-Willow]

Ok the P-38 was not a Navy fighter really, so sorry if I did bring it in.

So to narrow our focus why not restrict discussion to aircraft that were ship lanched? in that casr I would say the A6M2 is a good pick. But it did suffer after 1943.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think the the general concenus is that it would have to be a carrier based aircraft, and the zero's a pretty good choice........................

 

[MP-Willow]

ok then we have talked a good bit of the Zero, but why not more. Range, roll and clime. Along with Turn and good arms made it the top fighter in the Pacific until 1943. Any other coment? Cons?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Cons?

little armour, no self sealing fuel tanks..........................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Only as good as its pilot. An average pilot in a Hellcat was still a force to be reckoned with. The Zero was only a really effective weapon in the hands of a master. The Corsair, and especially the -4 was the best carrier-based fighter of the war. I know how much you all like the Shiden but the -4 was faster in every aspect of flight AND, unlike the Shiden, carrier based.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

there was a varient for carrier operations, the problem was that they didn't really have any carriers to put it on, and the fact that it was designed as a land based interceptor......................

 

[Lightning Guy]

Total production of the N1K4-A, carrier-based version was one prototype. The type didn't even see land-based service. I think to be considered the best carrier fighter you need to have had at least entered service and preferably actually flown off of a carrier.

 

[MP-Willow]

Lightening Guy, I was thinking that as I read and wrote for this. The F4U was good, but I would feel a little scared about it because of the poor vision over the nose. Landing on a carrier must have been a real advanture, over the normal crazy one it already is.

 

[Lightning Guy]

It was difficult which is why many pilots prefered the easy-to-fly Hellcat. However, the Corsair easily out-performed the Hellcat. In my opinion, the Bearcat was better than either. It WAS in service before the end of WWII (unlike the carrier-capable Shiden) but did not see action.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I think to be considered the best carrier fighter you need to have had at least entered service and preferably actually flown off of a carrier.

if you look i NEVER said it was the best carrier fighter.......................

 

[Lightning Guy]

I know you didn't, but some people on this site have expressed that opinion.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but if it was successfull used as sutch then it surely would have benn a contender....................

 

[Lightning Guy]

If it had been used . . . maybe. I still believe the Corsair was superior and that both the Bearcat or the Reppu (A7M) were better designs having equal armament, equal or better maneuverability, and considerably better performance.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok the corsair couldn't beat the shiden's 4x20mm, and the shiden could out manouver it............................

 

[Lightning Guy]

I was making reference to the Bearcat and Reppu with those comments. However, the 6 .50cals of the Corsair were more than adequate and it's speed, climb, and diving advantages would have allowed it to fight the Shiden without too much difficulty. The only thing the Shiden was clearly superior in was rate of turn.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and as i mentioned, armourment.................

 

[Lightning Guy]

It was supperior in armament but in fighter v. fighter combat 4 20mm is sort of overkill. The 6 .50cals in the Corsair were more than capable of knocking down the Shiden.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i never doubted that, i'm just saying that as we are comparing the two aircraft, the shiden had better armourment........................