Best Naval Fighter

• Nov 27, 2004

• #61

Yeomanz

Senior Airman

317

0

Nov 25, 2004

UK

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

 

• Nov 27, 2004

• #62

Hot Space

Tech Sergeant

2,168

0

Jan 22, 2004

Bournemouth, UK

www.southernparanormal.com

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

Hot Space

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #63

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

The Zero had phenomenal range as well though 8)

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #64

Yeomanz

Senior Airman

317

0

Nov 25, 2004

UK

well Said 8)

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #65

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #66

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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)

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #67

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,611

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

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.

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #68

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #69

Yeomanz

Senior Airman

317

0

Nov 25, 2004

UK

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.

Click to expand...

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #70

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #71

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Thats the kinda thing i'd do..

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #72

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #73

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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.

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #74

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #75

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Nah manoeverability.

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #76

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #77

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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)

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #78

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,931

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #79

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,259

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• Nov 28, 2004

• #80

Hot Space

Tech Sergeant

2,168

0

Jan 22, 2004

Bournemouth, UK

www.southernparanormal.com

cheddar cheese said:

The Zero had phenomenal range as well though 8)

Click to expand...

Yep, nothing could beat the Zero for range

Hot Space