# Army Air Force F4U Corsair



## andy2012 (Jun 22, 2012)

Did the USAAF ever consider using the Corsair in WWII? If they didn't, why not?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 22, 2012)

Hi Andy, I have never heard that the army considered such a move. I assume there were a number of reasons why it would not have done so. Probably the looming, roughly parallel introduction of the P-47, which possessed a development history (starting with the P-35), that in some ways was more complicated even than that of the Corsair's. There is also the general resistence, overcome on rare occasions, of the army to adopting a USN aircraft designed for carrier ops. The F4U has a devoted following here and I believe that question has come up in past threads, as well as a continual comparison of its performace with land based counterparts. It seems a rich topic for debate and suggesing "*what if*" scenarios.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 23, 2012)

andy2012 said:


> Did the USAAF ever consider using the Corsair in WWII? If they didn't, why not?


For that matter I can't think of any fighter planes that were shared as such between the Departments of the Army and Navy.


----------



## N4521U (Jun 23, 2012)

Since Marines and Navy are part of the Dept. of the Navy, they do share aircraft types, and I believe both branches are carrier qualified, wings of Gold eh! I do also believe all types flown by both services were carrier capable. Landing gear design, hooks sticking out the back and all that. There would be no reason for Army to use this type of aircraft, and the role of USAAF was completely different. Also conversion of land based to carrier capable just didn't seem to work out in all cases.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 23, 2012)

N4521U said:


> Since Marines and Navy are part of the Dept. of the Navy, they do share aircraft types, and I believe both branches are carrier qualified, wings of Gold eh! I do also believe all types flown by both services were carrier capable. Landing gear design, *hooks sticking out the back* and all that. There would be no reason for Army to use this type of aircraft, and the role of USAAF was completely different. Also conversion of land based to carrier capable just didn't seem to work out in all cases.



In general that's true. Although I read recently of a limited production run of hookless F4Us. Hooks were typically retractable and must be released when about to land on the boat. Also, typically airframe structure tends to be a bit more robust (heavier) and so there tends to be a nominal performance penalty.


----------



## N4521U (Jun 23, 2012)

But the question would be, did the USAAF use these???? Hookless or not.

I do also believe the hook was removed from land based Marine Corsairs. No point in having them clanking around back there if there was little chance of them being used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2012)

I believe a some/large number of the Goodyear produced F4U aircraft were not only "hook-less" but had non-folding wings as well. 

From the Vought Heritage web site: vought heritage


"Goodyear’s version was designated FG-1. In 1943, Goodyear delivered 377 FG-1’s. In 1944, Goodyear boosted the production rate six-fold to 2,108 aircraft. Another 1,521 FG-1’s were accepted in the 8 months of hostilities during 1945 for a wartime total of 4,006 aircraft. This amounted to over one-third of all Corsairs produced during World War II. Many of these FG-1’s were built with non-folding wings during the period before Corsairs were put aboard carriers, and these aircraft went to land-based Marine squadrons."


----------



## andy2012 (Jun 23, 2012)

Let's say that the air force decided to use the Corsair, would it fair as good in Europe as it did in Asia?


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 23, 2012)

N4521U said:


> Since Marines and Navy are part of the Dept. of the Navy, they do share aircraft types, and I believe both branches are carrier qualified, wings of Gold eh! I do also believe all types flown by both services were carrier capable. Landing gear design, hooks sticking out the back and all that. There would be no reason for Army to use this type of aircraft, and the role of USAAF was completely different. Also conversion of land based to carrier capable just didn't seem to work out in all cases.



I know the Navy used aircraft designed for the USAAF - the B-24,B-25; and shared others - such as the C-46 and C-47. I know, also, the B-17 was used as an Air/Sea rescue aircraft but I’m not sure it was used during WWII. And the USAAF used planes designed for the Navy - The Dauntless and Helldiver for sure.

Question: were all Navy and Marine pilots carrier qualified during this period - even the ones that flew multi engine aircraft?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 23, 2012)

IMHO, it would have been a formidable opponent in any WW2 theater. However I would guess pilots would probably have had to make some kind of allowance for the difference in the structural and performance characteristics of its opposition. I am assuming that's another topic that has probably been done in this forum... adversary aircraft by adversary a/c. 

e.g.:

F4U-1 vs Bf-109Z
F4U-1 vs FW-190-S8
F4U-1 vs P-51H
F4U-1 vs Fokker D-7
F4U-1 Vs Junkers Ju-52
F4U-1 vs T-6
and so on... continuing in this vein with all F4U variants and manufacturers and those of any possible opposition. The mind boggles...


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 24, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Hooks were typically retractable and must be released when about to land on the boat.


The hooks were released on approach then shoved back in after they caught and stretched the wire and the aircraft settled back. 



muscogeemike said:


> I know the Navy used aircraft designed for the USAAF - the B-24,B-25; [...] And the USAAF used planes designed for the Navy - The Dauntless and Helldiver for sure.


My Dad did target tows for those bombers in an FM2 in Kaneohe in 1945, so I know that's right. Didn't know that about the dive bombers but I see no reason why that crack aircraft armed with their rear guns couldn't easily fulfill that dual deployment.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

Mike. In the old days, it was my understanding that to wear the gold wings with a single anchor you had to carrier qual. That meant everybody USN, USMC, although I am not sure about the Coasties. I suspect they had to as well. I prepared you an answer to your question that included current practice and then thought I better check so I checked. I asked the last P-3 pilot with whom I flew. He was a very good stick (pilot) and became the Squadron Commander after I left the squadron. I should add he came out of the carrier based ASW community flying S-2 and S-3 carrier based aircraft and then qualified as a P-3 plane commander let alone CO of a P-3 squadron which is something that is extremely rare for any out-of-community aviation personnel. I am not sure anyone else has done it. Like me, he is now retired. Here is his reply.

"Mal, Actually, the Navy progressively changed the Carrier-Qual requirement just as I was coming up for them (~1970ish). A little history first, the Navy first Carr-qualed *all students* after they completed Basic flight training and just before they started advanced flight training. The order was; Primary, basic, car-qual, advanced, car-qual in advanced aircraft, Rag, car-qual in Rag aircraft, then to the Fleet. Everyone car-qualed under this program." _(Note: the RAG stands for Replacement Air Group where one learns to fly the aircraft you'll fly in the fleet. Pilots (Aviators) NFO's (Naval Flight Officers) and aircrewman all go through this permantly land based squadron before going to a fleet squadron.)_

"After primary flight, you were sent to either jets, multi-engine, or helos. I was sent to multi-engine pipeline. Then, while I was at basic, the Navy dropped car quals for guys who were going through the multi-engine pipeline basic phase and only car qualed guys in the advanced multi-engine pipeline who had orders to a carrier squadron. VT-5 was the T-28 squadron who qualed the guys. It was shut down about 2 months before I would have gone through it. So from then on it was only the jet guys who first qualed in the training command. However in my case, I did not qual in T-28's, but did so in advanced training. I was one of the last 3 guys selected to go to a carrier squadron so they car-qualed me and several others on August 15, 1974 aboard the Lexington in the S-2A. What a great day! A parachute in my plane deployed on a CAT shot and went all over the back. Two cans of engine oil broke open and went all through the fuselage. Maintenance was laughing when we came back. They wanted to know what the h*ll went on out there."

So bottom line, all USN and USMC aviators no longer necessarily car qual in training. It depends on the training pipeline.


----------



## renrich (Jun 24, 2012)

In 1938 when the F4U was being designed it was considered by most "experts" that a ship board fighter could never compete with a fighter designed for land based use only. Vought ignored this "truth" and designed the first single engined fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight in the US. The first production Corsairs went into action from land bases with the Marines in early 1943 with a number of teething problems, like all new aircraft but some of the problems were serious enough that the Corsair was a difficult aircraft to execute carrier landings with for any but an experienced pilot. These issues were gradually eliminated but they would not have precluded the Corsair from being an effective land based fighter which probably could have been deployed in 1942 by the AAF if there was enough production. In 1942, if the Corsair was available in numbers, it would have been superior in performance to all AAF fighters deployed then except for the P38 which had it's own issues in the ETO. However, the AAF would probably have deployed the Corsair only with a gun pressed firmly against the head. The very idea that a ship board fighter would have been superior to an Army fighter was anathema. Later the USAF was reluctant at first to adopt another shipboard F4 fighter, the Phantom but common sense finally prevailed.

Several of the high ranking admirals in the USN in WW2 wore the gold wings and were not carrier qualified and barely even soloed.


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2012)

> any fighter planes that were shared as such between the Departments of the Army and Navy.


They shared a few dive bombers during 1941. USN SBD = USA A-24. 

27th (light) Bombardment Group equipped with 52 A-24 dive bombers was aboard Convoy 4002 which departed San Francisco for the Philippines 24 Nov 1941.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2012)

Back in the late 20s and early 30s the Army and navy both used Curtiss and Boeing biplane fighters with only minor differences. 

With the coming of the monoplanes ( and engines with more than 500-600hp) planes became more specialized and for a while it took different airplanes to satisfy different requirements. It was not just the catapult and arresting hook requirements that defined navy requirements. There were also requirements for flotation gear, landing speed requirements, range requirements and so on the caused a divergence. With engines in the 600-1000hp category there was only so much that could be done. As engines grew even more powerful (1500-2000hp) and speeds began to hit some real drag limits the ability of a single design to meet both requirements began to become more realistic again. 

For instance the P-26, while much faster than the biplanes that proceeded it, had a landing speed of 82mph which would have certainly prevented it's use from carriers of the time. Even when fitted ( or retro fitted) flaps the landing speed was still 73mph. These speeds are comparable to the landing speeds of later navy aircraft like the F2A and F4F. 

The Navy did try with the Bell XFL Airabonita, a tail dragger P-39 but it had too many problems.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 24, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Mike. In the old days, it was my understanding that to wear the gold wings with a single anchor you had to carrier qual. That meant everybody USN, USMC, although I am not sure about the Coasties. I suspect they had to as well. I prepared you an answer to your question that included current practice and then thought I better check so I checked. I asked the last P-3 pilot with whom I flew. He was a very good stick (pilot) and became the Squadron Commander after I left the squadron. I should add he came out of the carrier based ASW community flying S-2 and S-3 carrier based aircraft and then qualified as a P-3 plane commander let alone CO of a P-3 squadron which is something that is extremely rare for any out-of-community aviation personnel. I am not sure anyone else has done it. Like me, he is now retired. Here is his reply.
> 
> "Mal, Actually, the Navy progressively changed the Carrier-Qual requirement just as I was coming up for them (~1970ish). A little history first, the Navy first Carr-qualed *all students* after they completed Basic flight training and just before they started advanced flight training. The order was; Primary, basic, car-qual, advanced, car-qual in advanced aircraft, Rag, car-qual in Rag aircraft, then to the Fleet. Everyone car-qualed under this program." _(Note: the RAG stands for Replacement Air Group where one learns to fly the aircraft you'll fly in the fleet. Pilots (Aviators) NFO's (Naval Flight Officers) and aircrewman all go through this permantly land based squadron before going to a fleet squadron.)_
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info - but what about the WWII era? I was thinking mainly of the 4 engine aircraft, did those pilots in that period have to be carrier qualified?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 24, 2012)

At the beginning of the war, I do not think the USAAF perceived the need for a long range escort fighter. They did believe they needed high altitude fighters, possibly because they had the high altitude B-17 and either needed to protect it or certainly attack a similar aircraft if developed by the enemy. I think their perception was that the next war was going to be fought from 20-30k ft. Both the P-38 and P-47 had higher performance envelopes than contemporary Axis fighters. In comparing the P-47B to the non-water injected F4U-1, the P-47 was faster above 5k ft and at 20k ft was a 20 mph faster with a slightly better climb rate. At 25k ft., the B was over 30 mph faster with significantly better climb. True, the F4U would maneuver better below 20k and had longer range, but this didn’t fit into the AAF need concept and the P-47 fit that need quite well. No need to consider the F4U. As the pilots became more proficient with the P-47, by August, 1943, kill ratios improved such that the P-47 was knocking down six Germans for every one lost so it was certainly doing an adequate job.

By mid 1943, the AAF was starting to see the dire need for a long range fighter. The F4U, still without water, had the range but did not have the high altitude performance of the P-47, and the AAF probably felt it would be easier to incorporate more internal fuel in the P-47 than to incorporate an entirely new aircraft, and a perceived inferior one at that, and a Navy one on top of that. The new F4U-1 “A” with water would narrow the performance at high altitude to the P-47 and would certainly have the range since it still had the wing tanks. However, this version would not be available until January, 1944, and, by that time the nicely performing AAF P-51 was already taking over the job of long range escort. I think they just saw no need.

Except a 20k where the F4F-4 was faster than the P-47M, there was no model F4U that could outperform the contemporary P-47 above 20k, something I think the AAF thought was important in ETO.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> Thanks for the info - but what about the WWII era? I was thinking mainly of the 4 engine aircraft, did those pilots in that period have to be carrier qualified?



Sorry I didn't make that clearer. 

"to wear the gold wings with a single anchor you had to carrier qual. That meant everybody USN, USMC, although I am not sure about the Coasties. I suspect they had to as well." I should have prefaced that with "Up to the Vietnam era." 
It was after that (post 1970) that the changes to the traditional practice he described below were made. 

"A little history first, the Navy first Carr-qualed all students after they completed Basic flight training and just before they started advanced flight training. The order was; Primary, basic, car-qual, advanced, car-qual in advanced aircraft, Rag, car-qual in Rag aircraft, then to the Fleet. Everyone car-qualed under this program." This was the pre-war, world war and post war regime.

I should add that it is my understanding that during WW2, a portion of primary training (through 1st solo, I believe) was performed at hundreds of small fields across the country. 

Probably should also have said the training through the basic phase was generic.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2012)

With out drop tanks the fighters had no hope of escorting the bombers all the way to the target. Even with drop tanks most WW II fighters could not match the range of the bombers. This is one reason the long range escort mission was not a high priority at the beginning of the war. 
One of my favorite examples is the RAF bombing Genoa Italy using Whitley bombers in 1940. Granted it was done at night with a bomber that had no hope of surviving in daylight but I believe the straight line distance from Brighton to Genoa is 612 miles one way. There were few (if any) 1000-1200hp fighters in 1940 even with drop tanks that could attempt such a flight. This is one of the reasons for some of the twin engine fighters of the late 30s. They were willing to sacrifice some performance in return for longer range. There was no way a 1000-1200hp fighter could be built to have the same range as a B-17 or B-24. The B-17C ordered in 1939 was supposed have a range of 2400miles with 4,000lb bomb load. You could make a single engine plane with about the same range but it would useless as a fighter at any range. 

Once more powerful engines became available (for little more weight) or very powerful engines became available for more weight the possibility for long range fighters became much greater. 

Even if you had a forward thinker who didn't believe "_the bomber will always get through_" the long range escort fighter was a technical impossibility in 1939-40. It would not be in another 4 years but it needed better aerodynamics, better engines and better fuel. Better fuel allowed for higher cruise power settings (or higher compression/ more fuel efficient engines) and/or more take-off power for little more weight.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> With out drop tanks the fighters had no hope of escorting the bombers all the way to the target. Even with drop tanks most WW II fighters could not match the range of the bombers. This is one reason the long range escort mission was not a high priority at the beginning of the war.



It was thought that it could not be done, so it wasn't even really attempted.





Shortround6 said:


> Even if you had a forward thinker who didn't believe "_the bomber will always get through_" the long range escort fighter was a technical impossibility in 1939-40. It would not be in another 4 years but it needed better aerodynamics, better engines and better fuel. Better fuel allowed for higher cruise power settings (or higher compression/ more fuel efficient engines) and/or more take-off power for little more weight.



That is part of the problem. The men in posistions of authority in the AAC weer adament that their bomber (the B-17) didn't need an escort. It would not be until 1943 when the 8th ventured beyond the escort fighters' range that this belief would be changed.

The other major issue at the time was funding. The amount of money for new aircraft for the AAC was restricted, and the development and purchase of B-17s took funding priority.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2012)

Things changed a lot in just a few years, what was a valid conclusion in 1938-39 was no longer valid in 1942-43.

Take the Mustang as it was really one of the few fighters that could do the long range mission. It was doing with 180-269 gallons of internal fuel and 150-300 gallons of external fuel. It also had an engine good for 1380hp (-3) take-off or 1490hp (-7) take off and 1300-1500hp at combat heights (over 20,000ft). Now "back date" it to 1939 in England with a Merlin III on 87 octane fuel. yes the engine and prop and 300-400lb lighter but you now have 880hp for take-off. How big a field are you going to need to get off the ground with even 180 gallons internal and 150 gallons external? Even a P-51A (with four .50cal) with an Allison went 9653lbs with that gas load. Going to 100 octane gas and using the boost override button could at least get you off the ground in the summer of 1940 with a Merlin III 

The Zero was another long range escort fighter but after the summer of 1940 no western nation would consider using a plane without protected tanks and armor. Japanese had problems with the combat duration of the Zeros with only 55-60 rounds per wing cannon. Not a good thing to run out of ammo after just 6-7 seconds firing time on a long range escort mission. 

The P-47N was a good long range escort fighter but again you had a sizable jump in engine power over the initial versions of the P-47 to help handle the load plus, in some cases, they were using WER to get off of smaller tropical airstrips. 

I cannot pinpoint the exact moment that the long range fighter became feasible and I will certainly agree it became feasible a number of months (if not over a year) before it was actually done/planed but it was not as early as 1938-39-40.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> With out drop tanks the fighters had no hope of escorting the bombers all the way to the target. Even with drop tanks *most WW II fighters could not match the range of the bombers.* This is one reason the long range escort mission was not a high priority at the beginning of the war.
> ... the straight line distance from Brighton to Genoa is *612 miles one way* There were few (if any) 1000-1200hp fighters *in 1940 *even with drop tanks that could attempt such a flight. This is one of the reasons for some of the twin engine fighters of the late 30s. They were willing to sacrifice some performance in return for longer range.
> 
> .... You could make a single engine plane with about the same range but it would useless as a fighter at any range. ...the long range escort fighter was a technical impossibility in 1939-40. It would not be in another 4 years but it needed better aerodynamics, better engines and better fuel. Better fuel allowed for higher cruise power settings (or higher compression/ more fuel efficient engines) and/or more take-off power for little more weight.



SR, I rarely find cause to disagree wih you, but here is a "partial moment" that to some extent is both contrary to and in validation of your point. 

The extraordinary range of the F2A-3 with its 240 gallon gas tank has been discussed in a parallel thread. With just internal tanks full, it could fly about as far as an A6M with 150+ internal fuel and a 80+ gallon drop tank. Roughly 1,700 miles. Of course, the F2A-3 were ordered in January 1941 so they are a bit later than your time frame. Moreover, I doubt many would want to go up against Bf-109s in an F2A-3 (believed by some as the worst allied fighter of the war) especially at high altitude. I believe its wright cyclone engine had a one stage 2 speed supercharger. Strangely, The USN didn't care so much about the army's long-range, high-altitude bomber escort, it was looking more to the F2A-3 to perfom long distance radar intercepts far from the carrier and to ease the carrier air ops cycle with a fighter whose endurance was a closer match to its SBD and the TBF (which was on the horizon.) (1st flight August 1941.)

To a any fighter pilot, speed is life. To a naval fighter pilot speed and legs are life.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2012)

Please look at "America's Hundred Thousand" on the F2A, chapter. Yes the F2A-3 could carry 240 gallons but it was in only in rare circumstances that it was done. A much more normal load was 160-180 gallons. The Brewster Still had a very god range using that amount of fuel. The trouble is that the 'Navy' range cruise conditions are different from 'Army' range cruise conditions. The "yard stick" chart is for 4500ft, a nice altitude when covering miles of open ocean but absolutely useless when trying to escort bombers. "'Navy' Cruise speeds are also usually lower than 'Army' cruise speeds. A Brewster trying to fly at even 15,000ft and 230-250mph is going to have a lot shorter range even if it is more than a Spitfire or 109. 

The Brewster wound up with it's extraordinary fuel capacity by accident. The original design used a pair of integral wing tanks that used the forward and aft wing spars as tank walls and the top and bottom surface of the wing as the top and bottom of the tanks wing wing ribs as the end walls. Capacity was 180 gallons with 25 gallons in the Starboard tank acting as reserve. These tanks were difficult to repair and difficult to protect. The F2A-3 added a 20 gallon protected tank in each wing and a 40 gallon protected tank in the fuselage. Normal procedure was to fill only the original starboard tank and leave the port tank empty. This is because they left the fuel fittings in the tank spaces and the starboard tank was still acting as the reserve tank. A strange combination when you think about it. The Port 80 gallon tank was sealed and (according to AHT) stenciled with a warning not to be filled except on special authority of the commanding officer. I don't know if there was a provision to jettison fuel but since these are not drop tanks if the F2a-3 is bounced with a near full fuel load their is no way to lighten the plane for combat in a hurry.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 25, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
> 
> "to wear the gold wings with a single anchor you had to carrier qual. That meant everybody USN, USMC, although I am not sure about the Coasties. I suspect they had to as well." I should have prefaced that with "Up to the Vietnam era."
> It was after that (post 1970) that the changes to the traditional practice he described below were made.
> ...



Thanks again - most interesting. Can I assume the same standards applied to enlisted pilots?
Another question - In case a pilot was unable to fly the aircraft was there any way other crewmembers of multi seat carrier aircraft control the aircraft; and, if so, how much training did they receive?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 25, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> Thanks again - most interesting. Can I assume the same standards applied to enlisted pilots?
> Another question - In case a pilot was unable to fly the aircraft was there any way other crewmembers of multi seat carrier aircraft control the aircraft; and, if so, how much training did they receive?



Yes, the same criteria applied to enlisted pilots. They were naval aviators in every sense of the word. There weren't any multi piloted carrier based aircraft in WW2 that I know of. Post-WW2, a number of multipiloted, multiengined aircraft became an integral part of a carrier air wing. The most obvious example would be the long-lived Grumman S-2 Tracker and variants. IIRC, like its successor, the Lockheed S-3 Viking It had dual controls and both pilots would be qualified naval aviators. You may be surprised to know that the large Douglas A3D Sky Warrior was a single piloted aircraft. There are some hair-raising stories about single engine flame outs of that aircraft which were occasionally fatal. The two powerful J-57 engines were far enough outboard on each wing that failure of one demanded an immediate reaction from the pilot to counter the sudden asymmetrical thrust.

Other oddities: The A-6 and variants were single piloted aircraft but rated as multipiloted. The Right seat NFO performed virtually all the duties of a co-pilot and were oftened allowed to reach across the pilot to handle the stick, learning to land the aircraft (even, for a very small number of individuals, on a carrier). Although not widely advertised, Pilots allowed some few NFO's to land their A-6 Intruder on carriers during Vietnam and presumably afterward. I found this somwhat difficult to understand only because of the difficulty one would have had to reach the throttle. The stick was easy to reach. I imagine that what transpired was the pilot controlled the power setting while the NFO controlled the stick. Why engage in such apparently reckless behavior with a multi-million dollar aircraft? The justification can be found in the most famous example: On 4/27/66, a VA-85 A-6 was returning to the Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) after an attck on a target near Vinh (WW2 buffs who are impressed with Germany's AAA defenses should research those of Vinh). Hit and damaged by flak, the pilot Bill Westerman was wounded and semi-conscious. As related to me, his BN flew the aircraft feet-wet and finally nearing home plate, managed to eject his pilot by taking a leg restraint and hooking it into Pilot ejection handle and pulled. Had he tried to do it by hand, he might have broken or lost an arm. He then ejected himself. The angel-helo rescue swimmer got the B/N into the helo first. When the B/N realized his pilot was finally losing consiouness and the downwash was making the pickup difficult, he dove back in to effect the rescue and then waved the helo back to the ship rather than wasting time recovering him. He was awarded the Navy Cross. The B/N Brian Westin was my squadron maintenance officer and few people have experienced a more tragic personal tale which I won't relate here. 

Their Finest Hour: TFH 4/27: LTJG Brian E. Westin, USN

That's why most B/Ns spent every hour they could in the A6A pilot simulator. It's for more than just a kick but its that too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 25, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Yes, the same criteria applied to enlisted pilots. They were naval aviators in every sense of the word. There weren't any multi piloted carrier based aircraft in WW2 that I know of. Post-WW2, a number of multipiloted, multiengined aircraft became an integral part of a carrier air wing. The most obvious example would be the long-lived Grumman S-2 Tracker and variants. IIRC, like its successor, the Lockheed S-3 Viking It had dual controls and both pilots would be qualified naval aviators. You may be surprised to know that the large Douglas A3D Sky Warrior was a single piloted aircraft. There are some hair-raising stories about single engine flame outs of that aircraft which were occasionally fatal. The two powerful J-57 engines were far enough outboard on each wing that failure of one demanded an immediate reaction from the pilot to counter the sudden asymmetrical thrust.
> 
> Other oddities: The A-6 and variants were single piloted aircraft but rated as multipiloted. The Right seat NFO performed virtually all the duties of a co-pilot and were oftened allowed to reach across the pilot to handle the stick, learning to land the aircraft (even, for a very small number of individuals, on a carrier). Although not widely advertised, Pilots allowed some few NFO's to land their A-6 Intruder on carriers during Vietnam and presumably afterward. I found this somwhat difficult to understand only because of the difficulty one would have had to reach the throttle. The stick was easy to reach. I imagine that what transpired was the pilot controlled the power setting while the NFO controlled the stick. Why engage in such apparently reckless behavior with a multi-million dollar aircraft? The justification can be found in the most famous example: On 4/27/66, a VA-85 A-6 was returning to the Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) after an attck on a target near Vinh (WW2 buffs who are impressed with Germany's AAA defenses should research those of Vinh). Hit and damaged by flak, the pilot Bill Westerman was wounded and semi-conscious. As related to me, his BN flew the aircraft feet-wet and finally nearing home plate, managed to eject his pilot by taking a leg restraint and hooking it into Pilot ejection handle and pulled. Had he tried to do it by hand, he might have broken or lost an arm. He then ejected himself. The angel-helo rescue swimmer got the B/N into the helo first. When the B/N realized his pilot was finally losing consiouness and the downwash was making the pickup difficult, he dove back in to effect the rescue and then waved the helo back to the ship rather than wasting time recovering him. He was awarded the Navy Cross. The B/N Brian Westin was my squadron maintenance officer and few people have experienced a more tragic personal tale which I won't relate here.
> 
> ...



Thanks, old crow, for the third time. I love your info.
I didn’t mean WWII aircraft with multi pilots - I meant planes like the Dauntless, the Avenger, Helldiver, etc. Was there any provision for the other crew to fly the aircraft if the pilot was unable to?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 25, 2012)

I don't know of dual control capability on any of the aircraft you mention. The second seat (rear, in the case of the SBD or SB2C or middle and ball turret seat in the case of the TBF/M, wouldn't have had flight controls, just because the crew wasn't trained to pilot the aircraft. They were more often gunner's mates or radar techs whose skill set was very specific and did not include stick time AFAIK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> They were more often gunner's mates or radar techs whose skill set was very specific and did not include stick time AFAIK.


Actually OC - they were mainly either Radiomen, Aviation Machinists Mates or Electricians. Later in the war you saw radarmen but I doubt you saw any "Blackshoe" ratings in airplanes.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 25, 2012)

I bow to your wisdom oh Great Gazoo...  You speak the truth. What was I thinking? Guns sticking out of the rear cockpit? must be gunnner's mates shootim' 'em. I should know better. One of my older cousins was a radio man on SBDs... Strange as it may seem, there were black shoe EW techs flying as aircrew in one of the EA-6B squadrons in the 1973-74 time frame. An experiment that worked (very well in my opinion) but wasn't politically sound.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 25, 2012)

If you look at a cutaway drawing of a SBD, back in the gunners station, it has gunners emergency flight controls. In some pictures of Dauntless's you can see the gunner could rotate his seat and face forward.
I don't have any idea if the gunners had any formal training, but i'm sure smart pilots would like their gunners to have some ability just in case.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 25, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> If you look at a cutaway drawing of a SBD, back in the gunners station, it has gunners emergency flight controls. In some pictures of Dauntless's you can see the gunner could rotate his seat and face forward.
> I don't have any idea if the gunners had any formal training, but i'm sure smart pilots would like their gunners to have some ability just in case.



I thought I had seen reference to these “emergency controls” somewhere, I know the Douglas DB-7 series had them as well as some Japanese carrier aircraft. I agree a pilot would have taken advantage of this but I wonder how much - if any - training the gunners/radiomen were given?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 26, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> If you look at a cutaway drawing of a SBD, back in the gunners station, it has gunners emergency flight controls. In some pictures of Dauntless's you can see the gunner could rotate his seat and face forward.
> I don't have any idea if the gunners had any formal training, but i'm sure smart pilots would like their gunners to have some ability just in case.



As you might imagine from my prior posts, I had no idea there was a set of emergency flight controls in the SBD. Not a bad idea, all things considered. I have a copy of Eric Brown's book Wings of the Navy and it contains an SBD cutaway. It does indeed show a radioman-gunner's emergency flight controls (almost hidden by the page fold), but I've never had reason to look and didn't bother when the question came up. Great job Ty, it's a good day when I learn somethin' new and interesting. Looking at his cutaways of the SB2U and TBF now...

Looks like there was a second column control stick provision in the TBF, and a similar set up on the old Vought SB2U Vindicator includuing rudder pedals and column assembly. Well, I'll be go to h*ll, live and Learn!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 26, 2012)

I do know in Vietnam, some, maybe most loach pilots, ( OH-6, 1 pilot, 1 gunner) tried to make sure their gunners had some time behind the controls. But it was no official policy. Done on the pilots iniative.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I doubt you saw any "Blackshoe" ratings in airplanes.


Early '70s there was an EC-121 ELINT bird based with us that had two pilots, two NFOs (navigator and tactical coordinator), one ADRC (flight engineer) and twenty one blackshoes of various rates (RM, RD, CT, ET, PH, PI, and Cryptographers and Intelligence Officers). There were Russian, Chinese, Spanish, German, and Polish speakers in that crew. They lived in their own separate section in the transient barracks, ate together in the chow hall, and were never seen in the EM Club or at any of the recreation facilities onbase. Every six months they would disappear and be replaced with another group. Rumor had it they rotated to Rota and Sigonella, then Subic and Atsugi, and three years later found their way back to us. They spent a lot of time in the air and seemed to spend most of their ground time in the rack.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Early '70s there was an EC-121 ELINT bird based with us that had two pilots, two NFOs (navigator and tactical coordinator), one ADRC (flight engineer) and twenty one blackshoes of various rates (RM, RD, CT, ET, PH, PI, and Cryptographers and Intelligence Officers). There were Russian, Chinese, Spanish, German, and Polish speakers in that crew. They lived in their own separate section in the transient barracks, ate together in the chow hall, and were never seen in the EM Club or at any of the recreation facilities onbase. Every six months they would disappear and be replaced with another group. Rumor had it they rotated to Rota and Sigonella, then Subic and Atsugi, and three years later found their way back to us. They spent a lot of time in the air and seemed to spend most of their ground time in the rack.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Different scenario - you're talking post war 'spook' world. The original OP was about blackshoes acting as regular crewmen in WW2.

USN WW2 Enlisted Rates: Aviation Branch


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Different scenario - you're talking post war 'spook' world. The original OP was about blackshoes acting as regular crewmen in WW2.
> 
> USN WW2 Enlisted Rates: Aviation Branch


The Navy oral surgeon who excavated my impacted molars started his Navy career in 1936 as a blackshoe Ordnanceman who got shifted from ship's company to an embarked squadron on the Lex where he became tailgunner on the old biplane Helldiver. He flew for a year as a blackshoe and then was selected for the aviation cadet flight program and became an AP1C. In 1941, as an APC, he got sent to " knife and fork school" and became an Ensign. He was one of the commissioning crew of VF-10 the "Grim Reapers", and saw a lot of combat in F4Fs, some of it on Guadalcanal, early days, before the Marines and AAF arrived, when the only air defense was detachments from the carriers. He was ten years in aviation before the Navy sent him off to dental school, and he had 24 years of dentistry in when I knew him. VF-101, the "Grim Reapers" always had his name painted under the RIO cockpit on the CO's plane.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Navy oral surgeon who excavated my impacted molars started his Navy career in 1936 as a blackshoe Ordnanceman who got shifted from ship's company to an embarked squadron on the Lex where he became *tailgunner on the old biplane Helldiver. He flew for a year as a blackshoe* and then was selected for the aviation cadet flight program and became an AP1C. In 1941, as an APC, he got sent to " knife and fork school" and became an Ensign. He was one of the commissioning crew of VF-10 the "Grim Reapers", and saw a lot of combat in F4Fs, some of it on Guadalcanal, early days, before the Marines and AAF arrived, when the only air defense was detachments from the carriers. He was ten years in aviation before the Navy sent him off to dental school, and he had 24 years of dentistry in when I knew him. VF-101, the "Grim Reapers" always had his name painted under the RIO cockpit on the CO's plane.
> Cheers,
> Wes



You sure about that? I read (and been old by old salts) that if you were a blackshoe and went into any type of aviation company you cross-rated into the most equivalent rating. I heard of blackshoe ordancemen crossrating to aviation ordancemen.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You sure about that? I read (and been old by old salts) that if you were a blackshoe and went into any type of aviation company you cross-rated into the most equivalent rating. I heard of blackshoe ordancemen crossrating to aviation ordancemen.


Yup, that was in process when his appointment to flight school came through. He originally was only sent to the squadron TAD to fill a need because they were short handed for gunners due to illness, and he had been a competitive skeet shooter and duck hunter before enlisting. Once they had him, the squadron didn't want to let him go, and his TAD kept getting extended. He said he got to be a pretty good hand with a Browning .30. He said he got so much unofficial dual instruction in an old advanced trainer the squadron had for a "hack" that Primary and Basic were a breeze. When he was winged he got sent to an F3F squadron, even though he had requested Helldivers. He was a kind of happy-go-lucky gregarious sort, and could be found at any and all VF-101 squadron functions, and at the flying club, where he taught me a thing or two in the T-34 about dive bombing. Pretty amazing guy. When he did my teeth, he had almost forty years in the Navy, and was one of the select small group in all services who had to annually get a congressional reprieve from mandatory retirement. (Along with the likes of Curtis Lemay, Grace Hopper, Hyman Rickover, and a number of other less well-known individuals.)
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 27, 2018)

ADM King would never have given up Navy Production capacity to the AAF


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 7, 2018)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> IMHO, it would have been a formidable opponent in any WW2 theater. However I would guess pilots would probably have had to make some kind of allowance for the difference in the structural and performance characteristics of its opposition. I am assuming that's another topic that has probably been done in this forum... adversary aircraft by adversary a/c.
> 
> e.g.:
> 
> ...


Resp:
At the Mar (?) 1943 Joint Fighter Meet (Navy called it Joint Fighter Conference) held at Elgin Field, FL, of the different fighters flown (by any service/country; by signing a roster) the USAAF pilots rated the F4U-1 over their Allison engined Mustang, P-47 and P-38 (E or F) in air-to-air manuvers. Within 30 days the Army Material Commard submitted a written report outlining why the Corsair should not be adopted. Also, in mid-1943, Gen Arnold issued an order in writing to Giles, to find a fighter, either new or one than can be modified; to serve as a long range bomber escort for B-17s and B-24s. Remember, this was mid 1943.
The F4U was available in mid 1943, as the Navy was still trying to correct the 'bouncing on carrier landings.' During this time, the Corsair was being assigned to land based units; USMC and a single island hopping Naval unit. Soon, The Fleet Air Arm (Royal Naval Air Force) began getting them in the US and began carrier quals. 
Could the Corsair serve as a long range fighter in the ETO? Yes, an No. The issues:
- Internal Fuel. When I looked at the details over 2 yrs ago, I found that the Corsair got its 2nd drop tank in April 1943. The P-47 didn't get its first drop tank until Sept 1943 (75 gal P-39 tank). However, it is the internal fuel that is at issue (I missed this very important issue). Whatever the max fuel carried internally, it is this fuel that must get them through combat, and then home. Remember, once engaged in combat, external fuel stores (drop tanks) are jettisoned. So the maximum distance the fighter can fly, is based on the internal fuel capacity. The F4U-1/F4U-1A carried 237 gal protected internal fuel (fuselage tank) and two 62 gal 'unprotected' wing tanks (124 gal total), for a total of 361 gallons. The 361 gallons would enable the Corsair to travel further w/o drop tanks than the P-47 in mid 1943. The P -47 carried 305 internal gallons. However, the two unprotected (non-self sealing) would expose the aircraft to fire due to these unprotected wing tanks. Could they be changed out for self-sealing? Yes, but how long for design, installation and testing before they could be incorporated in production line, or retrofitted to existing F4Us? Time is critical.
- High Altitude Performance. There is no doubt the Corsair could fly at 30,000 ft. A Marine Aviator I know taught students in 1944 (12 mos) the ins and outs of air combat in the F4U. He routinely took them up to 30,000 ft. Oxygen was used at 10,000 ft and higher. The purists will argue the following point; 8th AF Fighters need to fly 2 - 3,000 ft above the bombers. If the bombers fly at 24,000 ft, then the Corsair would have to fly at 27,000 ft. If the Luftwaffe has to attack the bombers, they will come down to 24,000 ft. This gives the fighter escorts 3,000 ft to see and intercept the German fighters. Altitude gives one position and speed over the enemy. A critical advantage in aerial battle. The questions that need to be answered for the 1943 Corsair: 1) how much fuel does it take to get to altitude? 2) what speed do the bombers cruise at, and again how much fuel will be consumed at that cruise speed; or put another way, can the Corsair go the distance at the rate its fuel is burned? It is not simply comparing P-47 and F4U-1/-1A fuel tank capacity ; one must figure fuel consumption between the two, as they likely use fuel at different rates.
- Aerobatics. In January 1944, the US Navy flew an F4U against a capture Focke Wulf 190. Granted, it was an early FW. However, the Corsair easily out manuvered the 190. Note the the 190 was using a highly refined fuel of high octane. Remember, the Corsair out manuvered the P-47 during the JFM at Elgin Field (and the P-47 was flown by experienced USAAF pilots). However, the aerobatics were not at 25,000 ft. 
- Yes, the F4U used the same engine as the P-47, but their carburetors were different. Sometime during 1943, the F4U got an improved carburetor. But was it good enough for high altitude combat? Keep in mind that the P-47 did not have a great climb rate either, as least not until it got a new, wider blade propeller. 
Ouestion for the knowledgable ones: Once air engagements begin, how often do our fighters need to return to 27,000 ft, or so? I seem to remember that commander of the 56th FG, Hub Zemke taught his fighter pilots flying the P-47, to attack from height and to dive through and pull away at top speed (gained during dive). One does not climb when chased by the Luftwaffe. Why would the F4U pilots need to do anything different?
I know I left something out, so take your shot! ! !


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> With out drop tanks the fighters had no hope of escorting the bombers all the way to the target. Even with drop tanks most WW II fighters could not match the range of the bombers. This is one reason the long range escort mission was not a high priority at the beginning of the war.
> One of my favorite examples is the RAF bombing Genoa Italy using Whitley bombers in 1940. Granted it was done at night with a bomber that had no hope of surviving in daylight but I believe the straight line distance from Brighton to Genoa is 612 miles one way. There were few (if any) 1000-1200hp fighters in 1940 even with drop tanks that could attempt such a flight. This is one of the reasons for some of the twin engine fighters of the late 30s. They were willing to sacrifice some performance in return for longer range. There was no way a 1000-1200hp fighter could be built to have the same range as a B-17 or B-24. The B-17C ordered in 1939 was supposed have a range of 2400miles with 4,000lb bomb load. You could make a single engine plane with about the same range but it would useless as a fighter at any range.
> 
> Once more powerful engines became available (for little more weight) or very powerful engines became available for more weight the possibility for long range fighters became much greater.
> ...


Resp:
Actually, the A6M Zero could fly well over 1,000 miles with one drop tank in 1940. Gen Chennault sent a detailed report to either Gen Marshall in late 1940 or early 1941, which covered the fighter's range. He saw that it was written by Chennault, and tossed it in a drawer . . . never to be seen. Chennault traveled to Hawaii in mid 1941 to give a 3 hrs lecture on the Zero to AAF pilots (not sure if any Navy pilots attended). Since 1939, the USAAC had a restriction against manufacturers incorporating plumbing for external fuel stores on fighters destined for their service. The USAAF test pilot assigned to Lockheed convinced the engineers to make the P-38 drop tank capable, even though the contract forbid it. They were coming off the production line at the time of Pearl Harbor. Thank God.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2018)

You are forgetting about the turbo-charger in the P-47. In mid 1943 the P-47 had 2000hp available at all altitudes up to and exceeding 25,000ft . At 25,000ft the F4U-1 was down to about 1525hp (including ram) and was about 30mph slower than the P-47, it also wasn't climbing as well. (Neither plane using water injection) 
There is a difference between climbing/flying and formation flying at 30,000ft and fighting at 30,000ft. The P-47 is going to be able to maintain height better than the Corsair even though both are descending if maneuvering hard. The P-47 just might not have to descend as much and may be able to get back into position quicker. The Corsair may very well have an advantage over the FW 190 but then the P-47 should have the advantage over the FW 190 to at higher altitudes. 
When it comes to high speed cruise the turbo was like free horsepower. It could get the manifold pressure up to what was desired without taking much away from the engine. (it did take something, it was not 100% free) while the F4U was caught somewhere between low gear and high gear on the auxiliary supercharger depending on exact cruising speed and altitude desired. It took around 350hp to run the supercharger at full throttle, much less at cruise power settings but still much more than the turbo cost the P-47 in terms of higher back pressure. 

The F4U wing tanks were integral tanks, the Leading edge/top/bottom formed the front/top and bottom of the tank/s with the main spar forming the rear and the ribs forming the ends and/or internal baffles. There is no "separate tank" to take out and drop a new tank in it's place. You have to take that section of the wing apart, apply sealant and/or squeeze bladder cells into the spaces and then rivet (or weld?) everything back together. Please note that some other US planes using integral tanks suffered from fuel leaks even without combat damage (P-43s). 
Probably much easier to do in the factory than in the field. 
Also please note that one of the things that gave the P-38s so much trouble was that some of them were being flown at over 30,000. All the escort fighters did not fly at the same altitude, some flew higher to prevent the Germans form bouncing from above. 
Both the British and the Germans were flying at least some fighters at 30,000ft or slightly above during the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2018)

The P-38 only had trouble at 30,000 feet until they worked out the fuel, intake mixture (turbulator inside the manifold), and gave them electric cockpit / gun heaters. After that, they had no trouble at 30,000 feet in the ETO or anywhere else, aside from the well-known low critical mach number. I'm thinking of the P-38J-25 and onward. Any P-38F or earlier might still have had uncorrected high-altitude issues. The H and early Js ... probably not, depending on where they were in the modification process.

Good post above, Shortround.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 8, 2018)

GregP said:


> The P-38 only had trouble at 30,000 feet until they worked out the fuel, intake mixture (turbulator inside the manifold), and gave them electric cockpit / gun heaters. After that, they had no trouble at 30,000 feet in the ETO or anywhere else, aside from the well-known low critical mach number. I'm thinking of the P-38J-25 and onward. Any P-38F or earlier might still have had uncorrected high-altitude issues. The H and early Js ... probably not, depending on where they were in the modification process.
> 
> Good post above, Shortround.


Resp:
The report I read, written by a Squ Commander in the ETO, stated that they had trouble w the P-38 at 20,000 and higher.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2018)

Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 8, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning


Resp:
Der Gabelschwanz Teufel is the best analysis of the P-38 that I have read (found it last yr).


----------



## Navalwarrior (May 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe a some/large number of the Goodyear produced F4U aircraft were not only "hook-less" but had non-folding wings as well.
> 
> From the Vought Heritage web site: vought heritage
> 
> ...


Resp:
Two questions:
1. Which aircraft mfg built the non-folding wing version of the Corsair, and
2. How much weight was saved by doing so?


----------



## fliger747 (May 29, 2019)

USN did try out a turbocharged Corsair, the F4U-3. The quasi modern dictum by Milton Friedman "there are no free lunches" also applied to aircraft design n WWII. The Navy was interested an aircraft that preformed best below 25,000' and the turbo added weight and complexity that was less effective at Pacific combat altitudes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 29, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Two questions:
> 1. Which aircraft mfg built the non-folding wing version of the Corsair, and
> 2. How much weight was saved by doing so?


All Corsairs had folding wings, the ones built by Goodyear (FG-1) simply didn't have the hydraulics fitted, meaning the wings could still be manually folded and not having the mechanism fitted saved roughly 48 pounds.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (May 29, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Two questions:
> 1. Which aircraft mfg built the non-folding wing version of the Corsair, and
> 2. How much weight was saved by doing so?




Of the 4,007 Corsairs delivered by Goodyear, 965 (almost one-fourth) were delivered without folding wings. There were also kits and field instructions to remove the folding mechanism and other weight-saving features from other Corsairs, regardless of the manufacturer. The total weight saved by removing the folding mechanism and tail hook was estimated at 94 pounds, though this was later downgraded to 80 pounds. The aircraft was to average an increased top speed of 4 mph.

The wings _could _be folded manually - but the wing fold seams were taped, puttied, and smoothed, so one fold would ruin the job. As the attached photo shows, Some Corsairs even carried a "Wings Won't Fold" warning while being transported on carriers.

All the folding mechanism would be reinstalled in about four hours, but with the advent of the FG-1D and the Marines' return to carriers with the newer models, I'm not sure any FG-1As were retrofitted.







One sign that a Corsair was probably a fixed-wing version was the modification of the tail wheel doors. All Corsairs had two doors on each side; when the hook was removed, the after halves of the doors were bolted closed and the cove for the tail hook was skinned over. Here's an example:







Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (May 30, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> Of the 4,007 Corsairs delivered by Goodyear, 965 (almost one-fourth) were delivered without folding wings. There were also kits and field instructions to remove the folding mechanism and other weight-saving features from other Corsairs, regardless of the manufacturer. The total weight saved by removing the folding mechanism and tail hook was estimated at 94 pounds, though this was later downgraded to 80 pounds. The aircraft was to average an increased top speed of 4 mph.
> 
> The wings _could _be folded manually - but the wing fold seams were taped, puttied, and smoothed, so one fold would ruin the job. As the attached photo shows, Some Corsairs even carried a "Wings Won't Fold" warning while being transported on carriers.
> 
> ...


Resp:
The photo of the damaged Corsair also shows a good view of the Brewster Bomb Rack.


----------



## fliger747 (Jun 2, 2019)

Of the 10 FG-2's built, five were without folding wings or tail hooks. I expect that the taped wings added a couple knots. I remember seeing a test sheet on the Corsair giving drag speed reductions for all sorts of minor exterior things. Bigger ones were the tailwheel doors and the walkway on the wing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

