I love the Corsair so much bros....
>>65453205Ah, a challenge worthy of my skill!
>>65453205I want to have sex with the F4U Corsair.
>>65453366She seems the type of plane liking to pegg you.
>>65453375what kinda girl would the zero be then
dat fuselage makes me hnnnnnnnnnnngdem bent wings make me go yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr
>>65453205P-38 is much sexier.
>>65453390One that farts into combustible flames.
>>65453390Pillow princess that has to be constant coddled or else she’ll melt down in tears.
>>65453390>A pretty light and frail looking Japanese girl>But once she gets going her endurance is insane and she won't stop until you're completely drained>(The A6M had a very long range and service life)
>>65453205There's a painting I saw of a pair of corsairs in parade formation flying through the clouds during a sunset or sunrise. Anyone know what I'm talking about? I've been trying to find it forever.
for me it's the dauntless. the best plane
>>65453384Smol cute Demon.
>>65453567Luv me widow‘ate martians
>>65453205Thread themehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywCoL510SQ4
>>65453619Man /tg/ used to be a good board. Sad.
>WW2 pacific aviation
>>65453423Correct.also twin turbosupercharged opposite-rotating engines, concentrated nose armament and tricycle landing gear
The little Boomerang deserves more love.
>>65454541Note: only the bottom one is an N1K2-J Shiden Kai, the top one is an N1K1-J Shiden.
>>65453532
>>65453732>GA Y
>>65454630Correct.
>>65453874the WW2 gear + palm trees + coral and sand aesthetic is just chef's kiss
>>65454841
oooooo sexo prototype
>>65453205Why is the construction so shabby? Who would want to pilot that
>>65454934
>>65453390Aggressive but can be totally restrained by the lightest grip
>>65453742Big tits and nice nips
NSFW hot sex: https://youtu.be/_fiWrQc_zeg?si=FjuUH18s1xqHztjY
>>65454921
>>65455004I like this one, shame Subaru couldn't make a reliable engine at the time.
>>65455127Yes the J5N would have been kino
>>65453894>>65453423lol, lmao even.
"We are poor little lambs who have lost our way. Baaa Baaa Baaa ...."https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba91EocQdtoGlad I was not a Japanese in those productions. Is that you, Pat Morita?! Mr. Miyagi wax off.
>>65455237Korea photo. Not WWII (in which the Corsair only served the final seven months from USN fleet carrier decks, because prior to that it was restricted to land base combat operations only)
>>65455321reading this kino now. wonder if the tv series is any good
For me, it's the Ki-61. Mostly because it allowed me to mercilessly sealclub Russians on Warthunder for years due to being extremely OP for its ranking in the American tech tree.It was also a pretty good plane in reality, too.
Was the Akutan Zero that much of a game changer?The Hellcat was already in service and the Corsair was just months away from entering service itself, both made with the Zero heavily in mind.
>>65456286Capturing enemy tech is always useful but I think that specific one gets overstated. There was already plenty of experience fighting the Zero that pilots were able to bring back into training new ones. And isn't that where some of the misconceptions about the plane really started to get pushed (because repairs didn't fix everything properly)? Creating claims that the Zero couldn't roll right or go inverted. Info given to other pilots, who they found it wasn't true in combat.
>>65453225Just hold S to win.
>>65456268>A-26 InvaderNot many of these made it to Pacific in final year of the war, relatively more were deployed to Europe.>>65456286>Hellcat was already in serviceNo. The captured A6M was test flown in Sept-Oct 1942. First flight of the prototype F6F was only a couple month earlier (26 June 1942) and it didn't enter fleet operational service until mid-1943; some of the general air combat and flight characteristics of the A6M were already known to Grumman and USN during the late 1941-mid 1942 engineering development of the Hellcat but the captured Zero flight test data was, obviously, valuable.>Corsair>heavily in mindF4U was a years-earlier project than Grumman's F6F. It was not and never was engineering developed or designed with the 'Zero in mind'; the original USN contract was signed in June 1938 and F4U first prototype flew 29 May 1940, it was a large fighter with the biggest engine of any naval fighter aircraft at the time. As said upthread the F4U didn't enter fleet carrier deck USN service until the last several months of the Pacific conflict, being flown from land bases most of the war in USMC-USN operations.
>>65456230
Once again voicing my love of IJN carrier strike planes. I've also been wondering how common the converted battleship shell bombs were. Was that something specifically devised for Pearl Harbor? I couldn't really think of too many other places to use them except maybe Force-Z but those attacks were done with land based aircraft. Plus the stock of actual shells to covert couldn't have been that high.
>>65456700>Was that something specifically devised for Pearl Harbor?Yes, they were too heavy for dive bombers, so they could only be carried by torpedo bombers and level bombed. Level bombing was notoriously inaccurate, so it was only viable for ships at dock, like at Pearl Harbor, underway ships would easily dodge them.
>>65456700>converted battleship shellIt was for armor piercing advantageType 99 No 80 Mark 5 bombalso used at Midwayplenty of old 410 mm ammunition stockpiles available
>>65456734Level bombing is one of those things that never worked against moving ships. Even if I always loved trying it in flight sims. >>65456737Those bombs might have been overkill against carriers. Some of them didn't fuse properly when hitting BBs at Pearl, so I would expect they would have issues at Midway too. Punching through thinner decks but not exploding.Found an article that had some more info which answered some of my questions too. https://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_161-45_3ns.php
>>65456772Yes it's an interesting topic.
>>65456772I only know of one ship that was sunk by level bombing (guided bombs don't count) while underway. It was a Japanese destroyer, Hatsuyuki iirc, sunk by a B-17.As for other interesting bombs, Japan also made one with a photoelectric fuze that could be set to explode just above the ground for bombardment, or just above a plane for air to air bombing.
An armor-piercing bomb that struck the roof of Tennessee's main gun turret followed a trajectory that wedged it into a gap between armor plates; consequently, it shattered and failed to detonate.
>>65456927The bomb in question doing its best pogface
only warplane to ever have bombed the U.S. mainland
>>65453390Haughty but secretly insecure
>>65454944made for 2koma instant_loss
>>65458762They really do look better with the V-12s. The only plane to pull off the radial conversion well was the Ki-61 -> Ki-100.
>>65459288I didn't realize there was another engine. Seeing photos of it, the 1 and 2 models definitely look better. That scoop adds a lot of visual appeal.
>>65459461Clipped wings on Zeros and Spitfires always look so wrong to me.
>>65454639Nah it was basically the exact opposite perspective and the painting was in a more classical realistic style. It was on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation, but they took down the art gallery for construction. I'm gonna have to go back and find it.
>>65456963>>65460184This plane bombed Hawaii.>>65453225>>65456315This plane did not.
