mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (11/02/89)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu> In response to Tim Yu's question: The Corsair was almost 100 mph faster than the Zero, but (probably) less maneuverable. Corsairs racked up a kill ratio of at least six to one in combat against Japanese aircraft, but proved to be less handy than the Grumman Hellcat for carrier operations. (The Corsair's long nose gave it somewhat poor forward visibility when flying a slow landing approach at a high angle of attack; the Hellcat had a shorter--and sloped--forward fuselage). However, folks (Marines, mostly) operating from island airstrips did not care about this, and the Corsair's high speed (some versions were capable of 441 mph) and heavy bomb load made it a favorite for missions likely to involve both attacking ground targets and fighting one's way back. Consequently, as enough of both types became available, carrier fighter squadrons tended to settle on Hellcats and land-based units used Corsairs. Though not as fast (about 385 mph) as the Corsair, the Hellcat was still faster than the Zero, about equally maneuverable (some say more so), and considerably more durable. When flown with reasonable skill, either plane was more than a match for a Zero in any but the best hands. I've seen ten-to-one kill ratios cited for the Hellcat, and numbers as high as fourteen to one for the Corsair, but this latter figure may included planes destroyed on the ground. I wouldn't put much faith in these numbers, but think the qualitative assessments are accurate.
msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) (11/03/89)
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor) > >From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu> >In response to Tim Yu's question: > >The Corsair was almost 100 mph faster than the Zero, but (probably) less >maneuverable. The Corsair had superior roll performance at most speeds and generally better performace at high speed. The roll ability would allow it to flick over into a turn before the Zero could get banked over to follow. As long as the Corsair kept its speed up, the Zero was outclassed. Low-and-slow the situation got decidedly reversed. >Corsairs racked up a kill ratio of at least six to one in >combat against Japanese aircraft, but proved to be less handy than the >Grumman Hellcat for carrier operations. (The Corsair's long nose gave it >somewhat poor forward visibility when flying a slow landing approach at a >high angle of attack; the Hellcat had a shorter--and sloped--forward >fuselage). Also the landing gear was pretty stiff in the early models which made landings not only tough to make, but tough on all concerned. >However, folks (Marines, mostly) operating from island airstrips >did not care about this, and the Corsair's high speed (some versions were >capable of 441 mph) and heavy bomb load made it a favorite for missions >likely to involve both attacking ground targets and fighting one's way back. >Consequently, as enough of both types became available, carrier fighter >squadrons tended to settle on Hellcats and land-based units used >Corsairs. The British loved the Corsair. The Marines started using it because there wasn't much choice in 1942. The Wildcat was totally outclassed, and the Hellcat wasn't in production. The Corsair was fast and tough and available. Lindburgh did some test flights with the Corsair and on one mission wnet fighter-bombing with 2 tons of bombs slung. He almost piled into the target, but the plane could sure carry a load. >Though not as fast (about 385 mph) as the Corsair, the Hellcat was still >faster than the Zero, about equally maneuverable (some say more so), and >considerably more durable. When flown with reasonable skill, either plane >was more than a match for a Zero in any but the best hands. I've seen >ten-to-one kill ratios cited for the Hellcat, and numbers as high as >fourteen to one for the Corsair, but this latter figure may included planes >destroyed on the ground. I wouldn't put much faith in these numbers, but >think the qualitative assessments are accurate. One must also consider that by late-42, early-43 the US had learned its leassons the hard way. No longer were the big, fast, well-armored US planes trying to dogfight in the classical sense. They weren't playing the Zero's game. Making high-speed attacks, then doing a climbing recovery, then repeating, was the order of the day. This maximized the US plane's advantage of speed and closure rate. It also cuts down on losses nicely. If the Navy and Marines flew the Hellcat and Corsair the same way they flew during the early battles of the war, I doubt we'd see such high kill ratios. Note that these are the tactics used by the AVG and they piled up really nice kill ratios with P-40's - planes which were considered almost obsolete in 1941. -MSM
daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Dave Mead) (11/08/89)
From: Dave Mead <daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> A friend of mine was stationed on a carrier during WWII and Korea. He said early on the deck crews hated the Corsair for a flaw it had and one would assume was corrected later. The flaw was that the gun safeties could fail on deck impact. He said incoming armed planes had thus mowed down deck crews more than once and people tended to hit the deck when they saw a F4U coming in! For me it is a toss-up for the exotic/sexy looking plane award between the F4U and the P-38. The F4U was certainly the more reliable of the two. Dave Mead Tektronix Labs