Best Pacific Fighter?

[renrich]

Negative, the Corsair was in service and in combat before the Hellcat. First combat for the Corsair was on Feb. 14, 1943. First combat for the Hellcat was August 28, 1943. The first production Hellcat flew on Oct. 3, 1942. The Corsair was already in service then. Comparing kills by the two AC is deceptive. The Hellcat proportionately made more of it's kills aganst bombers and the Corsair against fighters. The Hellcat also got a lot of it's kills later in the war against poorly trained pilots. The Corsair, when first in action was still facing some of the veteran pilots.

 

[kool kitty89]

The Hellcat started USN carrier operations first though, right. (I think the Brits had it on carriers earlier)

 

[renrich]

KK, actually Corsairs were operational on carriers first but by the time the Corsair was ready to be deployed to combat zones, the Navy had already decided the Hellcat was to be the carrier fighter and the measures had been taken to get all the spare parts etc. to the Pacific so the Corsair was deployed as land based and the Navy had to wait until the Hellcats were ready in numbers to fly off the carriers. That first combat for the Hellcat was however land based. The RN never got it's hands on a Corsair for familiarization until after our Navy had already worked out some of the bugs in carrier operations with the F4U. The first combat for the Hellcat off of carriers was on August 31, 43 in a raid on Marcus Island where two Hellcats are lost to AA fire. The RN begins training with Corsairs in Dec. 43. Interestingly, the first use of the Corsair as a dive bomber is on March 8, 44 when 8 Corsairs drop 1000 pound bombs on Mille. It is found that the AC can be used safely in dives to 85 degrees. The Navy first deploys F4U2s in Jan , 44 on board Enterprise as nightfighters.

 

[parsifal]

There is also the Kawasaki Ki 100. Developed from the Ki 61, with a radial. it was not real quick, but was even better than the george

 

[kool kitty89]

Performance wise the Ki 84 was better still, and the Ki 100 wasn't significantly better performing than the N1K-2/J, a bit in climb but that's about it.

The George still had one major advantage over other Japanese fighters: durability, ruggedness, and survivability. Most late war Japanese fighters had incorporated better protection and other features but the N1K-2/J was the only one that could truly compete with US fighters in terms of fighting ability and survivability. And while performance was no better than the average US late war fighter, it was still decent and maneuverable and fairly even match against the Hellcat and competitive with most other allied fighters. With high octane US avgas it performed much better in post war testing with a top speed of ~400 mph.

It also had automatic maneuvering flaps (both retracting and deploying).


IMO it was the best all around Japanese fighter to see service during the war.

 

[parsifal]

I agree with what yoou say about its strong points, but the geaorge also had some big disadvasntages, or caveats that we need to take into account in the wash up....in summary i see the George problems as

1)

 

[parsifal]

I agree with what you say about its strong points, but the george also had some big disadvasntages, or caveats that we need to take into account in the wash up....in summary i see the George's problems as

1) The george spent a lot of time grounded, mostly because the homare engine that powered it was unreliable. Ki 100 engine was proven and much more reliable. Consequently its serviceability was better.
I dont know about the airframe. George (I) had problems, George (II) was a redesign to address this, but I am not sure the redesign was completely successfull. Will concede, however that the main problem (the undercarriage) was fixed in the Model 2
2) Lack of altitude. George could not fight effectively at B-29 altitude. The Ki-100 still had difficulty, but could do it better than the george (sorry about the non-technical appraisal).
3) Performance. Georges were attached mainly to elite units, eg the 343 AG. This is likley to prejudice the outcomes of air combats against it. As far as I know (but not sure), Ki 100 units were not over-populated with Aces in the same way as the george was
4) Both types suffered from low speed, a common problem for late war Jap planes. Mustangs and Thunderbolts were 70-80 mph faster at altitude, which is where it mattered in '45

 

[eddie_brunette]

Hellcat for me.

I find it amazing that certain planes(p40, p38, F6F) always get "bumped" down by the "Forum Friends" and certain planes get all the glory(like the overated p51), funny they usally the US planes

 

[parsifal]

Hi eddie

Firstly, I want to assure you that I am not American, and secondly I am new, so I dont think that I qualify as a "Forum Friend". Thirdly the planes I was looking at were not American.

However, having said all that, and made all those disclaimers, the cold hard truth is that the US did produce some very outstanding planes, that must be included in any shortlist. Plus the Americanophiles have the peiceless advantage that they actually won the war......to the victor goes the spoils they say.

I understand your frustration, it happens, and its understandable, but hey dont lump all of us into the one category please

 

[plan_D]

The fact of the matter is the U.S made the best carrier borne aircraft of the war. The only country that came close was Japan, but in the end the U.S. bred the carrier battle group in World War II.

 

[renrich]

As PD says, the US had the best carrier borne AC, particularly fighters of the war and the F4U4 was arguably the best all around fighter of WW2.

 

[syscom3]

As PD says, the US had the best carrier borne AC, particularly fighters of the war and the F4U4 was arguably the best all around fighter of WW2.

Except for the P38.

 

[SoD Stitch]

I gotta admit, it was a tough call . . . . the P-38 is my favorite Allied aircraft of WWII, but the Corsair was probably the best Pacific fighter. However, I still went with the P-38 . . . . . it had better range than the Corsair, and could carry a bigger warload. Plus, you've got two engines, better for overwater safety.

 

[renrich]

The P38 was the best fighter of the war, arguably. So was the P47, the P51, the FW190D and the redoubtable but elusive TA152. My entry would still be the various models of Corsair, fighter, fighterbomber, dive bomber, recon fighter and night fighter, all carrier borne.

 

[Hunter368]

Tough call, both good planes. I will say from everything I have read you had to be a very good pilot to get the very best out of a P-38 (explains some of the reports from LW pilots refering to it as a below average fighter, although tech speaking it is a good one). Everything I have read on the Corsair was it was a nice plane to fly by all standards.

So like I said before tough call, both were good.

 

[syscom3]

Things the P38 was better in than the Corsair:

High altitude performace

Recon capability

Tricycle landing gear

Payload

Range (extremely important in the PTO)

 

[Hunter368]

Things the P38 was better in than the Corsair:

High altitude performace

Recon capability

Tricycle landing gear

Payload

Range (extremely important in the PTO)

Agree with all your points, but you are missing the most important one.

How pilot friendly was it?

From many reports and dead newbie pilots I would say not very. Many new pilots crashed the P-38 into the dirt unable to recover from a dive.

As you know air wars are won by great air forces. Great air forces are made up from not hand full of aces, but the average pilot. Average pilots found the Corsair easier to fly.

Both are good planes, hard to pick b/c of all points made by us both.

I would say we are trying split atoms (not like we never do that here LOL) here trying to choose one or the other when both are good.

 

[timshatz]

Alluding to Hunter's point of how easy it was to fly...

I was talking with a guy who ran the Warbirds Group for a while. I am not sure what his job was, something like a CEO. I believe it was part of the EAA. He was a guy with a ton of hours in everything from Wildcats to Mustangs to Corsairs. Big time in WW2 fighters. I, at the time, was interested in getting into flying ex-military birds and was picking his brain on the subject.

I asked him which would be the best plane for a guy who started flying Cessnas and wanted to work his way up to the WW2 fighter level. Said the AT6/SNJ route was a must but then, when asked which of the WW2 fighters was easiest to fly (I figured it would be the Mustang), he suprised me by saying it was the Corsair. I thought the low speed stall problems and whatnot would make it hairy. He said that stuff was worked out in most of the birds out there now and it was generally a pilot friendly aircraft.

Just a little tidbit of info. Not a huge fan of the Corsair myself but...

 

[renrich]

At the joint fighter conference in Oct. 1944, in a general evaluation, the attending pilots ranked F4Us quite high in all the categorys. The P38L was ranked quite low in most categories. One category it ranked high in was for worst cockpit. It ranked number one there. The F4U ranked third worst. Best all around fighter above 25000 feet-F4U ranked third, P38L ranked sixth. Best all around fighter below 25000 feet-F4U ranked second, P38L was not ranked. Best fighter bomber- F4U ranked one, P38L ranked fifth. Best strafer- F4U ranked two, P38 ranked fifth. The F4U1D fighter bomber had a max range of 1900 miles. The P38L had a max range of 2200 miles. I believe that when carrying a bomb load the P38 would not be able to carry a bigger bomb load than a F4U for the same range because the useful load of the P38 would be used up by the fuel needed. The P38 put a greater strain on the logistical tail because of it's thirst for fuel. That was not as much of a consideration in Europe as it was in the Pacific and CBI. In the CBI single engine fighters were much preferred because of fuel considerations. The P38 cost more than a Corsair to begin with and cost a lot more to maintain. The P38 was very vulnerable to ground fire and was a big target for enemy pilots plus it was easy to see and identify. Perhaps that is why it's sortie/loss rate was the worst of all AAF fighters in the ETO.

 

[Hunter368]

All good point that I agree with 100%.