Favourite Naval Fighter

[space dodo]

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.

View attachment 627582

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.

View attachment 627583

View attachment 627584

ah the hurricane, she was a fine old bird. I think i liked the hurricane more than the spitfire. In fact the hurricane was our (south africa's) primary fighter during wwii

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm on record for saying the Hurricane doesn't get enough love.

 

[NevadaK]

What I would love to say is the Vought F5U-1 Flying Flapjack, but alas like all flapjacks it remained on the plate.

I'll vote for the Corsair instead. F4U-4.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I'm on record for saying the Hurricane doesn't get enough love.

I love Hurricanes, every time one even gets near us I get at least one paid day off.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I love Hurricanes, every time one even gets near us I get at least one paid day off.

Imagine if a Typhoon dropped in.

 

[R Leonard]

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.

XF8B-1 b/n 57984 shows up in my father's log book on 27 Nov 1946. This while he was Projects Director at TacTest, NAS Patuxent. 1.5 hour flight. His notes: "Test performance Boeing VF. Heavy, lumbering, but comfortable.

Day before he flew an F2G b/n 88454 . . . I'd suspect there was quite a difference.

Five days before that, at a Cleveland air show, he set a time to climb record in a F8F b/n 94880, standing start to 10,000 feet in 100 seconds. Didn't hold it long, Butch Davenport came along a little later that day and, also in an F8F, wrung out a time of 97.8 seconds for the same feat. (Was the Bearcat as good as the Late War Japanese fighters? post # 16)

Just offering the preceding events to illustrate he knew just a little bit about pushing fighter planes around.

 

[R Leonard]

And my favorite squadron...
View attachment 627496

Gotta love those Sun Downers, Barrett!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Imagine if a Typhoon dropped in.

View attachment 627605

I don't care what anyone says, seeing that thing coming straight at you has got to be a Depends® moment, because I'm crapping my britches.

It just looks entirely about bidness. And clearly from its record, that's what it was.

 

[Admiral Beez]

View attachment 627647

I don't care what anyone says, seeing that thing coming straight at you has got to be a Depends® moment, because I'm crapping my britches.

It just looks entirely about bidness. And clearly from its record, that's what it was.

Only a Stuka has a scarier face for the infantryman.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Only a Stuka has a scarier face for the infantryman.

View attachment 627721

Definitely agreed, both those planes have faces that could strike fear into anyone.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Definitely agreed, both those planes have faces that could strike fear into anyone.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Something about that chin-scoop just looks evil.

 

[Elvis]

F4F. I chose the Wildcat over the F2A because the Buffalo was mostly land based.

F4F's are fine. They were flying tanks, but if I were to choose that one, I'd do the best version...The FM2.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Something about that chin-scoop just looks evil.

Agreed. Bringing us back on topic, sort of, had the tail been better secured and the Sabre more reliable, the Typhoon would have made for a good carrier fighter. But that chin scoop would have to move. Are there any accounts of the Typhoon or Tempest ditching?

 

[glennasher]

I read something by Pierre Clostermann about someone (maybe him, maybe not) ditching a Typhoon in the Channel. It went to straight to the bottom, happily enough, only 20 feet below the surface at that particular place. The pilot was able to free himself and get to the surface, but he didn't recommend the experience.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yikes!

 

[Just Schmidt]

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.

The airframes were quite new, being intended as Ki 61-II fighters with an uprated engine that was even more troublesome than its progenitor, and anyway the factory producing those were destroyed. As it turned out wedding the reliable radial to the airframes produced a fighter which was easy to fly and more reliable than the higher performing fighters mostly using the not all too reliable Homare.

I think that this pleasant to fly reliable (important though that is) fighter is often rated too highly for a plane entering service in 1945. Performance wise it would not have stood head and shoulder above everything else in the battle of Britain.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The airframes were quite new, being intended as Ki 61-II fighters with an uprated engine that was even more troublesome than its progenitor, and anyway the factory producing those were destroyed. As it turned out wedding the reliable radial to the airframes produced a fighter which was easy to fly and more reliable than the higher performing fighters mostly using the not all too reliable Homare.

I think that this pleasant to fly reliable (important though that is) fighter is often rated too highly for a plane entering service in 1945. Performance wise it would not have stood head and shoulder above everything else in the battle of Britain.

Was the Ki-100 ever evaluated post war? its often quoted maximum speed of 360mph seems suspiciously low for an aircraft that is always held up as a formidable late war aircraft that..(From wiki) "...was able to outmanoeuvre any American fighter, including the P-51D Mustangs and Republic P-47N Thunderbolts which escorted the B-29s over Japan, and was comparable in speed, especially at medium altitudes..."
This is almost 100mph slower than a late war boosted P-51D or P-47N. Could this "360mph" figure just be the only numbers they had laying around from translated Japanese documents, so it went into the "official" post war record? Seems to me that a 1945 aircraft that got such glowing praise from its adversaries must have been faster than a 1940 era Spitfire Mk.I.
as J Just Schmidt just said.

 

[GrauGeist]

Was the Ki-100 ever evaluated post war?

There were four that the US got, all being the KI-100-1b Type 5 (FE-N312, FE-N314, FE-N315 and FE-N317)

I seem to recall that either the British or the Australians (or perhaps both?) took some for evaluation, too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I read something by Pierre Clostermann about someone (maybe him, maybe not) ditching a Typhoon in the Channel. It went to straight to the bottom, happily enough, only 20 feet below the surface at that particular place. The pilot was able to free himself and get to the surface, but he didn't recommend the experience.

Here's the Tornado. If we move the radiator to this position the Sea Typhoon should be safer to ditch.