Greatest Fighter Aircraft of All Time

syscom3 · 02-22-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loomaluftwaffe

and not to mention that you will lose 2 engines and a bigger plane if a P-38 gets lost, and also the superiority to German fighters, it isnt that easy to kill a 109 or a 190, well, not until the latter half of 1944

The engine manufactoring capacity of the US was so huge that replacing "lost" engines was not an issue.

The P38, while not a miracle fighter that could defeat any plane in the Luftwaffe, was still good enough to hold its own against an Me-109 or FW-190.

Probably more (this is just a guess......) than one German fighter pilot who was lost to a P38 in an "other than bounce" situation was due to the German pilot underestimating what the P38 could do.

CurzonDax · 02-22-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

The Spitfires were not even worthy of carrier operations (after 1942). The Corsair and Hellcat had similar performance figures with a more reliable radial engine, plus a lot longer endurance.

I ran across this piece of info while researching a rubuttal on another thread. It seems that during Okinawa, the RN deployed a 4 carrier Task Force that seemed to have included Seafires. I guess they must of been used for local defense and possibly in close kamakazi hunters. Just guessing.

:{)

syscom3 · 02-22-2006, 01:20 PM

The Seafires were used because the RN had nothing else to use. I dont know why they didnt request the Hellcat or Corsair.

The Seafires drawback was its short endurance and an airframe that was too weak for carrier ops.

The moment the Seafury became available, then the RN finally had a great shipboard fighter.

Gnomey · 02-22-2006, 01:26 PM

The RN showed the USN how to use the Corsair from carriers, they used them alongside Seafires on Carriers from 1943 (I think). They USN didn't use them on carriers until 1944...

FLYBOYJ · 02-22-2006, 01:37 PM

Very Correct!

CurzonDax · 02-22-2006, 01:42 PM

Here is the entry from www.naval-history.net. They had, according to this, Corsairs and Hellcats too.

:{)

"MARCH 1945

Okinawa 1945 - Royal Navy Campaign Honour

British Pacific Fleet - On the 15th, Adm Rawlings signals from Manus to Adm Nimitz that the British Pacific Fleet is ready to join Adm Spruance's Fifth Fleet. Now known as Task Force 57, battleships "King George V" and "Howe", carriers "Illustrious", "Indefatigable", "Indomitable" and "Victorious", five cruisers including the New Zealand "Gambia" and 11 destroyers, two Australian sail for Ulithi to refuel. On the 26th they are on station off the Sakishima Islands in the Ryukyu group. Their mission is to prevent the islands being used as staging posts for Japanese reinforcements flying from Formosa to Okinawa. BPF's main weapon is of course not the battleships, but the Seafires and American-made Avengers, Hellcats and Corsairs of the carriers' strike squadrons. They start their attacks that day."

I also agree Gnomey, the RN used Corsairs on carriers before the USN and USMC did and proved thier feasability.

:{)

evangilder · 02-22-2006, 02:25 PM

Yep, as a matter of fact, it was the Brits who taught the Americans how to land a Corsair on a carrier. Not something that I would want to do!

syscom3 · 02-22-2006, 02:30 PM

I should have phrased my response "why use the seafires at all if they had Hellcats and Corsairs".

The Seafire was definatley not a carrier aircraft.

Gnomey · 02-22-2006, 02:32 PM

Neither was the Corsair until the Brits showed the Yanks how to use it as one

CurzonDax · 02-22-2006, 02:43 PM

So here is the choice, land on a pitching deck with the Spit's narrow gear or the Corsair's loooong nose. I think I would prefer to have Scotty transport me.

:{)

syscom3 · 02-22-2006, 03:40 PM

The Brits get kudo's in figuring out how to land the Corsair on the deck of a carrier.

Its also too bad the Seafury was not ready untill after the war.

loomaluftwaffe · 02-23-2006, 12:57 AM

indeed the earlier corsairs did look impossible to land on carriers, not to mention its huge propeller

the lancaster kicks ass · 02-23-2006, 05:01 AM

the large propeller was the reason for the gull wing, it was the best way of keeping the prop from eating up the deck and still keep what would otherwise have to be long fragile gear short and stronger...........

loomaluftwaffe · 02-23-2006, 05:16 PM

correct, hadnt that wing been bent the Japs wouldnt have that many nightmares about US planes

CurzonDax · 02-23-2006, 08:02 PM

So having to come at a almost 90 degree angle to the deck and then have to turn to land on the deck and still try to hit the 2 wire is too much fun for me. Add to that battle damage, weather, pilot exhaustion, and just plain having a bad monday, these pilots have my respect.

:{)