Choose your Weapon!

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


No, carrier needs were out from the start. I later decided to rule out the need for night fighting because of its specialized equipment. If I said it had to do carrier ops, then you would have 5 choices that way too, right? (more like 2 ) I don't disagree with your view of the Corsair, because you are right. If that is your plane take it, obviously a good choice. One of the negatives for me about the Corsair, is the fuel forward of the pilot. I don't care for that in several of the WWII aircraft that have that feature. Blow torch right in front of you. I know the fuel is usually near you in most of the planes, just don't want it draining onto my lap!

I would argue that there are far more than 5 planes that could be deemed as the ultimate land-based fighter.

I am even second guessing my arguement for choosing the P-38L. The more and more I think about it, I may actually want to be in a P-51 B/C, especially in a dogfight. Its a very hard decision for me.
 
I'm sorry, I thought it was what fighter do you want to perform ANY misson (as in, choose), not EVERY mission inclusively.

Still, P-47D the wing-tank capable model. That big dog would get you home alive and it made a good number of aces as well.
 

I don't think that the fuel tank forward of the pilot was really ever an issue except for visibility reasons. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of that catching on fire and burning the pilot really badly. I'm certain it happened, but I think it was a LOT better than say the Spitfire or Hurri, as it was a self-sealing tank.
 
The corsiar was amazingly well armored, I think getting that fuel tank going would be a hard way to get at the pilot.
 
You are both likely correct. I do remember reading a book , maybe Sir D.Bader's, about being burnt in either a Hurri or Spit. I know Bader was not, so I am not sure where I read that. I am sure I am making way more of it that it is really worth.

Be it cars, or planes, I always look at the performance of the structure in crashes. It is something that just interests me. And I guess that interest influences my decisions in even such a fantasy as this topic. As a hobby, I drag race cars. Whenever there is an accident on track, I try to look at the car to see what worked and what did not. The cage I have in my current car, I made some changes from what was normal because of some of the things I have seen. Anyhow, thats were I am coming from I guess.

I have seen a couple, only a couple, of pictures of crash landed Corsairs where the fuselage broke or twisted in the middle of the cocpit. That also bothers me. I will try to find one on the internet if I can to show what I mean.
 
Compare this Mustang to the Corsair. I know nothing of the two wrecks, but both appear to have hard hits on one wing. Both look to have hit hard enough to seperate the engine. The Mustang cockpit is intact.

 
It's really hard to compare the two crashes. The F4U was an extremely durable plane, that just happens to be one of the times where the structure failed. It happens on all planes. I'd be more concerned about that if I was flying a Mustang.
 
The Corsair was a well armored fighter, more durable than the P-51 but still it wasn't as rugged as the Hellcat. I have read accounts of Navy pilots which say that the Corsair was an incredible fighter and arguably it could outperform the Hellcat but when the had a enemy fighter on their tail the preffered to have the Hellcat.
 
The abitlity to absorb damage and keep flying I think is a seperate issue. Without a doubt, one would have to say the Corsair and Hellcat would be harder to bring down than a Mustang.

But surprisingly, the Mustang actually looks to hold up very well in crash landings. I found a couple more pictures of Corsairs that were totally broken in two at the copkpit but judging by the photos they were likely unsurvivable accidents regardless.

And if there is any question as to the Hellcat: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpCLeWqY0w
 
F4U4 with the four cannon. All purpose fighter bomber. Good range with two drop tanks. Good service ceiling. Carry huge bomb load or rockets. Very rugged, one of the strongest air frames of any AC in WW2. The fuselage gas tank was protected by armor above, the pilot armor from behind and the big radial ahead. Take off the arresting gear and take out the hydraulics for the folding wings and you either increase the payload or increase the performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Your favourite open cockpit monoplane fighter?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
N
Was Hs-123 still a valuable weapon system feom 1941 onward?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Let's see your bomber vs. bomber battles
2 3
Replies
46
Views
4K
Wild_Bill_Kelso
'Air-minded' weapon systems alternatives
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
tomo pauk
N
Who would you want to design your fighter - 1943
7 8 9
Replies
174
Views
12K
Grandson312
Menu
Log in
Register