You think there was some political agreement between everyone and they all agreed that they would only put more powerful engines in naval fighters and deliberately chose not to put more powerful engines in land based fighters?
Carrier- vs Land-based Aircraft
- Thread starter Snaggleooo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You think there was some political agreement between everyone and they all agreed that they would only put more powerful engines in naval fighters and deliberately chose not to put more powerful engines in land based fighters?
no he was saying that as tech improved that shrunk the preformence gap between carrier and land based aircaft
Did you actually miss the point that obviously, everyone kept updating all their aircraft all their time. They kept developing better engines all the time for naval and land based fighters.
No, that's not what I meant. I just believe that engine power increased to the point that the weight penalty for being carrier capable became negligible. If I remember, the P-47, F6F and F4U all used the same engine. The F8F would be another example of a carrier capable plane that used the same engine but was able to be designed lighter and was able to match land based performance.
- 2
And out of that list, the p47 is clearly the most superior aircraft. And as I have already explained, the F4U, shouldn't be considered a carrier plane in a WW2 discussion. It didn't take part in any carrier battle of note.
- 1
I disagree. They didn't have a role in the major carrier battles but by January of 1945, the F4U was replacing the F6F on many decks ( http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm ) because its greater speed was an advantage in facing the Kamikaze threat. So, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the raids on the Japanese home Islands. Certainly the Corsair should be counted as a carrier fighter.
- 3
Well, we will certainly disagree on this. For me, to be counted as a carrier fighter, in a WWII context, it actually has to be involved in WWII naval battles.
but that excludes almost all of britain's late to mid war aircraft simply by virtue of there being no navies for them to fight.
Supermarine Seafire
Fairey Barracuda
Blackburn Firebrand
Fairey Firefly
to name a few
- 1
Oh, okay.
First deliveries were in June, 1942. That's like, 9 months after the war began. And 36 months before it finished. The IJN, Kriegsmarine and Italian navies were all very formidable forces at this early date. And yes, the RN did tango with the IJN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_raid
They also provided air cover from carrier decks, for invasions of Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy.
They were also used for air cover for raids against the Tirpitz.
I am just not going to even bother with the rest.
same with the corsair but you said naval action i thought you meant direct naval action with your new definition they all (with the exception of the firebrand are carrier aircraft.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwariiaircraft/p/f4ucorsair.htm
I honestly don't know why but you seem to have an irrational hatred of the corsair.
Corsair, entered service as a carrier plane, January 1945. Seafire, June 1942. One right at the end of the war when all enemy naval assets had effectively been sunk. The other, well, not. One entered service when there was still a war to fight, the other, not.
Not even remotely the same.
EDIT:
And it was an absolutely exceptional aircraft, just didn't get to do much from a carrier deck, or have any potential to do anything much from a carrier deck.
Not even remotely the same.
EDIT:
And it was an absolutely exceptional aircraft, just didn't get to do much from a carrier deck, or have any potential to do anything much from a carrier deck.
Last edited:
so the only thing that makes an aircraft a carrier aircraft is it's ability to land on and take off of an aircraft carrier.
In November 1943, while operating as a shore-based unit in the Solomon Islands, VF-17 reinstalled the tail hooks so its F4Us could land and refuel while providing top cover over the task force participating in the carrier raid on Rabaul. The squadron's pilots landed, refueled, and took off from their former home, Bunker Hill and the USS Essex on 11 November 1943.[54]
also
F4U for shipboard operations in April 1944, after the longer oleo strut was fitted, which finally eliminated the tendency to bounce.[55] The first Corsair unit to be based effectively on a carrier was the pioneer USMC squadron VMF-124, which joined Essex. They were accompanied by VMF-213. The increasing need for fighter protection against kamikaze attacks resulted in more Corsair units being moved to carriers.
edit: The Corsair was an excellent carrier aircraft in the late war and in the korean war so I don't think the second part of your statement is correct (9,581 sorties (15%) flown from carrier decks) admittedly the corsair did primarily operate from land but was still capable as a carrier aircraft.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Yes, the corsair did on a few rare occasions operate off of a carrier deck. Didn't stop the navy concluding the aircraft was unsuitable for carrier operations. The second paragraph you quote was the first permanent placing of corsairs on a carrier, January of 1945.
it was a joke that nobody but me understood apparently, anyway i think we're at the end of this conversation.
lol
The pourpose of an attack plane is to kill the enemy, not the pilot.
The f104 was a terrible plane that managed to enter service just thanks to corruption.
i immagine that's why untrained nord Korean pilots in mig 15 and 17 facing faster f84 sabre used to kill so much b-29 that tha USAF decided to stop daylight ground attack operations.
And why even less trained Vietnamese pilots in mig 21s managed to kill faster phantom 2s without guns (lol)
Max speed is not everyting and that's why there are a LOT of really successful planes that are slower than enemy planes.
a6m2, spitfires, la5, yak3. mig 9, mig 15, mig17, mig 21, AV8 Harrier, F/A-18.
Speed is not the only form of energy in the world and it does not give you the ultimate advantage. Germany had definitely faster planes than uk in ww2 and still did not manage to acquire a definitive air superiority even on their own territories.
Russian planes in ww2 was slower, could fly lower, could climb slower and still managed to defend themself and fulfill their role: IL 2 could easily provide cas while j87s were easy kills for yak3s. And when german pilots had to go down to engage yaks at low altitude, la5 could engage them and sometimes kill them (and we're talking about two of the strongest designs in ww2, the bf and the fw, not about a brick with wings and a way too powerful engine).
Also, just the fact that uk and germany both managed to develop faster planes than the F4U with less powerful engines should let you understand how bad was the design of this plane.
- 3