If I may inject a note of reality here, I would like to point out that very few of us "arm-chair" aces have ever, actually, flown a plane of any kind. We have formed opinions about individual fighters of World War II based on the things that we have read, discarding facts along the way that would tend to disagree with them. Arguing the relative merits of these aircraft with other "fliers" of AH is a great way to spend an afternoon. But denigrating specific aircraft because they do not measure up to our "nebulous" standards is just plain silly. ("The P-109 has to be the uber plane because it looks so COOL!")
Sorry guys. There is no uber plane. There never was. Each of these fighters were built to meet specific performance envelopes. To one degree or another they were all successful in the roles for which they were designed. The Nik was designed with the specific purpose of besting the F6F. Great speed and climbing performance were designed into it. With the Hellcat and the Corsair decimating Japanese airpower the need for fighters such as the Nik was overwhelming. However, the Nik was not a fighter that the great masses of undertrained Japanese pilots could safely fly. Saburo Sakai (If you don't know who he was, Shame on You!) described the Nik's handling characteristics as being treacherous. Many young pilots were killed by it during their familiarization flights. Only an experienced pilot could safely squeeze every last ounce of performance from it.
Inexperienced Hellcat pilots, on the other hand, had no such problems. The docile handling characteristics of the F6F allowed them to push it to its' performance limits with impunity. This was its greatest fighting quality, undoubtedly contributing to its sterling kill to loss record, the best of any Allied fighter to tangle with the Japanese.
Comparing fighters is like comparing apples to oranges. The one that you prefer depends on you personal tastes. I champion the Hellcat, not because it possessed mythical performance, but because it is often unjustly maligned. Why is it easier to believe, for instance, that the P-47D, which had a Pratt and Whitney R2800 of 2300 hp, the same as the F6F-5, and which weighed nearly a ton more in unloaded condition, was capable of 430 mph at its rated altitude, and the Hellcat was only capable of 386 mph at its' rated altitude. Elementary physics says that it is not possible. In bulk and weight, the F6F takes second place. Either the flight data on the P-47 is in error, or that of the F6F is in error.
So, which is it?
Respectfully, Shuckins
