Best Pacific Fighter?

Best Pacific Fighter?

  • Total voters
    146

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you readsome stuff from USN pilots in the Pacific you will find some info on the IJN aircraft. If you can read Japanese more power to you, and info. But even that is sketchy at times.

Did you get what you needed? The N1kK2 was a very good aircraft that if given the pilot was the equill of any USAF/ USN or RAF aircraft
 
of course, at the beginning of the pacific war, the zero was, by far, the best..........but........during the progression, our plane builders learned, jap planes stayed about the same and there was no match between ours and theirs................
 
I wouldnt say it was the best. I mean, once the americans figured out how to fight the zero, it stood no match, even in P-40s with no gunsights (claire chenaults flying tigers). The japanese had a manouverable plane and good pilots trained in china. Thats where the advantages, besides range end. It didnt have a high ceiling, couldnt turn above 250mph worth a damn, had 0! armor, and its two 7.62mm machineguns are pitifully weak (the damn hurricane had eight, and they tried twelve on the... the one with the napiere sabre engine that became an awesome fighter bomber). It had two 20mm cannon, but these didnt have alot of ammunition, 60 rounds a piece. Four guns, no armor, need for low speed, low cieling, and lack of decent bomb load make the zero vulnerable, in a turning fight it was unbeatable, otheriwse the pilots of the rising sun would be plummetting to earth like a setting one.
 
syscom3 said:
The F8F was a niche aircraft, whose design was a dead end.

The P38L, P51H, P47N and F4U-4 were all more superior.
Click to expand...

I agree, the Bearcat was a Kamikaze fighter but that was the limit of its practical abilities.

wmaxt
 
The F8F never quite made it into combat in WWII anyway. It was en route when the war ended. It climbs like a beast, but the range was too short to be much beyond a fleet defense fighter, and that is only after the threat is identified as inbound. No way it could loiter above for any length of time. I love the Bearcat, but it's range was it's shortcoming.
 
Sure wish the Ki-44 Tojo was in this one. Hot motor in the later models and a couple of 40mm cannons equals big booms. (be a good shot cuz you don't get much ammo) Still went with the Corsair...
 
The F6F Hellcat accounted for more kills than both the F4U Corsair and F4F Wildcat, and shot down Mitsubishi A6M like flies. Yet it's behind F4U in the poll?? Wah?
 
Yes it is behind in the polls. Why?

Becuase the Corsair was still a much better aircraft. Based on a combination of firepower, maneuverability and performance it was the best fighter to see service in the Pacific.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Yes it is behind in the polls. Why?

Becuase the Corsair was still a much better aircraft. Based on a combination of firepower, maneuverability and performance it was the best fighter to see service in the Pacific.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but a plane should be judged by its combat record. F6F Hellcat's record is rock solid compared to Corsair.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The Corsair did not have a bad record either.

We are comparing aircraft here and fact is fact.
Click to expand...

That depends on what criteria you are judging the aircrafts. If going by plane characterstics, then F4U Corsair would be the victor. Going by number of kills, the Hellcat deserves a better position in the poll.
 
You're absolutely right; aircraft should be compared in different ways. I believe the majority of this discussion has been based on technical ability where the Corsair wins. I believe it would be wrong to ever compare aircraft by their kills, maybe their kill ratio would be a better comparison where I believe the Hellcat wins.

When it comes to the "Best" PTO fighter it really is asking which was the greatest at doing what it was designed to do. Let's be honest, the F6F and F4U had the same tasks and the Corsair was better equipped to do the job. Both aircraft were great but if you C-in-C wouldn't you choose the Corsair over the Hellcat?
 
The bottom line is that the US Navy in 1944 evaluated the Hellcat and Corsair and stated that the Corsair should replace the Hellcat as soon as practicable.
 
Comparing the Corsair to the Hellcat is a bit like comparing the Spitfire to the Hurricane. (at the BoB) The Corsair/Spitfire were a bit trickier to fly, were much faster, generally more maneuverable (though not as good in a flat out turn), had higher stall speeds, had better all around visibility with worse visibility over nose, couldn't take quite as much damage, and were not available in as large of numbers as the Hellcat/Hurricane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
4K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Best Biplane fighter ww2
Replies
1
Views
6K
wlewisiii
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
1K
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Best US escort fighter in ETO during 1943?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
17K
DarrenW
Menu
Log in
Register