Which is better, A-6M Zero or the F4U Corsair

[dinos7]

What do you people think is the best fighter beetween the, F4U Corsair or the A-6M Zero

Im thinking the F4-U Corsair.

 

[plan_D]

F4U Corsair, without a doubt. The A6M was a remarkable aircraft during the early war years but the Corsair out-classed it. The only advantage the Zero had over the Corsair was low-speed turning.

The Corsair was faster, more armed, better armoured, had a faster climb, faster dive, faster acceleration, high speed rate of turn, rate of roll, range...and, basically, was just better in every aspect except low speed turning.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Damn you D, that's what I was gonna say!

 

[dinos7]

oh so that explains why we always downed zeroes with corsairs

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm sorry to say dude, this is either going to be a really short or a really long thread. It's pretty obvious the Corsair is quite superior. Mind you I always appreciate stimulating conversation and I think we're going to see a lot of good quips and jokes on this thread, SO LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

 

[delcyros]

Agreed. CORSAIR, CORSAIR, CORSAIR!

 

[lesofprimus]

As my grandfather said, "Piss on those Zeros..." Not having self sealing tanks and no armor was its undoing...... 2 rounds and its on fire, and thats a kill....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Maybe the Zero could out-do the Corsair in an "Ensign Aircraft Carrier Landing Challange." Make low time pilots crash on landing, perhaps the only way the Zero is going to best the Corsair.

 

[lesofprimus]

Hehe...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes the corsair wins this easily...........

 

[plan_D]

Hmmm...I think some Corsair pilots needed "Sleep now in the Fire" playing while shooting up Zeros like it was just a good night out on the town.

 

[Chocks away!]

I wouldn't go that far. I read a story by a corsair pilot (early corsair) who said his opponent flying a zero pulled up, and he was unable to follow initially. He did end up shooting him down in the end(which does say something), but it wasn't an easy fight, not least because of the zero's great climb rate.

 

[lesofprimus]

Most likely he was dealing with an experienced Japanese pilot as well.... Most of the Green and Rookie pilots were brainwashed to believe their aircraft we invincable and the American planes were rubbish...

Never underestimate ur opponent...

 

[trackend]

I believe the Corsair to be technically far in advance of the Zero and definitely more robust when introduced the Zero was a formidably machine but very quickly became out classed by the US machines
and if I had the misfortune to have to be in combat using either of them I know which cockpit I would be climbing in.
This particular F4U has been researched and worked on over the last 3 years and is all genuine 1944 components and markings as is possible anything after WW2 has been removed including paint layers.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Including the paint, huh? Wow, so that one really is genuine then, with the old parts. Awesome.

 

[evangilder]

The Corsair is the obvious winner here, but keep in mind they are almost a generation apart as far as technology. The non-self sealing fuel tanks and lack of armor plate led to that plane being a real death trap if you got an enemy aircraft on your tail. For it's day, the Zero was an incredible aircraft. But by the time the Corsair flew onto the scene, the Zero was approaching obsolescence.

 

[Chocks away!]

Yes, and i agree, but my point is that it was NEVER cannon fodder if flown well.

 

[Soren]

The Zero was too slow, simple as that...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

actually it's not, it's speed wasn't the only thing that makes the corsair better......

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agreed - although, with a seasoned pilot the Zero will put up a fight, but it's only going to be able to turn and "dance" around for so long before its torn to shreads.

Firepower, strength, and of course armor protection to name a few!