"Carrier Aircraft - Which Was Best?" Topic

Okay, I admit it, it was a slow Tuesday afternoon at Mongoose. But we thought this light-hearted review might be of interest…

blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk

"…anti-spin parachute."
Ye gods. I never heard of that before, but that is a terrifying phrase.

LOL indeed. I enjoyed that Matt, thanks!

NOW is the time to panic!!!

Courtesy of M J Dougherty. Apparently, he will be giving battleships the same treatment…

Great stuff. Here's a quote:

"It wasn't so much that the (Brewster) Buffalo wasn't in the same league as the Japanese Zero it faced. It wasn't even playing the same sport."

The poor old much-maligned Buffalo – I think it would've been *much* more interesting if the US had the early models in service against Japan, not the grossly overloaded and underpowered F2A-3. (The lighter weight Buffs were very much in the same league as the Zero – adding best part of a ton to their weight relegated them very firmly though….)

Not sure about his Hellcat comments, pretty sure it had something like a 14 to 1 kill ratio over Zekes.

Well if you go by length of service it has to be the Dauntless. Served the entire war in one version or another.
Hellcat,yeah good plane but it never had to go up against anything that was close to its equal. Remember the Zero was not upgraded so.
My Favorite was the Corsair,great looking plane and it continued on after the war.

Corsair would be my call--but the Dauntless was good--and they were both (sort of) gull wing designs…

Rob

Corsair, the only WWII fighter to remain in production after 45. And it scored kills against jets in Korea.

Robert

>>>Served the entire war in one version or another.

>>>the only WWII fighter to remain in production after 45

Not to take issue with either of you (!), but the Dauntless appeared in, what, 1940? So it did not serve the entire war.

And the Corsair was not alone. The Spitfire was built throughout the war and production continued after.

(I'm just miffed the Seafire got only a tiny mention in the article :)).

(I'm just miffed the Seafire got only a tiny mention in the article :)).

Any mention that doesn't include the phrase "landing accidents" is best classed as favourable coverage though…. (Mind you, leaving out the Barracuda entirely really was generous – any plane with a habit of putting its pilot to sleep and then crashing really deserves a quick word in the same category as the Roc….)

Important negatives that aren't mentioned about the Corsair as a Carrier plane.

Higher landing speed than the Hellcat
Poor visibility down and to the front

Both not helpful when trying to land on the pitching deck of a Carrier.

So, is the author 12? He certainly writes as if he is.

It's Boulton-Paul.

Referring to torpedo bombers as "strike-fighters" is enough to disqualify this nincompoop from ever writing about WW2 aircraft all by itself.
-Kle.

Careful not to pull your punches too much there, people won't know how you feel….

Corsair probably the best overall fighter. Certainly the coolest looking but the Dauntless probably the best plane.
"Fighters make headlines. Bombers make history"

Joe

The Spitfire (Seafire) was a great fighter aircraft, but it was best from land bases. It really wasn't a great carrier aircraft due to the landing incidents as stated above.

In my opinion, I'd go with the Hellcat. Above average fighter that could double as an attack aircraft with bombs or rockets.

Oddball,
Interestingly the Japanese would agree with your choice of Hellcat over the Corsair in what little I have read about hte Japanese. I think that is because they were still looking at turing radius.
I think if you look at overall performance, ruggedness and ability to carry payload the Corsair wins. That is why the navy kept it around after the war.
Of course both are opinions and neitehr is absoultly correct. That is why it is a discussion board.

Joe

I've got to agree with his comments on the Skua. An aircraft never allowed to reach maturity. It fell victim to the loss of 50% of the carriers it could operate from early in the war, and the on-following conversion of Blackburn's production lines to make Spitfires. He was wrong about the TAG being armed with a Lewis gun, though. It was armed with a rear-facing Vickers K gun. Much more capable weapon.

Corsair without doubt. It had the same big engine as the P-47 thunderbolt and the Hellcat, but was a better plane.

Agreed the Vought F4U Corsair. With the Grumman F8F Bearcat a very close second. IMHO the Corsair was one of the top three U.S. fighters of the war. It had a production run from 1942 to 1953, was heavily used in Korea. The Japs called the Corsair "Whistling Death." High fear factor.

"The Grumman F8F Bearcat (affectionately called "Bear") was an American single-engine naval fighter aircraft of the 1940s. It went on to serve into the mid-20th century in the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, and the air forces of other nations. It would be Grumman Aircraft's final piston engined fighter aircraft." It was the first plane used by the Blue Angels.

Hey the Buffalo's saw great service with the Finnish.

"In Finnish Air Force service, the B-239s were regarded as being very easy to fly, a "gentleman's plane." The Buffalo was also popular within the FAF because of its relatively long range and flight endurance, and also because of its low-trouble maintenance record. This was in part due to the efforts of the Finnish engine mechanics, who solved a problem that plagued the Wright Cyclone engine simply by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder. This had a positive effect on engine reliability. The cooler weather of Finland was also a plus for the engine. In the end, the Brewster Buffalo gained a reputation in Finnish Air Force service as one of their more successful fighter aircraft. In service from 1941–1945, Buffalos of Lentolaivue 24 (Fighter Squadron 24) claimed 477 Soviet Air Force warplanes destroyed, with the combat loss of just 19 Buffalos, an outstanding victory ratio of 26:1"

Flying the Corsair took some getting use to. It's nick name was the "Ensign Eliminator." That was why it started out with the Marines from land bases. The Royal Navy used them right away. The Naval version of the Spitfire just did not have enough range for a carrier plane. Although I think they used the Hellcat too.

Here we go:

"The British Fleet Air Arm (FAA) received 1,263 F6Fs under the Lend-Lease Act; initially it was known as the Grumman Gannet Mark I. The name Hellcat replaced it in early 1943 for the sake of simplicity."

Another vote for the F8F Bearcat. Climbed like a rocket, more speed and maneuverability than any other carrier fighter of its time.

Unfortunately, it was deployed too late to see any action. . .

@rallynow: I think the Finns had great success with the Buffalo due to superior training/tactics/doctrine than the qualities of the aircraft itself (a bit like the AVG).

Spudeus – a bit of both – the Finns really made the most of their resources, but the early Buffalo, without armour and other add-ons, was rather Japanese in performance; couldn't absorb a lot of punishment, but was pretty fast and massively more agile than the overloaded POSs that the later marks became. The fact that Finnish pilots universally thought the Buffalo superior to the Hurricane says something on the subject – no way you'd find an RAF pilot with that view, but they were flying a 2000lbs heavier Buffalo.

Similarly the AVG actually trialled early Buffalos and liked them a lot (iirc Pappy Boyington had a lot of nice things to say about it) as did the Dutch, especially with the E model, which had a better engine too. The Buff was basically a decent fighter, but wrecked by the view that armour, self-sealing tanks, and more additions besides were essential – without a massive engine upgrade, the extra weight simply destroyed its performance.

I have to agree with the F4U. the F8F didn't enter service untill right at the end & wasn't crutal to the victory (almost like saying the biggest carrier was the Midway – she was launched but not in service by VJ day) – the Japanese very much feared the F4U & as stated it was even capable against early Jets & used well after the was. as for it's early problems, they was reasoned out (& even the F14 had its early problems)

Here is some of what Boyington had to say about the Buffalo. I had to censor it a little LOL. Robert

"I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other , they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little s could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and ed it up." With that he reached for his beer and was silent again. After that answer, I somehow had the feeling that I had just gotten a glimpse into Boyington's attitude towards life in general."

warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm

"Both the F2A-1 and the F2A-2 variants of the Brewster were liked by early Navy and Marine pilots, including Pappy Boyington, who praised the good turning and maneuvering abilities of the aircraft.[11] "Pappy" Boyington observed: "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armor plate, radios, and other [equipment], they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little [aircraft] could turn and roll in a phone booth." This might be expected from the low wing loading, only 24.1 pounds per square foot, only 10% higher than that of the Zero."

link