SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I think notGreg is biased. He owns one. I've seen it. It's nice.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think you're spitting hairs a little here, perhaps he doesn't know that the Corsair entered service slightly ahead of the Hellcat. Greg says "around the date when the Hellcat arrived" which could easily also include the Corsair's arrival. It can be both the Corsair and Hellcat and still be accurate below.Not the Corsair, which beat the F6F into service by a few months? I think even birdcage Corsairs were better than Zeroes. What am I missing? Honest question, not prodding.
The A6M was the best fighter in the Pacific world from its inception until somewhere around the date when the Hellcat arrived.
I think you're spitting hairs a little here, perhaps he doesn't know that the Corsair entered service slightly ahead of the Hellcat. Greg says "around the date when the Hellcat arrived" which could easily also include the Corsair's arrival. It can be both the Corsair and Hellcat and still be accurate below.
Ho-103 used some fancy bullets called 'Ma-102', the bullet contained 2g of high-explosive(not in TNT equivalent measure, about the effect of 3.8g TNT)I don't consider the Ki-27 to be a WWII fighter. The Boeing P-26 was flown in very early WWII by the USA and I don't consider IT to be a WWII fighter, either despite it actually being in the war. If I had to include the Ki-27, I'd pick it as the worst.
To me, the worst of the rest was the Ki-43 Hayabusa. It flew beautifully and was exceptionally maneuverable. But, it had very light armament until it's last version (only 2 built), no armor at first, and no self-sealing tanks. So, the vast majority of Ki-43s ... probably over 95% of them ... that served were of the under-armed and under-armored variety. This did not stop them from being effective at first, but DID mean they weren't as good as later radial fighters, including the J2M Raiden, which was one of the very few Japanese fighters that stood a chance of intercepting a B-29.
The fact that they made few of them and that a decent percent of the ones they made didn't really perform up to snuff does not detract from the ones that DID perform well. The ones that performed well validated the design as a good one.
But, hey, opinions differ and I suppose one of the approximately 21 other fighters, all but one of which were powered by radials, COULD be worse. I think the Japanese did a pretty good job with fighters, given the engines and war situation they had to work with. They might not have been up to the task of being fighters in the ETO, but they DID manage to embarrass the Spitfires that showed up in the Pacific around Darwin, and the Spitfire is usually in the running for "best fighter of the war" in most people's book. So, how bad could Japanese fighters have been? Answer is, "Not bad, all things considered!"
I agree. Of course had someone thought of putting a gun on the Nakajima Ki-115 it might have been the top contender.I'd go with the J2M Raiden. Nice, if portly, looking plane. Reading the history of it tho', it seemed it was designed for similar reasons as the Ki-44, but had more problems. Three times as many Ki-44 were built, and while there was some praise for some of the J2M's traits, it strikes me as a machine that only managed some success because the desperation of the times, not because of the design.
I believe that Greg understands this fact very well. Its quite apparent that both the F4U and P-38 could 'handle' an A6M when the correct tactics were employed (aka "boom-n-zoom") but it wasn't until the introduction of the F6F that the Zero's dominance quickly faded away. A lot of this had to do with the way the US Navy deployed the Hellcat from the very beginning of it's service debut. It was at the tip of the spear during the island hopping campaign so it was able to see considerable more action against the A6M than either of the other two American fighters. According to US Naval records it destroyed nearly three times as many Zeros as did the F4U, which was mostly due to the very different missions of the two aircraft. Up until early 1945 the F4U was primarily flown by the Marines from land bases and was involved in rear area operations against targets that had been previously worked over by carrier forces. So it should come as no surprise that it would have encountered the A6M on far fewer sorties than the F6F. This gave the F6F more opportunity to engage and shoot down Zeros and bring it's dominance in the theater to a sudden end.This in my opinion makes Greg's statement correct without discounting the overall superiority of planes like the F4U had over the A6M, which were chronologically in theater months before the F6F arrived on the scene.Not the Corsair, which beat the F6F into service by a few months? I think even birdcage Corsairs were better than Zeroes. What am I missing? Honest question, not prodding.
Cylinder head temperature was around 300+° deg, while radials of the day usually operated at around 240°-260°. With the oils available at the time (either organic, like castor, or petroleum based) I've doubts these temperatures were healthy for them.Homare engine had a lot of cooling fins, it was enough for its own. The real problem was the low quality sheeted metal, fuel, lack of proper maintenance(They just died).
Late model of Homare engine used a different method to cast the cylinder-coverage.
Statistically J2M fared best against Navy planesI'd go with the J2M Raiden. Nice, if portly, looking plane. Reading the history of it tho', it seemed it was designed for similar reasons as the Ki-44, but had more problems. Three times as many Ki-44 were built, and while there was some praise for some of the J2M's traits, it strikes me as a machine that only managed some success because the desperation of the times, not because of the design.
I know there is no set of numbers that people couldn't quibble with, but I would still be interested to see what the same source says about the ratio for the A6M Zeke, especially over the same time period.Statistically J2M fared best against Navy planes
USN Against:
J2M (Jack): 49-13
Ki84 (Frank): 144-16
N1K2 (George): 35-0
Where did you get the data?
You are right about FM-2, but you can only play the team that shows up.To put things into perspective regarding the FM2 in 1945, the FM2s, flying off the escort carriers, were almost exclusively defending against kamikaze raids, flying against the least experienced adversaries. They did not fly the fighter sweeps over Japan-proper, where the newer fighters were concentrated as well as the instructor-pilots. But it also shows that to be useful, a plane doesn't have to be the absolute best sometimes, it just has to be good enough and in the right place at the right time.
Hi Thumpalumpacus.
The first Corsairs were limited to land-based operations and, though better than the Zero, didn't make much of an impact due to being limited to runways. There just aren't a lot of runways in the Pacific Ocean. Technically, though, you are correct. Practically, the F6F showed up on carriers and met the A6M head on, wherever it was encountered. Corsair deployment on carriers by the U.S.A. was delayed until late 1944. Meanwhile, the Hellcat was on carriers from the start of its combat deployment.
Still, I concede the point. Good call.
Cheers.
To put things into perspective regarding the FM2 in 1945, the FM2s, flying off the escort carriers, were almost exclusively defending against kamikaze raids, flying against the least experienced adversaries. They did not fly the fighter sweeps over Japan-proper, where the newer fighters were concentrated as well as the instructor-pilots. But it also shows that to be useful, a plane doesn't have to be the absolute best sometimes, it just has to be good enough and in the right place at the right time.