Best Pacific Fighter II

[Catch22]

As Dan put it, the old one's soggy and the results are bogus. Plus it's missing the best Japanese planes, so time for a new one. Hope I didn't mess this one up. I think I got the major ones, but if I missed anything, let me know.

[Catch22]

The Corsair. It had better performance values than anything in theater, indeed, almost anything in existence (other than jets of course) plus was an excellent ground attack plane. Basically a near perfect all in one plane, and it's not a "jack of all trades, master of none", as it was superb at both and WAS the master (in the PTO and in my mind anyway) in regards to fighters.

[Doughboy]

Corsair.... It had manueverability, speed,and firepower....In fact, It was pretty much good for everything.

[diddyriddick]

I'll go with the Corsair. Not to take anything away from the P-38, but since the F4U was carrier capable, it has a huge leg up.

[syscom3]

I'll go with the Corsair. Not to take anything away from the P-38, but since the F4U was carrier capable, it has a huge leg up.

But the P38 had the range to go where the F4U's couldnt go when there were no carriers.

[Vassili Zaitzev]

The Hellcat, not as good as the F4U, but it was used on a carrier before the corsair.

[renrich]

But the P38 could not land or take off from a carrier. The Corsair also took less fuel, less maintenance, was easier for a low time pilot to get proficient in combat in, was a better dive bomber and was a much smaller target for groundfire or enemy AC fire. I don't know what the loss rate of the P38 was but doubt it was as good as the Corsair's.

[Vassili Zaitzev]

P-38 could take off a carrier? Interesting.

[DBII]

I have seen, P-40s, P-47, P-51s, Spitefires and Hurricanes. I think that I read about the Bf-109 being design for capapult launching. I don't remember see the P-38 on a carrier.

DBII

[Catch22]

The Hellcat, not as good as the F4U, but it was used on a carrier before the corsair.

How does that make it a better plane though? The British seemed to do just fine with it before the US, it was just in landing doctrine. Performance-wise, the Corsair beats the Hellcat in every area (except maybe climb rate and turn rate, I'm not up on those stats, but certainly speed, range, and payload).

As for P-38s taking off from a carrier, it's certainly possible. Taking off isn't the problem, it's landing that's the issue.

[renrich]

It is not productive to spend time saying this or that landbased plane could takeoff or land on a carrier. What is important was whether an AC could successfully conduct operations from a carrier. P47s were launched from a carrier, Hurricanes(not Sea Hurricanes) landed on a carrier without arresting gear, a P51 was launched and recovered from a carrier. That did not make any of those land based planes a carrier borne fighter.

[vikingBerserker]

I have seen, P-40s, P-47, P-51s, Spitefires and Hurricanes. I think that I read about the Bf-109 being design for capapult launching. I don't remember see the P-38 on a carrier.

DBII

I believe it was the Bf-109N designed for the Graf Zepplin

[vikingBerserker]

Overall I would have to say Hellcat simply because of it's combat record.

[syscom3]

Overall I would have to say Hellcat simply because of it's combat record.

But a majority of those kills were against poorly trained Japanese pilots.

It was the Corsair, Wildcat and the P40 that really gutted the best pilots the Japanese had.

[Vassili Zaitzev]

How does that make it a better plane though? The British seemed to do just fine with it before the US, it was just in landing doctrine. Performance-wise, the Corsair beats the Hellcat in every area (except maybe climb rate and turn rate, I'm not up on those stats, but certainly speed, range, and payload).

As for P-38s taking off from a carrier, it's certainly possible. Taking off isn't the problem, it's landing that's the issue.

Perhaps I jumped the gun, I'm more of a hellcat then corsair fan. I'll admit, the F4U had the better performance.

Besides, I have a tendency to root for the underdog.