Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Corsair/Zero Message-ID: <11028@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 2 Nov 89 04:20:53 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 25 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Chip Mayse 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.