Army Air Force F4U Corsair

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Things changed a lot in just a few years, what was a valid conclusion in 1938-39 was no longer valid in 1942-43.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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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?
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 

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!!!
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
I doubt you saw any "Blackshoe" ratings in airplanes.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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! ! !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

11th Air Force
Replies
7
Views
726
GreenKnight121
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
D
8Th Air Force Fighter Groups
Replies
3
Views
1K
pbehn
P
C
Question about 8Th air force WW2
Replies
5
Views
1K
criannick
C
O
F4U-4 Corsair contribution in WW2
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register