I would have to say that it was the Grumman F6F Hellcat. The Corsair had a VERY high landing speed, and had poor visibility. The F6F was the first American carrier based fighter which had an advantage over the Zero. The Corsair flew 54,470 missions from land and only 9,581 from carriers. The Corsair may have done better against Japnese land-based fighters, may have been faster, and may have had a higher service ceiling, but I think that the F6F had a bigger impact on the war from carriers.

__________________
MUSTANGS FOREVER
FACTS ARE JUST THERE TO ARGUE YOUR OPINIONS

MUSTANG-I don't think we should rule out the SBD Dauntless either. The main essence of their success came against IJN naval targets admittedly, but that success was outstanding-especially against the crucial Japanese carrier divisions. So yes, But agreed, for ability in air-to-air, yes the Hellcat all the way...

__________________
"GARRY OWEN"-Traditional war-cry of the US 7th Cavalry.
"CURRAHEE"-War-cry of the US 506th PIR.
"Everybody thinks that they are going to get the chance to punch some Nazi in the face at Normandy-and those days are over, they are long gone"-Lt Chris Burnett

Panzerknacker

Wasn't the Dauntless also used for low level intercepts of Japanese planes?

Jumbo

__________________
"Capital! We're nearly out of ammunition! Now we can get at them with the bayonet!" General Paddy Gough, 1st Sikh War

The Dauntless was a dive bomber, not a fighter.

__________________
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -- Sir Winston Churchill

I was going to say that too, Ron. The SBD was a dive bomber. The one which one Coral Sea and Midway...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

This question always brings up an argument here in the USA among navy veterans. Between the Corsair and the Hellcat! I would have to go with the F6F Hellcat! It seems to me to be more the "navy fighter" where as the Corsair is more of a land based fighter for the Marines. Both were very good, and performed well against the Japanese. I would have liked to seen both of these planes in Europe against the Luftwaffe? Don't know what would have happened?

Matt

I agree with you 100%. The F6F was definetely more of a carrier based fighter because the F4U had a very high landing speed and the pilot had a poor visual of the landing strip. It would have been interesting to see how they performed against the Luftwaffe. I think that the F4U would have performed better than the F6F here. The F4U was faster. Both had an air-cooled engine which would make it more durable than a P-38 or sadly even a P-51. I think that they belonged in the Pacific simply because some planes do better against other planes. The P-51 had the best kill to loss ratio in Europe (7 to 1), but the P-38 had a better kill to loss ratio in the Pacific (11 to 1) . The Corsair did well against Japanese land based fighters and the F6F did well against Zekes.

The Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and the P-51 were so perfect for each other that the Merlin allowed the P-51 to keep a certain level of performance throughout the altitude ranges. The fact that one unlucky shot on the coolant line could bring the plane done was the P-51's only real drawback.

[ 06 October 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Mustang ]

__________________
MUSTANGS FOREVER
FACTS ARE JUST THERE TO ARGUE YOUR OPINIONS