Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Best carrier fighter of the War?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: What was the best carrier fighter of WW2 (20 member(s) have cast votes)

What was the best carrier fighter of WW2

  1. F4U Corsair (US variants) (6 votes [28.57%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

  2. Mk IV Corsair (RN variant) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. F4F Wildcat (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. F6F Hellcat (14 votes [66.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  5. Seafire (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. Tempest (1 votes [4.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.76%

  7. P-51 Mustang (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. P-38 Lightning (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. Me 109T (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  10. Me 155 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Flo

Flo

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 923 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 10 Months and 26 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 09 October 2010 - 11:12 PM

What was the finest plane to launch from a flat top in WW2 and why? Or what should have been navalised instead?

Some suggestions:

1. Chance Vought F4U Corsair (US variants)
2. Chance Vought Corsair Mk IV (RN variant)
3. Grumman F4F Hellcat
4. Grumman F6F Wildcat
5. Supermarine Seafire

What might have been:

6. Hawker Tempest
7. NA P-51 Mustang
8. Lockheed P-38 Lightning
9. Messerschmitt Me 109T
10. Messerschmitt Me 155

#2 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 2 Months and 26 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 27 July 2011 - 02:52 AM

I voted for the F4U, as I believe it was the best carrier borne fighter of WW2, even if it didn't serve on carriers much. Otherwise the F6F was he best.

Why no Zero in the poll?

#3 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 6 Months and 9 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 28 July 2011 - 01:17 PM

I had to go with the F6F. I actually like the F4U better, but I think the F6F was more rugged and easier to maintain, which is important at sea. If the Sea Fury had been a bit earlier, I would have gone for it.

#4 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 6 Months and 12 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 29 July 2011 - 12:43 PM

Hi All,

No, I didn't vote for the P-38. :) (I voted for the F4U.) The P-38's nose gear would have been a weak point. Putting an arresting hook on the center pod (where else could it go?) would have presented problems; it (the pod) was too high and would have required an overly long hook. The nose-high landings would have subjected those thin booms in the tail area to damage from striking the deck.

Some good points, though:

With all that power and counter-rotating propellers, it could get off with heavy loads and without the torque/p-factor/asymmetric-thrust problems faced by powerful single-engine fighters at full power, low speed, and high angle-of-attack. Its long range and twin-engine reliability over long expanses of water would have also been invaluable.

Regards,

Lightning

#5 Sid447

Sid447

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined 8 Years, 9 Months and 27 Days
  • 3 topics
  • LocationCyprus/UAE

Posted 04 August 2011 - 07:58 AM

Geez,

You are biased Lightning!

The Sea Hornet would still have been better!

or the Tigercat.

Edited by Sid447, 04 August 2011 - 08:01 AM.


#6 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 6 Months and 9 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:52 AM

The Sea Hornet wins hands down in the looks department, but came along a bit late for WW2.

#7 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 6 Months and 12 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:50 PM

Hi Sid447,

Geez,

You are biased Lightning!

The Sea Hornet would still have been better!

or the Tigercat.


I'm surprised at your response. I thought I was not biased since I did not vote for the P-38, but for the F4U. I gave the weak points of the Lightning and some of its strong points. Don't you agree with them point-for-point? If not. why not?

Also, the sea Hornet was not among the list of contenders given in the original 10 possible choices. It was also not launched "from a flat top in WW2."

The same can be said of the Tigercat. In fact, it initially failed carrier trials and was mostly used by the Marine Corps after WWII.

If the Sea Hornet and the Tigercat were better suited for carrier operations than the Lightning, that was only to be expected. They were, after all, designed to be naval aircraft. They were also designed years after the P-38 and after the Lightning had been distinguishing itself in the thick of combat for several years.

Regards,

Lightning

#8 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 6 Months and 12 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 04 August 2011 - 04:54 PM

Hi flying kiwi,

The Sea Hornet wins hands down in the looks department, but came along a bit late for WW2.


I can't argue with you on this point since looks are a matter of personal taste. I can, and most certainly do, disagree with you. I think the P-38 Lightning was much the better looking airplane of the two.

Regards,

Lightning

#9 Sid447

Sid447

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined 8 Years, 9 Months and 27 Days
  • 3 topics
  • LocationCyprus/UAE

Posted 04 August 2011 - 05:29 PM

Hi Lightning,

I agree, F8F and Dh 103 outside the boundaries, though were products of what were needed during and because of the conflict.

Hypothetical discussions about which was the best is never easy, purely because there never is a best. Some are better than others at different things.

Such as, just because the lancaster could carry heavier loads didn't make it the best bomber. Or because fighter was faster, or could turn tighter etc, etc.

Put a good guy in a clunker and he'll beat a poorly trained or below average guy in a good aircraft. People always make the difference.

Of the list mentioned above of a-c to vote for: Which for example had the best handling characteristics for deck work(?) Which one had the best serviceability or availability rate(?) or the most user-friendly or the most reliable.
It probably wasn't the fastest or the most powerful etc, but as long as it had these good all round abilities.....that's the one I'd vote for.

Edited by Sid447, 05 August 2011 - 05:32 AM.


#10 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 6 Months and 26 Days
  • 116 topics

Posted 04 August 2011 - 07:41 PM

The same can be said of the Tigercat. In fact, it initially failed carrier trials and was mostly used by the Marine Corps after WWII.


The F4U had a hard time passing its carrier qualification trials.

The deHavilland Hornet was a land based a/c that was modified for carrier use.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users