Most valuable Carrier Fighter Of WWII

Which Aircraft do you consider to be the most valuable carrier based fighter of WWII

  • Sea Gladiator

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Dewoitine D376

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Grumman F3F

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fairey Fulmar

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Mitsuibishi A5M

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fairey Fulmar

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Bf109T

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Re2000

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Re2001

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Grumman F4F

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Hawker Sea Hurricane

    Votes: 4 7.1%

  • Mitsubishi A6M

    Votes: 8 14.3%

  • Supermarine Seafire

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fairey Firefly

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Grumman F6F

    Votes: 32 57.1%

  • Vought F4U corsair

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .

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

I voted for the Fulmar (I managed to resist voting for it twice) and the F4F. They were both vital to the Navies of the RN and USN because there was nothing else to fight with and both did extremely well.

The Fulmar had 122 confirmed kills against 40 losses to enemy action, as best as I can find 16 to fighters 18 to bombers and 6 to AA. The only time the Fulmar was overwhelmed was when the air base at Ratmalana Ceylon was attacked by Japanese carrier-based aircraft on April 5 1942. As they struggled to take off, four of the six operational Fulmars of 803 squadron were destroyed and only one Japanese aircraft claimed as a kill. This is often pointed to as the inevitable failure of the Fulmar in the face of more advanced Japanese machines. However, few aircraft "bounced" taking off from their airfield/Deck make a good accounting of themselves.
 

The wilder Wildcat. Interesting gun options for the pilot as well.
 
The reason I chose the Sea Hurricane were that it was a readily available rugged and successful land based fighter that could be quickly turned into a carrier based fighter by means of what was effectively a conversion kit. Performance was equivalent to a Wildcat and in a dogfight better. Downside was dive speed and range although with drop tanks as good as a Wildcat. It defended the Malta convoys successfully and provided cover for the Allied landings in French North Africa. If Malta had been lost then we would have been out of the Mediterranean, so that's a game changer. Successfully taking French North Africa was a game changer. Could it have been improved upon? The answer is yes. If the Spitfire could take the two stage Merlin then so could a Sea Hurricane, so that would have given the the FAA, a fighter with a performance equivalent to a Hellcat. Same downsides though, range and dive speed.
I forgot the other downsides, ditching and landing characteristics.
 
Last edited:
I chose the F4F for the reasons that it was the original "sound" design that got us through the first half of the war, but also, because its shortcomings prompted the aircraft companies to come out with improved designs...basically, the F6F and other late war naval aircraft owe their performance to the F4F showing just how much we needed to improve certain aspects of performance.
 
GrauGeist said:
The F6F had been in the works since the late 30's, the contract for the XF6F was signed in June of '41...
Click to expand...


Blimey, that is a loooong development period. It actually pre-dates the design of the A6M.

That is not a good thing. A design period of nearly 5 years from inception to sqn entry is like 2 generations of aircraft development t at the time. The USN could have lost the war several times over if its lfe depended on the Hellcat.
 
The Hellcat would have most likely been available a little sooner, but with the advent of the U.S. being drawn into war and thus USN pilots encountering the A6M with the F4F, changes to the F6F to reflect the Wildcat's shortcomings, as well as the change from the original Wright R-2600, to the P&W R-2800.

It's first action against an enemy was 1 September '43, where they downed an H8K, but shortly after, on 23-24 November, they had their combat debut at Tarawa with great success.

So in retrospect, I would say the short delay was well worth it, as the F6F emerged as a top performer right out of the gate.
 
It wasn't quite that bad.

Grumman had done three preliminary studies (all on paper) about using the Wright R-2600 in a fighter (one based of a modified F4F) so while they weren't starting from scratch neither were they 'tweaking' an existing design. The modified F4F pretty much showing them what not to do.

The early studies (F4F-2 based) were designs 33 and 33A, design 35 was pretty much clean sheet but worked stopped while the F4F-3 was gotten into production.
Grumman started work again in Sept 1940 with design 50. After briefly considering using some F4F components a much larger and heavier aircraft was worked out. A mock up was ready on Jan 12th 1941. after the mock up the fuselage was lengthened, the wing was made bigger. This was the aircraft the Navy signed for in June of 1941
 

I think it is always wise to remember we not always have the full facts when dealing with German stuff given how much was lost. Yes, 43 aircraft was its declared air group... but the thing had 2 hangars with an area almost as large as Ark Royal's, only the large IJN carriers beat it, but most IJN aircraft didnt have folding wings.

You can fit 70+ aircraft there if you want to or need to...

The KM delayed its 2nd carrier after signing the building contracts in order to give priority to the BBs, have them NOT change their minds, thus retaining their building priority, and the KM could have started the war with 2 CVs.

Early recon planes were dead meat when caught by fighters... how do you like the odds of a Fulmar (or Skua, rather) against a radar directed 109T in 1940?
 
Last edited:
once again the Germans get to "tweak" their forces while the British stumble along fat, blind and stupid.

British might have adjusted their own carrier building program had the the Germans changed their building program to stop a battleship (which one pray tell? the Bismark?) and build a 2nd carrier in time for 1939/40.

I like the odds of the Fulmar against the 109T a whole lot better than the odds of a Fi 167 against a radar directed Fulmar.
 
They also repositioned the cockpit to a higher stance with a sloping cowl to improve pilot visability as well as incorporated better armor at key points.

Going from memory, but I believe Grumman's engineers had a Q&A session with Butch O'Hare when he toured their plant.
 

Did I claim the RN would do nothing? No? English is my second language but I do seem to recall there being an expression for making up of changing someone else's argument in order to attack it... wicker man? stick man? Nevermind, it will get back to me.

Tirpitz, not Bismarck... and a 2nd Ark Royal may have been a logic response, but I think it was intended for Pacific and not European use, IIRC. Another Invincible?

AFAIK the RN was still having trouble using air search radar in 1941, much less 1940, specially considering it wasnt very good at detecting single aircraft... the Fi 167 in that context would have better chances than a Fulmar or Skua against a 109T.
 
Last edited:
Ok folks....before I make my suggestion, please note that my tongue is pretty firmly placed in my cheek (primarily because I'm stretching the "of WW2" part of the question into the mid/late 1930s).

My suggestion is the much-mocked Brewster F2A. And before everyone starts shooting me down in flames, think about what the USN fighter fleet would have looked like without the F2A being around? Still equipped with development models based on the XF4F-1 biplane? Or perhaps Grumman would have made the leap to a monoplane fighter but would it have turned out like the initial XF4F-2 design which was less maneuverable than the F2A? Whatever the scenario, it's certainly possible that the USN's fighter force facing Japan in 1941 would have been somewhat less capable than it turned out to be. Sometimes failures turn out to be blessings in disguise.

I'll now let you all get back to your fascinating discussion about Wildcats and Hellcats and Fulmars!
 
The F2A has been much maligned, but it was the USN's first all metal monoplane fighter.

The F2A entered service (1939) just three years after Grumman's F3F was introduced into service (1936) with the USN, so it was certainly a step forward, especially with it's armament configuration.
It's performance was just short of the F4F's, which entered service a year later (1940).
 
The F2A wasn't that innovative in the US Navy. The Navy seemed to be doing things backward. It already had an all metal monoplane torpedo bomber. It had both an all metal scout dive bomber monoplane and a scout dive bomber monoplane with metal wings and forward fuselage and fabric covered rear fuselage. 2 of them had folding wings which the Brewter did not. Leaving the fighter contingent as the last to get a monoplane seems a bit strange but also means it was coming no matter who made it.
 
I wasn't suggesting that the USN wouldn't eventually have procured a monoplane fighter...simply that it was accelerated by the success of the F2A in its initial competition with the "next gen" Grumman biplane.
 
parsifal said:
...It actually pre-dates the design of the A6M.
Click to expand...

The design work for the Zero-sen began in October 1937 and the first A6M1 was flown on April 1, 1939. This was a remarkably short period of time from design inception to an aircraft's first flight. The development of the F6F mimicked this, taking less than a year from contract signing on June 30, 1941 to the prototype's first flight on June 26, 1942.

After these maiden flights both fighters took a little over a year to enter combat - the Zero in China during the summer of 1940; the Hellcat in the Solomons during the summer of 1943.

So while Grumman did indeed start work on a possible replacement for the Wildcat in 1938, by 1941 the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics changed the requirements (asking for greater range, firepower, armor, ect.) and the "improved F4F" concept was scrapped in favor of "Grumman Design Number 50" which ultimately became the XF6F-1.
 
Last edited:
Agreed...I have always wondered why the Navy went with the F3F so late in the decade when the writing was on the wall in terms of aircraft technology and warclouds gathering on the horizon.

My only guess, is that the depression and deep cuts to the military may have been a contributing factor.

Cost of an F3F-1: $20,424
Cost of an F2A: unknown, but Brewster's unit price was lower than the XF4F-2, so they won the contract.
Cost of an F4F-3: $30,000
 
I am also not sure how much of a success the initial F2A was. Leaving aside it's performance at Midway (a different model) the navy took delivery of 11 by Dec of 1939 but had already had the XF2A-1 converted to the XF2A-2 back in June/July of 1939. The US allows the Finns to take the rest of the order and allows the Belgian and some of the British orders to be completed before getting back in the production queue and gets F2A-2s. In May of 1941 Brewster rebuilds eight of the original 11 F2A-1s into F2A-2s.
They may not have been happy with the F2A-1s as they were?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
698
yulzari
Most Manoeuvrable Superprop Fighter/Interceptor Possible
Replies
13
Views
1K
drgondog
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
8K
RCAFson
R
Menu
Log in
Register