Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Let's have some fun. Lightning vs Mustang vs others. Which is the best.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jroc" data-source="post: 14014150" data-attributes="member: 51847"><p>While I'm no huge expert I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the Hellcat. I mean sure as the war when on the Japanese pilots because less experienced, and "Green" so to speak because they were losing their experienced pilots, but the Hellcat was a part of the reason why. I don't necessarily think you can just chalk up it's win to loss ratio solely to good U.S pilots in a lesser aircraft beating up on poor Japanese pilots in a far superior aircraft as the F4F wasn't doing nearly as well in the hands of U.S pilots. :shrug:</p><p></p><p>I'm a Corsair fan also, and while they started seeing combat a few months before the Hellcat did, they both fought in the same theater against the same enemy, and both aircraft were flown by Navy and Marine pilots(even though the Hellcat was primarily used by the Navy and the Corsair the Marines) and the Corsairs kill to loss ratio in Air-to-Air combat was about 2/3's or so what the Hellcats was again fighting the same enemy. </p><p></p><p>U.S Navy/Marine Corsairs in WWII:</p><p>Air to air kill to loss ratio: 11:1</p><p>Claimed air to air victories: 2,140</p><p>Lost to enemy aircraft: 189</p><p> </p><p>U.S Navy/Marine Hellcats in WWII:</p><p>Air to air kill to loss ratio: 19:1</p><p>Claimed air to air victories: 5,163</p><p>Lost to enemy aircraft: 270</p><p></p><p>I think sometime people get caught up in the sex appeal of the Corsair and deem the hellcat inferior because it didn't look as neat. The Corsair was faster and climbed a little better, while the Hellcat had better range, and both were very powerful, and maneuverable fighters that were a big step up from the old F4F Wildcat and the Hellcat just did an excellent job of killing Zero's.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This program claims that the Hellcat pretty much bettered or match the Zero in most performance aspects. IDK about lower speed as I think the Zero were suppose to perform really well at slower speeds, but again I'm no expert.</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_P0EE7c10" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_P0EE7c10</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jroc, post: 14014150, member: 51847"] While I'm no huge expert I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the Hellcat. I mean sure as the war when on the Japanese pilots because less experienced, and "Green" so to speak because they were losing their experienced pilots, but the Hellcat was a part of the reason why. I don't necessarily think you can just chalk up it's win to loss ratio solely to good U.S pilots in a lesser aircraft beating up on poor Japanese pilots in a far superior aircraft as the F4F wasn't doing nearly as well in the hands of U.S pilots. :shrug: I'm a Corsair fan also, and while they started seeing combat a few months before the Hellcat did, they both fought in the same theater against the same enemy, and both aircraft were flown by Navy and Marine pilots(even though the Hellcat was primarily used by the Navy and the Corsair the Marines) and the Corsairs kill to loss ratio in Air-to-Air combat was about 2/3's or so what the Hellcats was again fighting the same enemy. U.S Navy/Marine Corsairs in WWII: Air to air kill to loss ratio: 11:1 Claimed air to air victories: 2,140 Lost to enemy aircraft: 189 U.S Navy/Marine Hellcats in WWII: Air to air kill to loss ratio: 19:1 Claimed air to air victories: 5,163 Lost to enemy aircraft: 270 I think sometime people get caught up in the sex appeal of the Corsair and deem the hellcat inferior because it didn't look as neat. The Corsair was faster and climbed a little better, while the Hellcat had better range, and both were very powerful, and maneuverable fighters that were a big step up from the old F4F Wildcat and the Hellcat just did an excellent job of killing Zero's. This program claims that the Hellcat pretty much bettered or match the Zero in most performance aspects. IDK about lower speed as I think the Zero were suppose to perform really well at slower speeds, but again I'm no expert. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_P0EE7c10[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Let's have some fun. Lightning vs Mustang vs others. Which is the best.....
Top