(My bold.)
Well said CTB !
Cuts, don’t encourage him. 
Sorry, next one will be done in a bit, I went and got hammered instead of doing it last night :oops:
Since there’s a couple of Corsair fans:
P-63 Kingcobra (USA) v F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
P-63 Kingcobra (USA)
Engine: 1325hp Allison V-1710-93
Maximum Speed: 410mph (660km/h)
Service Ceiling: 43,000ft (13,110m)
Rate of Climb: 25,000 feet in 7 minutes
Range: 450 miles (724km)
Armament: 1x 37mm cannon
4x 0.50in MGs
3x 522lb bombs
Developed from the P-39 Aircobra, the P-63 Kingcobra entered service in 1943 and 3,300 had been built by the time production ended in 1945. Very few were used by the USAAF, with the majority being delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Most P-63s were used for ground attack rather than as pure fighters, particularly by the Soviets who used them as tank busters. Although it was a reasonably manouverable and well armed aircraft, which was also extremely robust, by the time it entered service it had been outclassed as a fighter.
Many of the American P-63s ended up in Operation Pinball, which used P-63s with a pilot flying the aircraft, with heavy armor, as flying live targets for recruits to practise their gunnery on.
F-4U-4 Corsair (USA)
Engine: 2450hp Pratt & Whitney R2800
Maximum Speed: 446mph (714 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649m)
Rate of Climb: 4,170ft/minute
Range: 1,005 miles (1618km)
Armament: Either 6x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs or 4x 20mm cannon
Up to 3x 1,000lb bombs and 6x 127mm (5in) rockets
One of the great aircraft of the war, the Corsair was probably the best load carrying fighter of the war. Capable of lifting massive weights (it was reportedly possible to rig the Cosair with up to 6000lb of ordanance - more than some medium bombers!). Fast (faster than the P-51D) and very manouverable, the Corsair was also extremely robust, capable of soaking up a lot of battle damage, it was also more resistant to stall than the P-51D, making it easier to fly in a slow, turning dogfight. The Corsair also offered very good visibility from it’s large, high cockpit.
Get your votes in then folks - remember to give at least an attempt at justifying your choice. You’ve got 72 hours(ish) from now.
Current scores - P-63 1 Corsair 1
For me the winner of this battle has to be the Corsair, a superb aircraft, heavily armed and capable of carrying a lot of external ordanance as well. It was one of the most manouverable aircraft of the war to, making it a very good aircraft for fighting in. The P-63 is a decent aircraft, but it just can’t compare to the Corsair in my opinion.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here - a lot of people with disagree with me but hey, that just mean’s they’ll have to get in here and vote against me and justify why! 
Yes, the P-63 is only a “decent” aircraft living in the shadow of the P-51 and P-47 and hence getting shunted off to Russia for Lend-Lease, who then don’t sing it’s praises for “patriotic” reasons, apparently (far better to praise the local types).
Despite it’s undoubted qualities, however, I’m [b]not[b] going to vote for the Corsair for the following reasons:
The entire design is dominated by the demands of carrier operations, at which it was appallingly unsuited! Any aircraft which earns the nickname “Ensign Eliminator” must be treat with suspicion!!! So on technical grounds, I’m going to vote for the P-63.
While the P-63 packages decent performance at lower levels, and an unquestionably strong punch (37mm cannon and 4 x 0.50 cal not to be sniffed at!) - the Corsair is a superb fighter completely unsuited to it’s intended base of operations. The first one was delivered July 1942, yet wasn’t cleared for operations from US carriers until 1944!!! Two years! The 1942 carrier qual trials led to the US Navy releasing the aircraft to the USMC, such a problematic carrier child it was. The US Navy - who had first dibs on such things, showed a preference for the F6F Hellcat, which will not such a sparkling performer in the air, was a better carrier aircraft.
The Corsair suffered from it’s atrocious forward visibility on landing… hard enough to land on a carrier but when you can’t see the deck. I’ve also recently found out while researching to back up my unexpected vote, that it used to stall without warning and drop the starboard wing, very possibly resulting in a spin - recovery from which was difficult. Not good for carrier ops either! It also had poor control and stability on touchdown, and was prone to bounce on landing. Almost as my were lost in landing accidents as air to air combat.
Used as a source:
http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/history.htm
VERY GOOD, OBJECTIVE SITE, despite beig a fan site of the Corsair! Highly recommended reading and great ammunition for being an obnoxious, obstructive git voting against the tide. 
Good points there Fest - but I did read that you got a stall warning with the Corsair about 6 or 7 mph before it actually stalled - the wings would start to judder (much like the Spitfire in that respect I suppose - the wing tips of the Spit stalled before the rest of the wing so the pilot would have a warning before stalling). I’ll try and find the link again I read that on again.
Come on the rest of you! I’m disrespecting an All-American Hot Rod of the Skies here, in favour of some wanna-be second-rater they sold to the Commies! Defend the honour of the Corsair, if you dare! POST! VOTE! Otherwise it’s going to go to a draw!
come on guys, there is no question the Corsair is by far the winner.
The Japanese were terrified of the corsair during the war because of its effectiveness and the noise it made from its oil coolers. They even gave the plane the nickname “Whistling Death”. The Corsair turned out to be a very versatile plane since it was effective in both ground attacks and dogfights. In 1938, the plane was the fastest military plane on the earth, exceding 400mph. Also, the wings could fold in making for easy storage of the plane on a carrier. The Corsair is widely recognized as the most durable US plane during ww2!
I thought the Beaufighter was ‘Whispering Death’?
Corsair 2 P-38 1
Roughly 48 hours left for this one ladies and gents. Voting will close at roughly dinner time (ie midday) UK time (for those of you who don’t know UK time, this post was made at 1240pm) on tuesday.
24 hours left now
Voting closed. Corsair narrowly scrapes through 2 votes to 1.
The next one will probably be put up tomorrow, although I may get round to it tonight.
Next one then, and the daddy makes an appearance!!
Curtiss P-40E Warhawk (USA) vs Supermarine Spitfire (UK)
Curtiss P-40E
Developed from the P-36, the P-40 was the US’ main front line fighter at the start of WW2. Although it was outclassed by many of its opponents (both German and Japanese) in terms of speed, manouverability and rate of climb, the P-40 earned a reputation for ruggedness (perhaps luckily, since it was so inferior to enemy aircraft in most other respects!). Many of the P-40s were sold to Britain and the Commonwealth, where they were mostly used as ground attack aircraft, giving valuable service in North Africa, Italy and the Far East.
Engine: 1150hp Allison V-1710-39
Maximum Speed: 362mph (583km/h)
Service ceiling: 29000ft (8840m)
Rate of Climb: 2100ft/min (640m/min)
Range: 650 miles (1046km)
Armament:6x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Up to 700lb (318kg) of bombs
Supermarine Spitfire XIV (UK)
Developed from the iconic (although numerically inferior to the Hurricane) aircraft of the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire XIV was [img] late war development of the famous aircraft which many consider to be one of the best Spitfire marks. I could write all day about my personal favourite aircraft, but I’ll keep this short! Loved by the pilots for it’s responsive handling and docile flying nature, the Spitfire was an aircraft feared by any German or Japanese pilot that fought it. Extremely manouverable, fast, quick to climb and able to be continously updated (the Spitfire in its various marks was in service with the RAF from 1938 to 1954), the ‘Spit’ earned its reputation as one of the great aircraft of the war.
Engine: 2050hp Rolls Royce Griffon
Maximum Speed: 446mph (717km)
Service Ceiling: 44290ft (13500m)
Rate of Climb: 5040ft/min (1536m/min)
Range:560miles (740km)
Armament:2x 20mm Cannon and either 4x 7.7mm (0.303in) or 2x 12.7mm (0.50in) MGs
Uo to 1,000lb (454kg) of bombs[/img]
The Spit has got my vote, on the specs posted it outperforms the P40E in every respect.
I’ll try my best to keep aesthetics out of this, (I don’t want to get into the realms of ‘cool uniforms’,) but it has a line unsurpassed by anything else.
Is this one even really a contest? Spit!
Add to the Griffon Spitfire Spec. Up to 1,000lb of Bombs or Rocket projectiles!! oh, yeah, my vote goes to the Griffon Spit. and yeah, its going to be inevitable, but in the end its going to come down to the Griffon Spit and the P-51D, and my vote goes to the spit and you need my argument? well if you like i could just couple a few pages of the other debate
It’s certainly the most unmatched of the contests so far!
I’ve got to go for the Spit to, best looking, fastest, more manouverable, better climb rate, better armed and heavier bombload. I’ll admit now that I’m biased towards the Spit anyway, but this one is no contest.
P-40 0-3 Spitfire
I’ll give this one 24 hours to run, since it’s so one sided.
Spitfire wins my vote.
Since the RAF operated both, I hope our American cousins do not mind if I discuss in an RAF-biased context. Needless to say the USAAF replaced theirs as quickly as possible anyway.
The P-40 is indicative of the state of the second-raters and also-rans the US aircraft industry thought constituted “fighters” pre-war (that it took a British requirement to eventually produce the Mustang is pretty damning - not of the aero engineers who were superb, but of the procurement bod) Not indecently so of course - it was at least “modern” which was more than some countries could say… 0.50cal armaments too, not to be sniffed at. But perhaps not surprisingly, mediocre Allison engines did a similar job on the P-40 that they would have done on the P-51 had some clever chaps not decided to try strapping a Merlin on there. Only low-level performance was really any good, and as a serious fighter (rather than ground attack workhorse) it was out of it’s depth.
But the proof is in the pudding and for aircraft that’s “what service did they see”. The P40 was another aircraft the RAF got initially because of a “cancelled” French order (by cancelled read: France was either invaded or collaborating and was thus too busy to take delivery…) and put into service on low level work in the North African desert, where resistance to the conditions perhaps mattered as much if not more than performance. And unlike some British produced aircraft, it earned it’s keep well and wasn’t a liability (cough cough Fairey Battle). So all in all not a lost cause, but not a Superstar of Flight.
UNLIKE the Spitfire. We all know it handled great and looks The Biz even today, but it’s difficult to pick out other amazing features because of the prolific number of versions. Constantly improved performance meant it transitioned from being able to tussle with 109’s to being able to tussle with 190’s so very much the fighter for all occassions… Had the Spitfire had to be replaced for the RAF to remain competitive I’m not sure it’d be so highly thought of today, but it turned out the best replacement for a Spitfire was a faster, meaner Spitfire. Provided it wasn’t bomber escort of course since the Spit never really had the legs to get past the Low Countries and is one of the few minus points.
So really the fact that the design had so much development potential in it is a big plus point. In it’s earlier versions the Spitfire was graceful and full of Merlin-y goodness, but by it’s XIV incarnation the Spitfire was something of a beast whose beautiful lines are somewhat compromised by whacking that manky big Griffon in there (yes, that’s a technical term… ). The bulges to fit it in there either side of the top of the nose aren’t really pretty are they… But good lord it’s fast. Early Spits were underarmed - the 0.303 not being the best aircraft weapon - but I think even by the Battle of Britain they were playing around on a squadron or two’s worth of Spits with 20mm cannon. Spits with cannon and machine guns were decently armed… something the arch-enemy the 109 was from the beginning (since it had that nice cannon firing through the centre line of the prop).
But credit where credit is due. The reason one wins my vote and the other doesn’t stems from one main feature. It’s not looks and it’s not manoeuvrability… it’s that one has a Merlin engine and all the greatness that then allowed… and the other does not. (edit: I KNOW the one in the vote is a Griffon example, but I don’t really like the look of 'em compared to the Merlin marks so I’m in denial)
So that makes it 5-0 to the Spit now.