[DesertFox]

How would you rate the various fighters operated from carriers during World War II? Which would you consider the best and which the worst? Rate more than just pure combat capability - Rate Aircraft Reliability, Ease of Landing on / Taking off a Carrier, Operational Range, Protection, and any other factors which you classify as important. A few lines of why is appropriate as well.

[Argus]

Pretty easy really (in chronological order)

Overall Importance

Allied
F4F/Wildcat/Martlet - has to be the most important
Seafire - for just working all let alone working as well as it did for so long (Mk.47 being the sexiest looking fighter of the era IMHO)
F6F - as the late war US backbone

Honorable mentions to:
Sea Gladiator - Defense of Malta (Faith Hope and Charity)
F8F - for its performance

Axis
A6/Type 0 'Zero'
A7M Reppu

On a technical level, ease of landing/maintenance
Sea Gladiator
A6M
F4F
F6F
A7M
Seafire

As Combat Aircraft
??? which period, which pilots, which Mk and model ???



shane

This post has been edited by Argus: 12 April 2009 - 1057 AM

[GregShaw]

Only planes that actually saw significant combat as a carrier fighter, so no F8F-1, Sea Gladiator, Seafire Mk.47, etc...

Combat capability
F4U-1/4
F6F-3/5
A6M-2/3/5
SeaFire II/III
F4F-3
F4F-4

Reliability
F6F-3/5
F4U-1/4
F4F-3/4
Seafire II/III
(don't know enough about the A6M, but would probably rate it ahead of the Seafire)

Ease of Landing on / Taking off
F6F-3/5
F4F-3/4
F4U-1/4
Seafire II/III
(don't know enough about the A6M, but would probably rate it ahead of the F4F-3/4)

Operational Range
A6M-2/3/5
F4U-1/4
F6F-3/5
F4F-3/4
Seafire II/III

Protection
F6F-3/5
F4F-3/4
F4U-1/4
Seafire II/III
A6M-2/3/5

[On the way]

DesertFox, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1523, said:

How would you rate the various fighters operated from carriers during World War II? Which would you consider the best and which the worst? Rate more than just pure combat capability - Rate Aircraft Reliability, Ease of Landing on / Taking off a Carrier, Operational Range, Protection, and any other factors which you classify as important. A few lines of why is appropriate as well.

Worse - Brewster Buffalo
Best- Vought F4U Corsair

[DesertFox]

On the way, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1313, said:

Worse - Brewster Buffalo

You mean you would rate it lower than the Skua?

On the way, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1313, said:

Best- Vought F4U Corsair

Problems with oil pan being shot out from previous discussions as well as being hard to land.
Thats why I tend to rate the Hellcat slightly higher

[Luke Y]

DesertFox, on Mon 13 Apr 2009 0248, said:

You mean you would rate it lower than the Skua?

You would rate that as higher than the Roc? ;)

[Kenneth P. Katz]

If there are high losses taking off and landing on the carrier, the aircraft and pilots are just as gone as if they were shot down. A good carrier-based fighter had to be relatively easy to handle around the boat by an inexperienced and below-average pilot. Given that consideration, the F6F Hellcat is clearly the best WWII carrier fighter.

[DesertFox]

Luke_Yaxley, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1326, said:

You would rate that as higher than the Roc? ;)

Well, the Roc was never really operated from carriers if I understand while the Skua was?

[Mk 1]

Kenneth P. Katz, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1805, said:

Given that consideration, the F6F Hellcat is clearly the best WWII carrier fighter.

I would have to say that this conclusion warrants more than just "that consideration" as it's preface.

I believe the F6F had a better kill-to-loss ratio, with a higher total count of enemy planes shot down, a very respectable tonnage of ordnance carried and dropped, all supported by a better operational accidents rate than any other leading contender.

All in all it was a tremendous weapon of war. I still think the F4U is sexier, and clearly a better plane in terms of pure performance, but for the most useful carrier fighter of the war my vote goes to the 'cat.

-Mark 1

[Brian Kennedy]

Mk 1, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1950, said:

I would have to say that this conclusion warrants more than just "that consideration" as it's preface.

I believe the F6F had a better kill-to-loss ratio, with a higher total count of enemy planes shot down, a very respectable tonnage of ordnance carried and dropped, all supported by a better operational accidents rate than any other leading contender.

All in all it was a tremendous weapon of war. I still think the F4U is sexier, and clearly a better plane in terms of pure performance, but for the most useful carrier fighter of the war my vote goes to the 'cat.

-Mark 1

By that same token, the Seafire had good stats on paper but their loss rates to landing accidents etc. were outright crippling.

[Ken Estes]

Mk 1, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1950, said:

I would have to say that this conclusion warrants more than just "that consideration" as it's preface.

I believe the F6F had a better kill-to-loss ratio, with a higher total count of enemy planes shot down, a very respectable tonnage of ordnance carried and dropped, all supported by a better operational accidents rate than any other leading contender.

All in all it was a tremendous weapon of war. I still think the F4U is sexier, and clearly a better plane in terms of pure performance, but for the most useful carrier fighter of the war my vote goes to the 'cat.

-Mark 1

Agreed. Yet, it remains a matter of record which one the USN/USMC continued to operate after the war and the supposed poor-landing F4U even operated off of the escort carriers during the Korean War. What did the RN operate as piston-engine fighters postwar?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the F4U but I believe that the F4U-4 and F4U-5 were a considerable improvement in this regard compared to the earlier models, and IIRC the F4U-4 only came into service during the spring of 1945. The USN and USMC certainly did not operate the F4U-1 off of CVEs.

Ken Estes, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 2104, said:

Agreed. Yet, it remains a matter of record which one the USN/USMC continued to operate after the war and the supposed poor-landing F4U even operated off of the escort carriers during the Korean War. What did the RN operate as piston-engine fighters postwar?

[On the way]

DesertFox, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1718, said:

You mean you would rate it lower than the Skua?
Problems with oil pan being shot out from previous discussions as well as being hard to land.
Thats why I tend to rate the Hellcat slightly higher

Did not read about many Hellcats in the korean War. Corsairs were still being used in the early stages. Must be a reason for that. It was a probably a better plane in the MArine's eyes.

[DougRichards]

Ken Estes, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 2104, said:

Agreed. Yet, it remains a matter of record which one the USN/USMC continued to operate after the war and the supposed poor-landing F4U even operated off of the escort carriers during the Korean War. What did the RN operate as piston-engine fighters postwar?

If that isn't a rhetorical question:

Sea Fury

Firefly

Sea Hornet

[DesertFox]

On the way, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 1851, said:

Did not read about many Hellcats in the korean War. Corsairs were still being used in the early stages. Must be a reason for that. It was a probably a better plane in the MArine's eyes.

How much were they operated off of carriers and how much off of ground bases. Also, the Corsair could take a larger engine.
The Grumman Iron Works also had some new toys including the Bearcat

[Jeffro]

Best to worst

F4U-4 Corsair
F6F-5 Hellcat
Seafire III
Seafire I
A6M2 Reisen
F4F-4 Wildcat
Firefly F1
Sea Hurricane
Fulmar
Buffalo (Did it see combat from a CV?)
Skua
Sea Gladiator

IMHO, While the Hellcat had the better combat record, the Corsair was a far superior Fighter. It equals or surpasses the Hellcat in every criteria.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

How was the Corsair far superior? Which one was easier to land on an aircraft carrier?

Jeffro, on Mon 13 Apr 2009 0030, said:

IMHO, While the Hellcat had the better combat record, the Corsair was a far superior Fighter. It equals or surpasses the Hellcat in every criteria.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The only Hellcats used on Korea were rigged up as primitive cruise missiles. Corsairs were used throughout the war.

On the way, on Sun 12 Apr 2009 2251, said:

Did not read about many Hellcats in the korean War. Corsairs were still being used in the early stages. Must be a reason for that. It was a probably a better plane in the MArine's eyes.

[Doug Kibbey]

From what I've been able to gather, the F4U was the (somewhat) superior fighter, but required a higher degree of technical proficiency on the part of the pilot to extract it (to say nothing of landing on carriers) unlike the F6F, which demanded less in terms of skill on the part of mass-produced aviators in wartime. F6F apparently had much more predictable handling characteristics at speeds under 200KIA (big wing area). That's not where you want to fight, but is pretty critical to getting in the air and back down safely again.

Corsair could also carry more stuff to the fight. (and it's prettier)

[Kenneth P. Katz]

I have been doing some research in my library and on the web. My current thinking is that the F6F-3 and F6F-5 probably get the nod over the F4U-1D (first version to be assigned to carriers, in December 1944) due to better handling qualities but the F4U-1D did cure most of the vices of the earlier models of F4U. The F4U-4 (introduced into combat in April 1945) was clearly superior to the F6F-5 in most ways except that the Hellcat was probably still easier to get aboard. There was an improved version of the Hellcat designated the F6F-6 which was essentially the direct counterpart of the F4U-4 but it did not go into production because the Navy and Grumman decided to concentrate on the F8F Bearcat. The F8F was a tiny little airplane with a massive engine. The F4U was a better fighter-bomber than the F8F which is why the F4U and not the F8F went to Korea but as a pure dogfighter the F8F may have been the best piston-engine fighter ever. Of course the F8F just missed combat in WWII by a few months so it doesn't count. Ditto for the F4U-5 which also missed WWII by about a year. So for the United States Navy carrier-based fighters of WWII and immediately thereafter, best to worse looks like:

F8F-1* (air to air), F4U-5* (fighter-bomber)
F6F-6* tied with F4U-5
F6F-5 tied with F4U-1D
F6F-3

* aircraft that did not see operational service in WWII

But of course even the airplane at the bottom of the list was an excellent airplane, and when the F6F-3 was introduced it was exactly what was needed and the F4U-1/1A/1C were unsatisfactory for use on carriers.