pararaftanr2
Airman
- 82
- Nov 20, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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:
If I'm in the FAA I'd rather land a Corsair than a Seafire.Killed too many of it's own pilots, more died landing the thing than were shot down by the Japanese.
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.F6F Hellcat. Best Naval Fighter in U.S. service by long shot ... during WWII.
The devil's in the details.…if it was best it would in my opinion be the Su-33 though I would accept arguments in favour of the latest F35.
Was wondering what everyones favourite naval fighter of the war
I imagine the first time an experienced Zero pilot encountered the F6F he knew the naval air war was lost.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.
Where did you get THAT screwed-up idea? (the one I colored red)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.
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".
Killed too many of it's own pilots, more died landing the thing than were shot down by the Japanese.
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.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.
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.As was the case for every US combat aircraft model in WW2, to my understanding.