Deck aircraft in World War II: new aircraft. Part II (b)

American Deck Fighters (continued)

Fighter "Chance-Vout" F4U "Corsair" was considered the best American carrier-based aircraft in its class. The development of the fighter, designed to replace the F2A "Buffalo" and F4F "Wildcat", began in the 1938 year. His first flight "Corsair" made in May 1940 year.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" "Corsair" Mk.I (F4U-1) (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

A single-engine all-metal fighter received a low-lying wing with a characteristic “reverse gull” break, which possessed better aerodynamics and reduced the length of the main landing gear, in addition, it facilitated an emergency landing for the pilots.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" F4U-4 "Corsair" with a characteristic wing fracture at an air show, July 2006 (Photo by www.jetphotos.net)

The serial production of the first Corsair model, the F4U-1, was launched in June 1942 of the year, but it did not hit the decks of aircraft carriers. Poor visibility from the cockpit, the tendency to collapse on the wing and stall into a corkscrew, as well as the hard depreciation of the landing gear pillars made it impossible for an ordinary pilot to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier without a crash. F4U-1 entered service only coastal squadrons of the Marine Corps.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" F4U-1А "Corsair" (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

In October, the first deck modification of the Corsair, the F1943U-4A, was launched in the 1 series. After a number of improvements, the main drawbacks of the previous model were eliminated: improved view from the cockpit by installing a cockpit canopy and raising the pilot's seat, reducing the rigidity of the chassis shock absorbers while increasing their travel.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" F4U-1D "Corsair" (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

In addition to F4U-1А, F4U-D (in series from December 1943) and F4U-4 (production started at the end of 1944 and ended only in 1947) became the main and massive deck modifications of the Corsair.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" "Corsair" Mk.II (F4U-1A) (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

Deck Corsairs F4U-1A, supplied to the UK, were named “Corsair” Mk.II, Mk.III (for F3A-1) and Mk.IV (F4U-1D / FG-1D). To meet the growing demand for a new fighter, its production was additionally deployed at Brewster (F3A) and Goodyear (FG).

Fighter "Chance-Vout" "Corsair" Mk.IV (F4U-1D) (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

The F4U-1 "Corsairs" were initially equipped with 2000 horsepower engines, then more powerful 2250-strong ones. The maximum speed of the fighter with the second engine reached 671 km per hour with a speed of 885 meters per minute. The slightly heavy F4U-D, with the same engine power, developed a maximum speed of 645 km per hour at an altitude of 6070 meters and had an 1026 speed of meters per minute. The fastest car was a modification of the F4U-4, which was equipped with a new four-blade screw of larger diameter (401 cm), 2450-strong engine and reached a maximum speed of 7625 km per hour at 716 meters at a speed of 1180 meters per minute.

Fighter "Chance-Vout" F4U-4 "Corsair" (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

The practical ceiling for the three main models of the Corsair was 11255, 11277 and 12650 meters, respectively. The practical flight range of the main modifications (without PTB) ranged from 1633 km from F4U-1 to 1617 km from F4U-4.

Fighter F4U-4 "Corsair" comes in to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier from the left turn (to improve visibility) (Fig. Site gallery.ykt.ru)

The main armament of the F4U “Corsair” fighters were six 12.7-mm machine guns placed in the wing. On small-batch models, the F4U-1С and F4U-4В instead of machine guns, four 20-mm guns were installed, which had a much lower rate of fire.

Taken from the aircraft carrier F4U-4В "Corsair" with cannon armament. (Fig. Site www.asisbiz.com)

The first deck modification of the F4U-1А fighter could carry one or two 454-kg bombs or an outboard fuel tank per liter 644 on the ventral node. The fighter-bomber F4U-1D "Corsair" was additionally equipped with additional suspension points for two 454-kg bombs and eight 127-mm unguided HVAR missiles. The total bomb load (one 908-kg bomb under the fuselage and two 454-kg under the wings) reached 1800 kg. Instead of bombs under the wings, two PTBs of 583 liters could be hung.

Landing F4U-4 "Corsair" demonstrates a set of weapons on external hangers, September 2011 g. (Photo site www.jetphotos.net)

Same F4U-4 “Corsair” parked in Wisconsin, USA, 24 July 2011 (Photo by www.airliners.net)

The outboard armament of the F4U-4 usually consisted of two 454-kg bombs and eight 127-mm unguided rockets on the wing assemblies. The later F4U-4 series were able to hang a single 298-mm Tiny Tim rocket under the fuselage.

Night fighter F4U-2N "Corsair" with a radar on the right console. (Fig. Site wardrawings.be)

The night version of the Corsair F4U-2 fighter (a total of 34 based on the F4U-1 / 1А) was built with an AN / APS-6 radar located on the right wing console. The detection range of bombers it was no more than 8 kilometers. The number of 12.7-mm machine guns was reduced to five.

In flight night fighter F4U-5NL "Corsair" post-war release at an air show in our time. (Photo site getbg.net)

The British carrier-based fighter "Corsair" Mk.II (III, IV), in contrast to their American counterparts, had a wing console see the 36 shortened for the possibility of placing them in the lower hangars of the British aircraft carriers.

Fighter "Vout" ("Goodyear") "Corsair" Mk.IV (FG-1D) at the air show in Canada (Ontario), July 16 2012 (Photo by www.airliners.net)

Protection of the Corsair pilot was provided by an armored seat back, an armored pod and triplex glass of the cockpit visor.

F4U-1D “Corsair” after landing with a damaged left wing console, February 1945. (Photo site ww2db.com)

With the start of 1944, the deployment of F4U-1C / D Corsair deck fighter-bomber squadrons began on the decks of American aircraft carriers.

Fighter-bomber F4U-1D "Corsair" on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Essex" after the sortie, July 1945 g. (Photo site 3.bp.blogspot.com)

The British first combat squadron "Corsairs" were formed in the fall 1943 year. From April 1944, they took an active part in the operation to destroy the German battleship Tirpitz in the Norwegian Arctic waters as escort fighters and attack aircraft.

"Corsair" Mk.II on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Illastries" after another attack of the German battleship "Tirpitz", April 1944. (Photo site ww2today.com)

24 August 1944 one of the "Corsairs" Mk.II from the aircraft carrier "Formidable" managed to get one hit in the battleship 454-kg by a bomb that did not harm the armored monster. Point in stories with the "Tirpitz" put the British heavy bombers "Lancaster" with 12000-pound bombs only in late October.

Fighter F4U-1D "Corsair" in the air duel with А6М5 "Zero" (Fig. Goodfon.ru site)

Possessing high speed characteristics, the Corsair, skillfully using the tactics of delivering lightning strikes and quick leaving, proved to be an excellent fighter in air battles. The ratio of casualties and downed enemy planes at the Corsair was one of the highest and was 1 / 11.3.

F4U-1A "Corsair" provides landing of marines, 1945 g. (Www.oldmodelkits.com)

In April, the 1945 of the year in the course of the Okinawa fighting "Corsairs" F4U-1С / D were actively used to provide direct fire support to the naval landing forces to seize the island. For their high performance, the Corsairs called the "Angels of Okinawa."

The Corsair F4U-4 fighters strike the ground target of 127-mm HVAR missiles. (Photo site anywalls.com)

More than three dozen fighter "Corsair" has survived to our days in flight-fit condition and regularly participate in various air shows.

F4U-4 “Corsair” at an air show in Florida, USA, 11 March 2016 (Photo by www.airliners.net)

Fighter “Vout” (“Goodyear”) FG-1D “Corsair” at an air show in California, USA, July 2002 (Photo by www.airliners.net)

Fighter "Vout" ("Goodyear") "Corsair" Mk.IV (FG-1D) at the airshow in England, 30 June 2012 g. (Photo site www.airliners.net)

]

References:
1. Shant K., Bishop. Aircraft carriers. The most formidable aircraft-carrying ships of the world and their aircraft: The Illustrated Encyclopedia / Per. from English / - M .: Omega, 2006.
2. Beshanov V.V. Encyclopedia of aircraft carriers / Under the general editorship of A.E. Taras - M .: AST, Minsk: Harvest, 2002 - (Library of military history).
3. Polmar N. Aircraft carriers: In 2 volumes. T. 1 / Per. from English. A.G. Patients. - M .: AST Publishing House LLC, 2001. - (Military History Library).
4. Patients A.G. Aircraft carriers. Illustrated Encyclopedia - M.: Yauza: EKSMO, 2013.
5. Kudishin I.V. Carrier-based fighters of the Second World War - M .: Astrel Publishing House LLC: AST Publishing House LLC, 2001.
6. Kharuk A.I. Fighters of the Second World War. The most complete encyclopedia - M .: Yauza: EKSMO, 2012.
7. Kotelnikov V.R. "Spitfire". The best fighter of the Allies - M .: VERO Press: Yauza: EKSMO, 2010.
8. Kharuk A.I. percussion aviation World War II - attack aircraft, bombers, torpedo bombers - M .: Yauza: EKSMO, 2012.
9. Kharuk A.I. "Zero". The best fighter - M .: Collection: Yauza: EKSMO, 2010.
10. Ivanov S.V. Fairey Firefly. War in the air (No. 145) - Beloretsk: ARS LLC, 2005.
11. Ivanov S.V. F8F Bearcat. War in the air (No. 146) - Beloretsk: ARS LLC, 2005.
12. Ivanov S.V. F4U Corsair. War in the air (No. 109) - Beloretsk: ARS LLC, 2003.
13. Doroshkevich O. Airplanes of Japan of the Second World War - Minsk: Harvest, 2004.

Internet resources:
http://www.airwar.ru;
http://pro-samolet.ru;
http://wp.scn.ru;
http://www.aviastar.org;
http://wardrawings.be/WW2;
http://www.airpages.ru;
http://www.airaces.ru.

To be continued ...

Comments

[fa2998]

The American "fighters" are very surprising! Almost all models can carry 2-4 ABs of 454 kg each, a bunch of missiles. The bomb load is 3-4 times higher than the same IL-2. In Europe, 2 tons, not all bombers could carry, I think excellent aircraft engines 2500 l / s
and above allowed the American such!

[25ru]

Concept of work: the possibility of WB and the attack of a surface / ground target. We have an Il-2 attack aircraft, which hangs over the battlefield, plowing targets or fighters of the Yak or La family. They have a heavy fighter with a powerful engine and a very high combat load. Like a raider: he quickly appeared, quickly struck and quickly faded away, and without external suspensions - an air fighter. But he cannot hang over the battlefield. This later led to fighter-bombers. Yes, also, we are talking about the deck. Why would he need a torpedo, if there are specialized plowmen on board the aircraft carrier: TBF Avenger - a tope carrier, a bomber, a reconnaissance officer and the devil. When I got interested, I found a list of modifications and options - Mom, dear! But one is missing - the fighter.
Something like this. IMHO.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: 25ru

Yes, also, we are talking about the deck. Why would he need a torpedo, if there are specialized plowmen on board the aircraft carrier: TBF Avenger - a tope carrier, a bomber, a reconnaissance officer and the devil.

Already in 1944, American aircraft carrier admirals dreamed of getting rid of specialized attack machines and switching to universal fighter-bomber-torpedo bombers. And leave special vehicles only for reconnaissance, AWACS and other auxiliary tasks.

Vice Admiral McCain, who on October 30 became Commander of Task Force 38 instead of Vice Admiral Mitcher, claimed that the air group should consist of 30% of fighters and 60% of fighter-bombers, and all aircraft should be F6F-5 “Hellcat” and (or) F4U-1D “Corsairs”. The remaining 10% was taken by Admiral McCain to special planes - photo scouts, long-range scouts (new twin-engine F7F Tigercat fighters), night airplanes, radar patrol aircraft, and rescue aircraft. Admiral McCain stated:
“There is no room for an aircraft with SB2C-4 characteristics in such an air group. TVM-3 can only be used until fighter-bombers can carry torpedoes... When comparing pound to pound, plane to plane, place to place, no machine can be as effective as an F6F-5 or F4U-1D as a strike aircraft. Until the composition of the air group proposed here is adopted, fast aircraft carriers will not be able to deliver the attacks they are potentially capable of. "

© Polmar

The reason is simple - on the nose loomed work in the coastal waters of the Japanese Metropolis. Moreover, special attack units appeared. So the aircraft carriers needed to provide as strong air defense as possible. "Corsair" and "Hellcat" were good for air defense. But "Helldiver" and "Avenger" - no. So they were considered ineffective machines, taking the place of much needed fighters.

[Fast_mutant]

I would look at that Corsair in the mode of our attack aircraft. Who the hell would be back at the base. we had an IL-2 capsule, and not two or three armored plates under the pilot's ass.

[DimanC]

Somehow it will not be enough. The corsair stood on the wing in great anguish, and quite a bit is written about this in the article.

[Aleksandr72]

Let me supplement the author of the article. Regards to him
How "Corsair" got on the wing:
On May 29, 1940, the prototype of the future "Corsair" made its first flight, which lasted 38 minutes and showed high flight data of the aircraft. However, the flight ended with a forced landing due to high-frequency shaking of the aileron trim tabs, which broke off at a speed of 370 km / h. Despite the significant workload in the control of the aircraft, the pilot managed to land it without damage. Among the shortcomings that were identified during the flight, the main ones were overheating of the engine and poor performance of the fuel system. During the fifth test flight, on June 12, 1940, the pilot crashed into trees during a forced landing on a golf course (at a speed of 150 km / h). The aircraft capsized and received severe damage to the keel and propeller, and one wing was torn off. The pilot miraculously survived. The tests showed new flaws in the aircraft. XF4U-1 stumbled onto the wing at minimum landing speed. There were also many problems with an undeveloped engine that overheated a lot. There were many other problems and breakdowns during the aircraft tests. But this was, in general, expected for a completely new machine, which was supposed to be used as a carrier-based fighter to replace the outdated Wildket.
Preparations for using the aircraft on aircraft carriers were much more difficult. The first series of test takeoffs and landings, carried out on the Sangamon aircraft carrier, beginning on September 25, 1942, revealed a number of design flaws in the aircraft. "Corsair" unexpectedly, for no apparent reason, lost speed, fell onto the right wing, and if the pilot did not have time to energetically return the rudders away from him, the fighter went into a tailspin. Due to the strong torque of the propeller, instability of the aircraft was felt during takeoff and landing. The fighter literally dangled left and right. Standard aircraft carrier landing techniques were virtually impossible. The engine limited the pilot's view, and the oil droplets falling from the engine onto the windshield made visibility even more difficult. At the time of landing, the pilot was forced to approach the ship not in a straight line, but on a bend in order to see the landing deck. At the moment of landing, the fighter lowered its nose and hit hard with the main wheels. The Corsair bounced on rigidly damped landing gear struts, which often resulted in damage to the aircraft. In this situation, the command of the US Navy could not use the F4U-1 as carrier-based fighters.
Vought-Sicorsky Division has put a lot of effort into improving aircraft flight data. The fighter was made more than 100 changes.
Therefore, the Corsairs were originally used only by the US Marine Corps aircraft.
As a result, it turned out that the "Corsairs" hit the take-off decks of aircraft carriers in full accordance with the proverb: "there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped."
On November 8, 1943, having departed from the islands of New Georgia, F4U fighters from the VF-17 KMP squadron performed a combat mission to cover the Essex and Bunker Hill aircraft carriers, whose planes were striking the city of Rabaul. Having intercepted and destroyed a group of 18 Japanese bombers, the Corsairs almost completely used up their fuel reserves. Therefore, contrary to the instructions, a forced decision was made to board aircraft carriers. All aircraft landed safely on deck. This landing influenced the further decision of the command to use the F4U more extensively from aircraft carriers. Although this also required significant improvements in the design of the aircraft.

[AlexanderBrv]

Thank you for your attention to this fighter! Unfortunately, the format of articles posted on the site does not allow large volumes (especially with graphics), you have to focus on especially important points (this part had to be broken down into two more parts during the publication!). Sincerely, the author ...

[DimanC]

Yes, I understand. Here you can paint such a monograph that it pulls hundreds of pages

[DimanC]

Thanks for the clarification. The story of "Corsair" itself is familiar to me from "Corner of the Sky" and similar sites. I just wanted the author to literally touch on this in one paragraph: the plane turned out to be complicated, the whole war was brought on, high requirements for pilots, etc.

[qwert]

Quote: DimanC

Somehow it will not be enough. The corsair stood on the wing in great anguish, and quite a bit is written about this in the article.

The article is generally little that is written. Such a format. So in fact, probably, the author intended. A maximum of illustrations and an extremely brief overview. Well, in the style of reference books, or articles in modern magazines, there is the American standard - an article should not exceed half the page A4, printed in Times-12 font. Otherwise, American experts believe that a person will be tired of reading, but he does not get tired of looking at pictures. The same Airplanes of the World in this format and much more ... frivolous in my opinion.
But, the author of the article has no complaints. Each article on the VO finds its readers. This site I like and the wide format and approaches to topics and their presentation. All readers are different and dissimilar.

[DimanC]

Well, yes, the Americans with their comics instead of full books have already delivered in full :-)

[demiurg]

11.3 to 1. It seems that only three Americans filled 30 + aircraft. I understand inexperienced Japanese pilots, outdated Japanese technology, but even the Germans in 1941 were even more modest. How with such aces in the sky could they not decide the war of the 4 of the year?
And the question is really knowledgeable. Why were bombers with 700-800 kilograms attached to fighters carrying almost one and a half tons of combat load? Was it difficult to hang a torpedo under a corsair or the inability to equip a bomb sight?

[qwert]

Quote: demiurg

And the question is really knowledgeable. Why were bombers with 700-800 kilograms attached to fighters carrying almost one and a half tons of combat load? Was it difficult to hang a torpedo under a corsair or the inability to equip a bomb sight?

Read the memories of the Pe-2 bomber commander on this site. He claimed that Pawn is the best dive thanks to the presence of a navigator. The pilot is not able to single-handedly fly the aircraft, taking into account all the factors and amendments, with such accuracy as with a navigator. Therefore, he argued that all Focke-Wulfs and other bomb carriers had extremely low efficiency compared to real bombers. As for the combat load of the Pawns, he also said that even with a pair of 250-kg bombs suspended, he would put them exactly on target, unlike the same fokker or even fokker link.

Quote: demiurg

11.3 to 1. It seems that only three Americans filled 30 + aircraft. I understand inexperienced Japanese pilots, outdated Japanese technology, but even the Germans in 1941 were even more modest. How with such aces in the sky could they not decide the war of the 4 of the year?

Well, that’s US data 11,3 to 1. In Korea, they also "knocked" MiGs

[25ru]

Read the memories of the Pe-2 bomber commander on this site. He claimed that Pawn is the best dive thanks to the presence of a navigator. The pilot is not able to single-handedly fly the aircraft, taking into account all the factors and amendments, with such accuracy as with a navigator. Therefore, he argued that all Focke-Wulfs and other bomb carriers had extremely low efficiency compared to real bombers. As for the combat load of the Pawns, he also said that even with a pair of 250-kg bombs suspended, he would put them exactly on target, unlike the same fokker or even fokker link.

Those. You unconditionally trust your memories "over a glass of tea". You know, my grandfather is a torpedo bomber-navigator since 1939. (And all on IL-4), I was somewhat less optimistic. Yes, the same 1st Guards BF.

[Verdun]

Quote: demiurg

How with such aces in the sky could not war for 4 years?

It's just that the Americans were waiting for the Corsair to appear.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: demiurg

11.3 to 1. It seems that only three Americans filled 30 + aircraft. I understand inexperienced Japanese pilots, outdated Japanese technology, but even the Germans in 1941 were even more modest. How with such aces in the sky could they not decide the war of the 4 of the year?

It's simple - the "Corsairs" have already come to the "distribution of elephants" when the quality of the bulk of the Japanese pilots fell below the plinth. So they were frolicking - like extras in a sandbox.
And to make this possible, “Wildcat”, early “Hellcat” and army team 2-3 years had to knock out Japanese aces with pre-war training and the experience of China in heavy battles.

[Bosk]

It’s an interesting airplane, and most importantly I like the silhouette in it, on the one hand it’s not fighter or something ... some strange chopped-rounded shapes ... but at the same time it's quite aggressive and not very bad at the same time TTD.

[Engineer]

Due to the strong moment from the propeller with such a powerful engine in the wing console had to carry a decent load.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: Engineer

Due to the strong moment from the propeller with such a powerful engine in the wing console had to carry a decent load.

In some ways, it resembles the P-47 - the same super-heavy station wagon. By the way, like Thunderbolts in Europe, Corsairs in Korea were used as attack aircraft, and were used successfully.

And so the car got TOO STRONG engine. This is rare, but it happens - most airplanes experience a lack of thrust-weight ratio, but on the contrary.

[25ru]

The author would put another "+" for the photo and especially the pictures. I suppose - retouching b / w photos, although there were a lot of colors, which became, in due time, a discovery for me

[heruv1me]

to the photo with the approach, as I understand the error in the comment, the plane enters the landing with the right turn, and not the left.

[25ru]

Yes, obviously. But forgive the author - just beautiful.

[25ru]

On the desktop of the computer, the picture with the Corsair approaching from a bend for landing looks good. So far I have put it.

[PPD]

That absolutely does not play a special role, what kind of load it has. Efficiency is more important.
With fighter-bombers, it’s not in vain that they say neither fighters nor bombers.
And already 11 to 1 - in general, without comment - hunting stories:
https://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/409/lblq318.jpg

[Verdun]

The ratio of losses and shot down enemy aircraft at the “Corsair” was one of the highest and amounted to 1 / 11.3.

You need to be very careful with these numbers. For starters, the main combat successes of the "Corsairs" fell on the last year of the war, when the Japanese aviation lost well-trained pilots and the industry could no longer cope with the production of a sufficient number of aircraft. And regarding the victories and losses of the F4-U, there is such interesting information:

Throughout the war, F4U made 64 sorties, shooting down 051 enemy planes and dropping 2140 tons of bombs. Losses amounted to 15 aircraft, including [621]:

in air battles - 189
anti-aircraft fire - 349
casualties in combat missions - 230
non-combat losses in the air - 692
losses on the ground and on aircraft carriers - 164

Non-combat losses in the air in 692 vehicles - what's this? Indicator of high quality and good flight characteristics of the aircraft? At the same time, American data on the number of victories and losses often resembles the picture posted by the author of the article, on which as many as 82 air victories are indicated on board the Corsair. The internet is replete with highly questionable descriptions of this machine. In particular, there are even statements that the F4-U demonstrated superiority over the MiG-15 in air battles in Korea!))

[iouris]

This statistics. It can only be compared with other statistics.
It would be good to simultaneously provide data on the non-combat losses of Soviet aircraft.
The aircraft, indeed, outstanding for its time (especially since it is a decker). However, combat effectiveness is difficult to evaluate now.

[Alf]

Quote: Verdun

Non-combat losses in the air in 692 cars - what is this? An indicator of high quality and good flight characteristics of the aircraft? Moreover, American data on the number of wins and losses often resemble a picture posted by the author of the article,

American casualties are very crafty.
If a plane riddled in battle reaches an airfield, then it is written off as a non-combat loss.
And then,

Quote: Verdun

losses in combat missions

How shoud I understand this ?

[25ru]

[quote = Aspeed] Uh ​​... well, it’s like the fact that the Americans traditionally write off downed planes as non-combat losses is a well-known fact.
And the USSR - das east lamb furry ...
By the way, during the Second World War, ours was the same sinner. [/ Quote
Now, do you want to explain on the topic of carrier-based "heavy" fighters? No? They had their own role in WWII.
There are also Japanese seaplanes. Digging is not too lazy ?. How did they surprise in the "lethal" sense, both ours and amers? Not aware of individual battles?

[Taoist]

Well, I wouldn’t call a Corsair a fighter ... a typical IS - I think that if he didn’t get into battle in the 44 (when the Japanese had nothing and no one to fight) the WB statistics would not look so favorably ... Well, another illustration to the fact that if you fasten a sufficiently powerful motor to the fence, then the fence will fly ...

This is how a deck IS, an attack aircraft, of course, is good ... durable, high-speed with a large combat load. But in aerial combat it is only and exclusively "hit-and-run" ...

[Roman 11]

Mdya, TTH of Corsair and Zero are like heaven and earth, so the Japus correctly used their aces:

[Verdun]

Quote: Novel 11

Mdya, TTH of Corsair and Zero are like heaven and earth, so the Japus correctly used their aces:

Most of the kamikaze had only basic flight training. And "Zero" was, albeit a massive, but far from the only Japanese fighter. For example, the N1K2-J "Siden" withstood American cars very well.

In battle, the N1K2-J proved to be an outstanding fighter capable of withstanding the best Allied aircraft. A clear manifestation of his qualities was the battle of Kinsuke Muto from the 343rd Kokutai with a dozen American Hellcat, when Muto destroyed four American fighters, and the rest fled.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: Verdun

The N1K2-J "Syden" withstood the American vehicles very well.

And EXCEPT the indicated and well-known case you have examples of military successes? When he appeared - Japan could not oppose anything ...

[motorized rifle]

For more than five years, at the VO, the same disputes over whether one type of aircraft could defeat another. There are myths and memoirs and Wishlist, but there is no analysis, that's why it lasts from year to year. As a schoolboy in the 70s, I read a book by Vladimir Sergeevich Pyshny, an outstanding Russian and Soviet aerodynamicist, "From the History of Aircraft". Great book, available in the internet. There, it is simple and accessible, with fairly simple formulas, all the characteristics of the aircraft and what PI Nesterov flew on, and the calculation of the loop of his name are revealed, all the flight characteristics of Ilya Muromets are displayed. But the most interesting on our topic is chapter 3: "Maneuverable aircraft". there are several comparative tables of devices of the First World War, with detailed explanations of their maneuverable properties and much more. Including formulas and graphs, the battle between the I-153 and I-16 is being considered. Moreover, the analysis is carried out with the help of the energy method introduced by him, without which not a single combat aviation textbook can do today. So he analyzes the classic confrontation: High-speed versus Maneuverable, and in conclusion he writes: "What kind of aircraft has an advantage in aerial combat? It all depends on the pilot's experience; the I-153 aircraft should not engage in combat at high speed, and the aircraft" And -16 "at low speed. The advantage belongs to the one who has the initiative, and it belongs to the one who has higher speed. If the I-153 offers maneuvering at low speeds, then the I-16 may not accept it and leave with a target preparation of maneuvers for an attack, and the I-153 is deprived of such an opportunity. " Substitute any combination of aircraft, taking into account their power load and wing area, their maximum speeds, and everything will fall into place. For example, the same Zero instead of the I-153, and the Corsair instead of the I-16, and you will understand what the pilot's experience is, and how he should fight, and who still has a better plane, and why.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: motorized infantryman

and in the conclusion he writes: "What kind of aircraft has the advantage in air combat? It all depends on the experience of the pilot;

Exactly ! Practice has shown that the best aircraft is the one that pilots a better trained pilot!

This law is for the Spanish civilian, and for the Finnish Winter, and for the Second World War, and for the Arab-Israeli ...

[motorized rifle]

And further. In addition to purely air combat, aviation performs various tasks in cooperation with ground and naval forces, reconnaissance of all types and strategic tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the quality of aircraft for their compliance with a specific task. Then there will be no unnecessary comparisons of airplanes intended for completely different purposes, but there will be a conversation whether this type was successful or not, whether it performed this task or not. In addition, there is also a tactic of application, it can be different for the same task, this can be discussed, well, etc. But in any case, sufficient knowledge on these issues is needed for discussion, otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

[Mikhail Matyugin]

Quote: motorized infantryman

Then there will be no unnecessary comparisons of airplanes intended for completely different purposes, but there will be a conversation whether this type was successful or not, whether it performed this task or not.

That's it in the complex. And Japan, for example, did not have anything like a huge fleet of ultra-long-range strategic bombers like the Yankees. And they simply razed them to dust ... (and if American factories tried to bomb ... from meteorological probes, the Japs could not even block the Panama Canal from their aircraft carrier submarines)