Favourite Naval Fighter

[pararaftanr2]

I also prefer the Corsair, the Hellcat is mainly mentioned as the best carrier based fighter for World War II, but I would choose the fighter I want fly.

"Contrary to many prejudices, she was beautiful not only in shape or performances but also in agility and maneuverability."

Hard to argue with that statement, even if her beauty is considered unconventional by some:

 

[Admiral Beez]

Killed too many of it's own pilots, more died landing the thing than were shot down by the Japanese.

If I'm in the FAA I'd rather land a Corsair than a Seafire.

 

[Admiral Beez]

F6F Hellcat. Best Naval Fighter in U.S. service by long shot ... during WWII.

RN service too. Given a choice of the Corsair, Firefly, Seafire or Hellcat the Fleet Air Arm of 1943-45 would pick the latter every time. Only the superlative Sea Fury would usurp the Hellcat's place as the FAA's best single engined piston fighter.

 

[33k in the air]

I'm going with the Corsair.

However, I will offer an unusual alternative, although one that never saw active service: the Boeing XF8B-1. A fascinating prototype, touted by Boeing as its "five-in-one" fighter.

 

[glennasher]

While I acknowledge the performance the Corsair provided, I think the F6F was a better aircraft for most of the USN and FAA. There's a lot to be said for it's solid and steady habits.

 

[fastmongrel]

Can I just say the thread title is "Favourite naval fighter" not what is the best if it was best it would in my opinion be the Su-33 though I would accept arguments in favour of the latest F35.

 

[Admiral Beez]

…if it was best it would in my opinion be the Su-33 though I would accept arguments in favour of the latest F35.

The devil's in the details.

Was wondering what everyones favourite naval fighter of the war

 

[Admiral Beez]

While I acknowledge the performance the Corsair provided, I think the F6F was a better aircraft for most of the USN and FAA. There's a lot to be said for it's solid and steady habits.

I imagine the first time an experienced Zero pilot encountered the F6F he knew the naval air war was lost.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Corsairs, Hellcats, Wildcats, Seafires... Meh... Second stringers.

I kid I kid, but back to reality, I'd go with the Corsair if going into combat, while I'm not a fan of the F4U (not "beautiful" to me, but does have a singular look to it) I recognize that if stuck in the Navy, that would be the one I'd want to use to tangle with the IJN/IJA. It's simply superior to anything in the Japanese inventory, much like the Mustang and Thunderbolt regardless of any breathless verbiage regarding late war Japanese "Super planes" like the Ki-100.

My opine on the Ki-100 and it's ilk BTW is pretty much, "oh hey, you've finally developed a fighter almost as capable as the hardware we've been flying for over two years now, congrats. Please do compare it to our standard stuff like the F4U-1, P-51D and P47D, although you might get quite a kick in the pants when you see the sh!t we have waiting in the wings that end in -4, H and N not to mention the propellerless one".

But I digress, Yup, I'd go with the Corsair.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I am always curious about the performance quoted for the late war Japanese stuff. Are we using the manufacturers' numbers? The Japanese services' numbers or the numbers attained using US 100+ octane fuel?

 

[GrauGeist]

I used to have an edition of the TAIC/SWPA evaluations of captured Japanese types.
Some of the late war Japanese aircraft were impressive performers, especially if they were factory fresh and operated with Allied fuels during evals.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Perhaps the best way to resolve this issue is to pull out of this nosedive we're in. The F4U, while it certainly could fit, wasn't designed for carriers, while the F6F was designed for nothing but carriers.

Where did you get THAT screwed-up idea? (the one I colored red)

The F4U was ABSOLUTELY designed for carrier use... if it had not been, then the prototype (and every example built) would not have been equipped with folding wings (powered hydraulically-operated mechanism), a tailhook (a "stinger-type" that retracted forward into the tail in the prototype, often replaced by the spin-chute dispenser for test flights, and by a normal drop-type in the production examples) and catapult bridle attachments - nor would the airframe have been designed for the stresses of arrested landings (aft half of the fuselage), the high sink rate (and hard hit) of arrested shipboard landings (landing gear support structures and wing/fuselage center sections), or the stresses of catapulted take-offs (front-center of the fuselage).

The prototype even had flotation bags in the wings, for emergency water landings (not installed in production aircraft)!

 

[GreenKnight121]

Ignoring the "died landing" part, the claim has some merit.
We don't know(?) about pilot losses, but US Navy kept meticulous records of plane losses.
The numbers of "directly shot by enemy" fall short of those "not directly shot down by the enemy".

As was the case for every US combat aircraft model in WW2, to my understanding.

 

[Barrett]

Killed too many of it's own pilots, more died landing the thing than were shot down by the Japanese.

Would like to see the stats for future reference! Thank you.

 

[Barrett]

And my favorite squadron...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

breathless verbiage regarding late war Japanese "Super planes" like the Ki-100.

My opine on the Ki-100 and it's ilk BTW is pretty much, "oh hey, you've finally developed a fighter almost as capable as the hardware we've been flying for over two years now, congrats.

The Ki-100 wasn't really a late war super fighter, It was simply a fortuitous melding of available engines with 3 (2?) year old, cob-web covered airframes. Post war testing done by the Allies showed that the current Japanese fighters, Ki-84 in particular, were just as competitive with Allied types.

 

[Big Jake]

F6F. The combination of the R2800, Grumman's incredible design, performance and ruggedness resulted in what Capt. Eric Brown called "the Grumman Hellcat, unquestionably the most important Allied shipboard fighter of WW2".

 

[Timppa]

As was the case for every US combat aircraft model in WW2, to my understanding.

F4F combat losses were actually higher. Of course this is more related to the performances/numbers of the opposing aircraft, skill of the pilots, overall war situation etc. rather than the airplane itself.

 

[space dodo]

my favourite's the dauntless but its not a fighter. so the fighter would be the corsair and jet would be the A4 skyhawk

 

[Admiral Beez]

How about some love for the humble Hurricane. Pressed to serve a role she was never designed for. Starting off as a throwaway CAM ship fighter, and ending as the FAA's premier fighter until the Martlet and Seafire arrived.

Sea Hurricanes produced by CC&F in Canada. I believe this is the first of only three fixed wing carrier aircraft ever produced in Canada, the others being the SB2C and postwar CP-121. Grumman Goblins and Blackburn Sharks made in Canada don't count as they were air force spec, without carrier fittings.