Best Naval Fighter

[cheddar cheese]

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]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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]

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]

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

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

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]

I think the P-38 was relatively small.

 

[evangilder]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

It was a joke lanc...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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