Best Pacific Fighter?

cheddar cheese · 02-16-2005, 04:13 PM

Thanks wm

MP-Willow · 02-19-2005, 02:52 PM

C.C, Why you so surprised?
The P-38 was just great

The P47 and F6F both should get good reviews. Also the P-40 was around just as long or realy longer then the P-38, so please think of it. I realy like that one just because it got so mch out of it.

Qustion what do you al think about the Spitfire at it's time in the Pacific?

Chocks away! · 03-05-2005, 07:11 AM

There seem to be other planes missing from the poll. How about kawasaki ki-61? or the ki-100?

03-05-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocks away!

There seem to be other planes missing from the poll. How about kawasaki ki-61? or the ki-100?

Those planes were okay, but clearly not in the class of the N1K2 or KI-84.

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · 03-05-2005, 04:45 PM

The pol was created with some thought, the ki-100 and ki-61, two of the Jaonese designs I like are late commers and were not to have a great impact. But if the war were to have gone on and assuming Japan could find production space the N1J2 would have given the B-29s ad even the P-51H problums.

03-06-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP-Willow

The pol was created with some thought, the ki-100 and ki-61, two of the Jaonese designs I like are late commers and were not to have a great impact. But if the war were to have gone on and assuming Japan could find production space the N1J2 would have given the B-29s ad even the P-51H problums.

What? With a top speed of 363 mph, mediorcre climb performance, and serious power loss at altitude, the Kawanishi N1K2 "George" was no match for a competently piloted P-51D (437+ mph) or an F4U-1d (425+ mph), let alone a P-51H (480 mph) or F4U-4 (463 mph - 448 with capped pylons as on all service units). The George was however a fairly good matach against an F6F-5 Hellcat (380 mph).

It could not fly high enough to successfully intercept the B-29, and it was totally outclassed by the P-51H in virtually every catagory.

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · 03-07-2005, 04:53 PM

ok mybe I was reading somwthing elts. Or that information as wrong. but I do remember reading that thy were developing and had produce I small nubers planes that could deal with the new USAAC and USN fighters. But thanks for corecting me on my wayward thoughts

03-07-2005, 06:34 PM

Trying to develop is more accurate, all that is based upon the engines performing to design specs, but repeatedly Japanese engines failed to do so. They even had jets in the works, though none were deployed anywhere with working engines.

MP-Willow · 03-11-2005, 12:52 PM

RG, that is true, they did have engine problums in almost all of the aircraft types.

I have a question for you we have all said what we liked but maybe weshould have stated this topic at just Pacific Fighters. What do you think?

03-11-2005, 02:08 PM

????

I don't understand the ?

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · 03-14-2005, 03:35 PM

ok would it be better to have titled this just Pacific fighters? We could have talked bout all of them, and not sem to focus on the "Best" ones.

cheddar cheese · 03-14-2005, 03:50 PM

We can talk about other Pacific Fighters if you like. It isnt wildly off the topic

MP-Willow · 03-15-2005, 03:26 PM

So CC, nice Sig picture! I would ask then your thoughts and those of thee others here of the P-47 in the Pacific

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-16-2005, 10:16 AM

not enough range........

evangilder · 03-16-2005, 11:12 AM

WIth drop tanks, the P-47N had a range of 2350 miles. Joe Baugher has a good write-up on the P-47N at:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_13.html