Best Pacific Fighter II

I assume the last number is 1945.

Do you mean that the F6F shot down, for example, 2,484 more planes than the F4U or do you mean that the F6F show down 2,484 planes, which was more than the F4U?

Not picking or anything, just trying to figure out exactly what you mean!

Sorry about the confusion. The numbers present how many more/less planes the Hellcat shot over the F4U

Ah k, what I thought. Thanks for the numbers!

I think the Brewster Buffalo should be on the list, it did it's job the best it could.

In looking back at the beginning of this thread, the title is best Pacific fighter. I would interpret this as most capable not most influential. If we were trying to identify most influential or important Hellcat might be the one although the Wildcat might be a better pick. If not for the Wildcat the early Pacific battles won by the US might have gone the other way. Just think about the USN fighting in 1942 with the Buffalo in stead of the Wildcat. However the thread is about BEST PTO fighter. I would suggest that means best all around. The test of the F6F5, F4U1D versus Zeke 52 has been quoted since in that test the Corsair was only 4 mph faster than the F6F5 AT BEST ALTITUDE. I went back and looked at the test and although the F4U1D was only 4 mph faster than the F6F5, the test against the Zeke as to climb and speeds at SL, 5K, 10K, 15K, 20K, 25K, and 30K showed that the Corsair outperformed the Zeke in all those categories substantially better than the Hellcat did. Incidently, the FM2 was in that test and the Zeke 52 beat it pretty soundly. I also reviewed the test between an F4U1, F6F3 versus an FW190A4 and the Corsair showed a marked superiority over the Hellcat although both would be able, according to the Navy, be able to cope nicely with the FW, if flown to their strengths.
To try to put the legendary, famous or infamous "weakness" of the Corsair, the oil cooler, in perspective as well as the difficulties in landing, because one has visions of Corsairs falling out of the sky everwhere with oil coolers polluting the atmosphere and poor ensigns crashing on every other landing, let us look at some numbers. The Hellcat had 12275 built during WW2. They flew 66530 combat sorties. 553 were lost to triple A, 270 were lost to enemy AC,and they had 340 operational losses. They shot down 1445 enemy bombers, 3718 enemy fighters and dropped 6503 tons of bombs. The Corsair had 11514 built in WW2. They flew 64051 combat sorties. There were 349 Corsairs lost to triple A, 189 shot down by enemy fighters, and had 230 operational losses. They shot down 478 enemy fighters, 1662 enemy bombers and dropped 15621 tons of bombs. Based on the record, I submit that, as far as operational losses are concerned and as far as the famous(infamous?) oil cooler weakness is concerned there is no material difference between the two fighters. I also suggest that if the USN had gone on and deployed the Corsair on carriers as originally was intended, along with the Hellcat when it became available, the operational losses of the Corsair would have been higher but that would have been more than offset by it's performance advantages over the Hellcat. I also wonder why, if it was discovered in 1945, that the oil cooler was an Achilles Heel for the Corsair, that the Navy or Vought or Harry Truman or somebody did not relocate the oil cooler in the F4U4s and 5s built post war as was done in the AU and F4U7?

F4U. It is the superior plane.

I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.

davparlr said:

F4U. It is the superior plane.

I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.

Click to expand...

Yes. The Hellcat was good, but not good enough to take on the Kamikazis.

renrich said:

Just think about the USN fighting in 1942 with the Buffalo in stead of the Wildcat.

Click to expand...

I think the F2A-2 Buffalo would have been just as good or even better than the Wildcat. I believe one US pilot once said that he preferred the F2A-2 over the F4F, but not the F2A-3. In the end, they both did not do very favourable at the beginning of the war. It is my opinion that his was more caused by the quality and experience of the pilots then the by the supposed faults in both aircraft. I really think they both waere quite equal (apart from the later F2A-3 version and would have done equally well or bad, given the change.

Marcel, one of the problems with the Buffalo was a weak landing gear. That alone was enough to keep it from being used by the USN. It could not be fitted all the way with SS tanks either. By the time it was fitted with armor and up gunned, then it 's performance was so degraded, it could not compete with a Wildcat, much less a Zeke. Remember, a carrier borne AC has certain requirements that can be omitted in a land based AC. The various Wildcats, including the overweight F4F4 held their own with the Zeke in the early war. It is a misconception that the Zeke dominated the Wildcat in 1942. The Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered.

The Brewster Buffalo was one of the few airplanes that seemed to get worse with upgrades.

davparlr said:

F4U. It is the superior plane.

I think the Navy voted this way when it kept the F4U as its primary prop fighter through the Korean war.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be a smart ass, but didn't the Navy only have 2 prop fighters in Korea (F7F Tigercat being the other)?

syscom3 said:

Yes. The Hellcat was good, but not good enough to take on the Kamikazis.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you base that on?

vikingBerserker said:

What exactly do you base that on?

Click to expand...

The Corsairs (and the soon to be deployed Bearcats) had the performance margins needed to take them on.

The USN needed fighters with fast rates of climb to be able to intercept them.

I went for the Ki100 for the simple reason that the JAAF thought it was a better fighter than the Ki84 a plane that was second to none in itself.
Who am I to disagree with the people that flew it.

vikingBerserker said:

Not trying to be a smart ass, but didn't the Navy only have 2 prop fighters in Korea (F7F Tigercat being the other)?

Click to expand...

The F7F was used primarily as a night fighter and, as far as I know, the F8F, while a widely deployed fighter, played little role in the Korean War. After WWII, the F6F basically disappeared while the F4U soldiered on impressively.

renrich said:

Marcel, one of the problems with the Buffalo was a weak landing gear. That alone was enough to keep it from being used by the USN. It could not be fitted all the way with SS tanks either. By the time it was fitted with armor and up gunned, then it 's performance was so degraded, it could not compete with a Wildcat, much less a Zeke. Remember, a carrier borne AC has certain requirements that can be omitted in a land based AC. The various Wildcats, including the overweight F4F4 held their own with the Zeke in the early war. It is a misconception that the Zeke dominated the Wildcat in 1942. The Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered.

Click to expand...

I think using an adequate engine would have solved many problems with the Buffalo. The landing gear failures was a problem indeed, but a redesign of the struts again solved most of the problems, although landing gear failure still occured.
The reason that "the Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered" the fact that these aircraft were dispensed over units with hardly any experience and most fights with the Buffalo was in the early months of 1942. So this was at a time that the wildcat wasn't doing very well, either. After this the Buffalo was already retreated. The wildcat had the fortune of being retained longer, thus giving the crew time to gain experience. Tactics (learned from experience) were the main reason why the Wildcat sometimes could hold their own against the Zero. I believe the Buffalo would have been able to that as well given the chance.
I firmly believe that the retreat of the Buffalo had more to do with it's manufacturer than with the features of the a/c itself. We all know how inadequate the Brewster factory was, slow production and later even bad quality. The US government didn't have faith in them, so the defeats were an easy argument to get rid of Brewster. I also think the Buffalo was an easy victim to be the main reason of defeat in the first months of 1942 (f.i. Singapore). You could not blame yourself, so blame the equipment...

Marcel said:

I think using an adequate engine would have solved many problems with the Buffalo. The landing gear failures was a problem indeed, but a redesign of the struts again solved most of the problems, although landing gear failure still occured.
The reason that "the Japanese fighters had their way with Buffaloes wherever encountered" the fact that these aircraft were dispensed over units with hardly any experience and most fights with the Buffalo was in the early months of 1942. So this was at a time that the wildcat wasn't doing very well, either. After this the Buffalo was already retreated. The wildcat had the fortune of being retained longer, thus giving the crew time to gain experience. Tactics (learned from experience) were the main reason why the Wildcat sometimes could hold their own against the Zero. I believe the Buffalo would have been able to that as well given the chance.
I firmly believe that the retreat of the Buffalo had more to do with it's manufacturer than with the features of the a/c itself. We all know how inadequate the Brewster factory was, slow production and later even bad quality. The US government didn't have faith in them, so the defeats were an easy argument to get rid of Brewster. I also think the Buffalo was an easy victim to be the main reason of defeat in the first months of 1942 (f.i. Singapore). You could not blame yourself, so blame the equipment...

Click to expand...

Even before the shooting started in the Pacific, the P40, Wildcat and Hurricane were far better fighters than the Buffalo. Anyone trying to prove otherwise will have a lot of explaining to do that wont change the final result.

syscom3 said:

Even before the shooting started in the Pacific, the P40, Wildcat and Hurricane were far better fighters than the Buffalo. Anyone trying to prove otherwise will have a lot of explaining to do that wont change the final result.

Click to expand...

This is popular believe, yes, but I never saw any evidence that they were technically inferior. The Hurricane had an even worse score in the PTO than the Buffalo. The Buffalo had in the years 1941-1943 a better kill:loss ratio than the Wildcat (resp. 5:1 and 3.6:1). I would like to turn the question backwards: Prove that the Buffalo was technically inferior to the wildcat and would not have had the same (or better) results if been flown by the same crew as the Wildcat in later months.

From Wiki:

F4F-3

General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 28 ft 9 in (8.76 m)
* Wingspan: 38 ft (11.58 m)
* Height: 11 ft 10 in (3.60 m)
* Loaded weight: 7,000 lb (3,200 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-1830-76 double-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (900 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 331 mph (531 km/h)
* Range: 845 mi (1,360 km)
* Service ceiling: 39,500 ft (12,000 m)

Armament

* Guns: 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 450 rpg
* Bombs: 2 × 100 lb (45 kg) bombs and/or 2 × 58 gal (220 l) drop tanks

F2A-3

General characteristics

* Crew: One, pilot
* Length: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft (10.7 m)
* Height: 12 ft 1 in (3.68 m)
* Wing area: 208.9 ft² (19.408 m²)
* Empty weight: 4,732 lb (2,146 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 6,321 lb (2,867 kg)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 284 mph at sea level, 321 mph at 16,500 ft (457 km/h, 516 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 171 mph (275 km/h)
* Range: 1,680 mi (2,703 km)
* Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,144 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min[5] The initial rate of climb would be further reduced with completely full petrol tanks.</ref> (744 m/min)

Armament

* 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 machine guns
* 2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 machine guns
* 2 × 100 lb (45 kg) underwing bombs

16500 feet sure it's not the best quote for buffalo

Marcel said:

This is popular believe, yes, but I never saw any evidence that they were technically inferior. The Hurricane had an even worse score in the PTO than the Buffalo. The Buffalo had in the years 1941-1943 a better kill:loss ratio than the Wildcat (resp. 5:1 and 3.6:1). I would like to turn the question backwards: Prove that the Buffalo was technically inferior to the wildcat and would not have had the same (or better) results if been flown by the same crew as the Wildcat in later months.

Click to expand...

Where did you get your info. This is the first time I heard that since all that was ever told about Buffalo sqdrns being wiped out. I don't think their kill ratio would be that good. UNLESS , you're counting the Finnish pilots that used the Buffalo.

I know the Finns had a 26-1 Kill ratio with them (496 destroyed vs 19 lost). The Dutch had a 2-1 kill ratio in the PTO.

There were other issues that the USN had in regards to the Buffalo. 1/3 of the Midway pilots had joined the unit on May 26th and were fresh out of flight school and had not had time to get any operational training in and 2 weeks later were thrown against battle seasoned Japanese pilots. The unit was split in 2 so the first formation (6 F2As and 3 F4Fs) attacked 107 Japanese planes, of which 36 were Zeros. The 2nd formation (12 F2As and 1 F4F) later arrived and the Zeros had already returned to altitude after the first battle.

"F2A Buffalo in action"