Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: msmiller@gonzoville.East.Sun.COM (Mark Miller - Sun BOS Contractor)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Corsair/Zero
Message-ID: <11067@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 Nov 89 04:19:51 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Billerica MA
Lines: 63
Approved: military@att.att.com



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