That's largely true of all the USAAF P series aircraft as, for the most part, they had to travel long distances in bomber escort roles deep over enemy territory.
The Navy had much different requirements. Their primary opponent was the Japanese Zero, not the faster sleeker 109's and 190's on the Western front. Their range and altitude requirements were completely different.
As evidence of this you need look no further than the extensive use of sleek, aerodynamic in-line engines in the P series vs radials in the F series with the Jug being the big exception to that rule.
As the war progressed all countries transitioned from manouverability toward speed. The German 109 series is a prime example of this. The USN was no exception moving from the early F4F's to the F4U's but their greatest success came with the F6F, hardly a speed burner in comparison to it's US peers at the time.
For the USN I'd say toughness was the primary attribute. Range wasn't initially important as they weren't resticted to land based operations. Ord wasn't initially important as most of their bomber force was carrier based attack type aircraft although that and speed became more important through the course of the war. Because of the dive bombing of ships vs heavy bomber escort alt wasn't important and when it became important P-51's and P-47's were brought in to fill that role. That leaves the ability to get off of and onto a carrier deck, the ability to engage the Japanese and the ability to absorbe damage and get home.
It's interesting because the US was involved in two completely different wars with completely different requirements and when you're generalizing about US aircraft design at the time I think it's an important distinction, one that Riply failed to make when I first countered his generalization and one that you've also failed to make.
But according to your rebuttal my generalization is still correct. Yes, the navy had a problem fighting the zeroes because they outclassed the f4f's. They were slower, no where near as maneuverable, but they were, as you said, very tough.
As Saxman said, range was extremely important as the ocean is vast, and the Zero outclassed the f4f in that category as well. As a matter of fact, the Zero was ahead of its time as far as range is concerned, as they could fly escort missions for longer distances than any other plane of the war until the 51D made an appearance, their longest escort mission being from Rabaul to Guadalcanal, which was a longer mission than the P51D ever did escorting bombers from Britain to Germany. I guess my point about that is range was extremely important, even more so than in the European theatre.
The P38 Was highly effective against the Japanese, credited for shooting down over 1800 Japanese aircraft, but not because it could turn with them, because it couldn't, but because it was faster, tougher, and it outgunned them.
Then comes the F6F. In the Japanese's first engagements with the F6F, they mistook the plane for the F4F, which was usually a lethal mistake for the pilot making that error because the F6F had WAY more Horsepower than the F4F, and because of that they were faster and accelerated much better. While the F4F lacked speed over the Zero, the F6F greatly exceeded the Zero's top speed. However, when it came to a turn fight, the Zero still had the advantage, and any pilot attempting to turn circles with a Zero found that the Zero would eventually find his way to their 6.
While the F6F may have been a very maneuverable plane, it was not BUILT to be the most maneuverable plane in the pacific, it was built to be the FASTEST and TOUGHEST. So I am sorry, you say I was generalizing about American aircraft engineering, and I was, but I respectfully disagree with your post.
