Best Pacific Fighter II

[renrich]

Not to beat a dead horse but Lundstrom, who I consider the leading authority on USN fighter combat in the Pacific indicated that after mid 1943 the quality of IJN pilot drastically declined. The middle of 1943 would be around 2 months before the Hellcat went into action and four months after the Corsair was first blooded. In reviewing the evaluation of the F4U1D, F6F5 versus Zeke. The Corsair had a significant advantage in speed and climb rate over the Hellcat at every altitude starting at 5000 feet and up in 5000 foot increments. I am probably splitting hairs but I would choose the aircraft with those performance advantages. The Hellcat had a slight advantage in visibility and survivability while the Corsair was a better gun platform because of better control modulation. No question the Hellcat was more than adequate against Zekes, Vals, Kates, etc. especially with the average IJN pilot in late 43, 44 and 45. Against the best Japanese designs late in the war, especially if a Sakai Saburo was the pilot, I would take any edge I could get.

[JoeB]

You're not so much beating a dead horse as really insistently rejecting the logic of the comparisons given. We are *NOT* taking F4U victories claim/loss ratio's of certain period and comparing them to F6F victory claim/loss ratio's of a later period, and we are not counting either types' victories against non-fighters. In case of 1944 land based comparison we are taking strictly the same period for both, which we know from the history of operations to be heavily concentrated in the first few months of 1944 in the Solomons, a period of heavy fighting with similarly high % of targets were fighters for both, and where things were not going all the Allies way (eg. Boyington shot down, some rough handling of P-38 units over Rabaul, etc.) and the F4U and F6F claimed ratio's are essentially the same. Again in Sep 1944- Aug 1945 land and carrier based, stats just against fighter types, again ratio's basically the same. You are not only claiming the environment of Feb-Aug 1943 was so much different than later in the 1943, but also much be somehow the F4U and F6F would perform differently in that environment when they performed the same in a just slightly later time frame.

As to late war Japanese fighter types, claim v loss by type was once again not more favorable for the F4U. NASC Table 28 gives claims and losses by enemy type. Against a/c identified as Frank, George or Jack, the F6F claimed 175:12, 14:1 the F4U 44:7, 6:1. Vs. 'Tony' and 'Tojo' iin that same period (Sep 44-Aug 45) F6F's claimed 558:20 28:1, F4U 113:6, 19:1. Around 60% of claims (for both F6F and F4U) were still against Zekes and Oscars, even that late, and the two ratios in that case were both ~13. Those enemy a/c ID's were subject to error, but it just continues the pattern of lack of evidence that the F4U was more effective in fighter combat than the F6F in periods where they fought alongside one another. It seems extreme to reject that based on speculating about the only short period of the war, a few months in 1943, where they didn't fight alongside one another.

Joe

[renrich]

I am not rejecting the logic you are using. I said that the Hellcat was more than adequate as a fighter in the PTO. I believe they were both more than adequate, especially with most of the Japanese pilots being poorly trained "rookies." I keep referring to the Feb. 1943- mid 1943 period because the Corsair was fighting in a difficult environment against better pilots then than later and it was very effective. If you want to ignore that period and that environment in the discussion then so be it. The question is "best pacific fighter." I choose to say that means the most competent. The Corsair has the edge in performance numbers and the Navy, that was the ultimate referee, says the Corsair was a better carrier fighter and fighter bomber and went about replacing the Hellcat with the Corsair. That is good enough for me!

[Catch22]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The quality of the design may not differ but the quality and delivery impact may suffer or be enhanced depending on how well the subcontractor performs. Case in point - Brewster produced Corsairs which had documented production quality problems.

Yes, that I am aware of, but that's one company. My point is it doesn't really affect which was the better fighter, because if quality is consistent, the plane itself doesn't differ from company to company (usually, there are some minor variations such as FG-1As not having folding wings, and were delivered to the Marines, but that would have been specified by the Marines). If you look at the Avenger, most of them were built by GM, but the quality of those planes were fine and most would agree that that was a superb aircraft.

My point is, sub-contraction did not affect the F4U's combat record, so I don't see why it should be brought up at all.

[fritzie 101]

I chose the corsair because it was the most versatile fighter in the Pacific it was a great fighter and an excellent ground attack fighter (Marine corp pilots wrote the book on CAS.) It also had a longer service life than any of the other aircraft listed.

[zoul310]

Corsair.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In threads like this, it is best to explain why. Don't just post the name of the plane. It sparks up conversation if you say why your picked a certain aircraft.

[zoul310]

Sorry for that but I feel repeating what as been said before and better than me (and my english).

So, i think it was the best all around fighter / fighter bomber. Very versatile and long life after WW2. Korea, Indochina for example.
But it's difficult to not think about F4F, F6F and P38 for the pacific theater...
Endless subject.

[carbonlifeform]

Originally Posted by Vassili Zaitzev

P-38 could take off a carrier? Interesting.

If a Mitchell bomber can take off from a carrier, no reason a P-38 couldn't. Just couldn't store one on a carrier except topside.

Corsair, by far and away the best fighter- F/B in the PTO. On top of it's impressive combat abilities, it was a comfortable and stylish plane to fight a war in
The only major drawback was it's long nose. Made for bad visibility during take off and landings.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by carbonlifeform

If a Mitchell bomber can take off from a carrier, no reason a P-38 couldn't. Just couldn't store one on a carrier except topside.

Corsair, by far and away the best fighter- F/B in the PTO. On top of it's impressive combat abilities, it was a comfortable and stylish plane to fight a war in
The only major drawback was it's long nose. Made for bad visibility during take off and landings.

While I agree that the P-38 could take off from a Carrier, and I believe it did happen on some occasions (could be wrong however...), it however was not a carrier fighter based off of its size. Nor was it the best design for carrier ops.

Remember the B-25 was modified to take off from a Carrier. Just because it took off from a Carrier, does not make it a carrier capable aircraft. In order to make a Carrier capable version, it would have had to be heavily modified including strengthening of the structure.

We had a really interesting discussion about this a while back here on the forum.

[carbonlifeform]

No I realize that the P-38 isn't a carrier based fighter. And certainly the B-25 is no carrier aircraft either.
I was just pointing out that if you can launch a B-25 from a carrier, you could certainly launch a P-38 from one. Not that either is a really good idea.

[88l71]

Originally Posted by Catch22

Yes, that I am aware of, but that's one company. My point is it doesn't really affect which was the better fighter, because if quality is consistent, the plane itself doesn't differ from company to company (usually, there are some minor variations such as FG-1As not having folding wings, and were delivered to the Marines, but that would have been specified by the Marines). If you look at the Avenger, most of them were built by GM, but the quality of those planes were fine and most would agree that that was a superb aircraft.

My point is, sub-contraction did not affect the F4U's combat record, so I don't see why it should be brought up at all.

I know I haven't been here in awhile, but talking about Hellcat vs. Corsair production rate and subcontracting...my point was not about any supposed inferiority of sub-contracted airframes (FM-2 and TBM Avenger worked just fine.) My point was:

12,571 Corsairs produced total, 12,275 Hellcats, so a single Grumman plant producing Hellcats output virtually the same amount of airframes as 3 different firms producing Corsairs from multiple production facilities over a much longer time period: I.E. the Hellcat was the easier aircraft to produce.

[timshatz]

Didn't the Hellcat shoot down more than any other fighter?

[88l71]

Originally Posted by timshatz

Didn't the Hellcat shoot down more than any other fighter?

I think that record goes to the Bf-109 unless you mean more than any other *American* fighter.

IIRC the Mustang shot down the most aircraft of US types, though the F6F is definitely up there. Hellcat has the all-time top spot for carrier-based fighters though.

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by 88l71

12,571 Corsairs produced total, 12,275 Hellcats, so a single Grumman plant producing Hellcats output virtually the same amount of airframes as 3 different firms producing Corsairs from multiple production facilities over a much longer time period: I.E. the Hellcat was the easier aircraft to produce.

That is way too simple a way of looking at it.

Not all factories were the same size and not all factories had the same number of workers.

The Hellcat MAY have been much easier to produce. I don't know, but unless you can break it down to man hours per plane or planes per month per 10,00 sq ft of factroy spoace or some other figure like those just giving number of factories doesn't mean much. Especially if one of the "factories" was Brewster which was notorious for slow/late/ non delievery.