Best naval fighter

the brits merely refined the corsairs design, they chopped 8 inches off the wing which helped the problem of bounce on landing, they also devised a new approach for landing it due to the lack of visibility caused by the long nose...............................

ceilin feet, 41,500 feet (sorry, private joke)

The Brits actually chopped off the 8 inches of the wings so the Corsairs would fit in their hangar decks (which were obviously smaller than the US carrier hangar decks) and all other results were a side effect (some were expected, others - like reducing the bounce - weren't). Lt Cdr R.M. Smeeton of the RN came up with the idea of cutting off the wingtips while Vought was thinking more along the linesof retracting the tail wheel, compressing the main gear oleos, etc.

The results of shortening the wings were an increased stall speed (which gave more warning of a stall and less roll in a stall), slightly increased take off distance, improved maneuverability at lower altitudes, and lessening the bounce.

There is the designation F4U-1B that is sometimes used to describe early Corsairs for the Brits with clipped wings. If this is an official designation, I would say the Brits helped design the -1B (as Viper said - it was an American plane and they Britainized it ), if it is unofficial, the clipped wings would be a modification IMO, but still a case of the Brits Britainizing an American plane.

And to be picky Lanc, you should have said the Brits merely refined their Corsairs's design, as only British (and possibly RNZAF depending how they got their Corsairs) Corsairs had clipped wings while all the US Corsairs maintained full length wings.

Anyways, landing approach wasn't the design, so we don't need to argue about it

Just found another thing (I coudln't read too well earlier apparently ) - Another British improvement was the fitting of small air-scoops to the fuselage sides to help prevent life-threatening carbon monoxide fumes accumulating in the fuselage abaft the cockpit. It was thought that, because the exhaust stubs were flush with the engine cowlings, they were not throwing the expelled gases clear of the forward of the forward end of the fuselage. Interesting if I may say so - guess I'll see if I can find anything also about this modification and whether it was also implement on Yankee Corsairs.

ceilin feet, 41,500 feet (sorry, private joke)

Click to expand...

don't i know it................................

Wow, you lot certainly have been busy bunnys since i was here a few days ago...christ practically another 2 pages typed since i was last here...caused quite a stir didn't I..where to begin...i think with Viper

Viper - You are an idiot...an abusive childish idiot at that.
You are clearly a bit upset about this whole thing - are you by any chance about 10 years old? because you behave like you are - all this abuse you throw at me merely clearly indicates to everyone on this forum that you are extremely frustrated about the fact that you can't swallow the fact that the Corsairs career (that you so clearly adore alot) was helped (in part) by Britain and thats all i have to say to you and as a parting shot from myself to you i just wanted to say.....God bless America....MY ARSE


Archer....you challenge me with logic and intelligent arguments - so far no abuse so i'm willing to listen to you (even though its one hell of an effort to read all the stuff you post ) i would like to clear one thing up for a start...i am not being immature about this - Vipers abuse has provoked me on a few occations to retaliate (see above)...but i'm sure if you were in my shoes you would do the same...?

I accept that your knowledge on the Corsair is VAST and you certainly know more than me - good for you 8)

However in this case it certainly seems that you have a little more to learn on the subject....its so difficult to know where to begin with this - you made so many points!

In this country (Great Britain) the BBC's documentaries are the gospel - they can't just make up the information they use in their programs (i don't know about the law in canada but over here we just aren't allowed) the documentary was long and detailed with the testimonies of many american crews/airmen etc, unfortunately i myself did not see the program..my father did. HE told me yesterday about what happened and i do beleive a certain amount of confusion may have arised over this inside this thread heres the story - The Americans had the corsair designed and built originally (i'm fairly certain of this) as a land based aircraft for coastal defence kind of operations flying from shore - It is true that apart from a few minor ajustments the British did NOT make many alterations to the corsairs design (though the ones we did make were vital) BUT before any of you unstable patriots (yes viper i'm talking about you ) get overexcited at having proved me wrong.............drumroll please The British DID enable the Corsair to be launched from aircraft carriers!
The Americans had tried previously to land their corsairs on carrier decks BUT their pilots had complained they couldn't see over the nose of the big fighter to land the plane - the silly buggers kept crashing or overshooting the deck and ending up in the drink!
The Yanks decided that they should use the corsair for land based operations only - Britain however was desperate at that stage in the war to have a modern fighter like the Corsair for their carriers - the British engineers examined the corsair and asked the Yanks if they could try and see if they could use them for their carrier operations - the yanks agreed and the brits started on the job...we (yes, we Brits!) developed a very clever and daring system to enable the corsairs to land on our decks without crashing - it was known as the 'landing on' system and it is briefly mentioned on this link

http://www.hms.vengeance.btinternet.co.uk/corsair.htm


If one of you lazy know-it-alls had bothered to go to a search engine and looked instead of giving me grief you would have found it out for yourself...

The 'Landing on' system involved the corsair pilots bringing their fighters in with the left wing turned down toward the sea - the pilot would be looking at the bridge of the carrier - right at the top of the control tower (bridge) of the ship there would be a man holding a bat in each hand (no, not the furry kind) those bats you see aircrews waving planes on with - he would wave the airman on and direct him onto the deck using those bats - the pilot wouldn't even look at the deck - he would just look at the man with the bats and rely on him 100% to guide him in - if the bat guy got it wrong it was goodbye vienna - not ideal but clearly without British intervention the Corsair would NEVER have been used on carriers - which would have dramatically reduced its usefulness....lets see one of you smartarses argue with me now

I'm sure one of you will jump down my throat about previous incorrect or misleading statements i may have previously made when i wasn't 100% certain of my facts - (i'm NEVER less than 99% sure of my facts ) I am sorry for those but ultimately i'm right and thats what counts isn't it?

Have a field day guys - i hope i won't have to ever hear about this again - those who stuck by me - thankyou, you know who you are and Archer...i respect you mate - you know you're stuff just try to be a little more patient in future huh? 8) and please try not to brow beat me too much


Cheers

oooooooooook

Oh and Viper... :fist:

Now Archer...THATS immature 8)

wow, go bronzewhaler!

know what? im leaving this site,i came here to talk about ww2 planes and you show up and be a prick so....im gone ,bunch of assholes

Wow! Now I understand what bronzewaler said

Because I like to argue (well not really, it just keeps us talking about the Corsair )...

The Royal Navy were the first, operationally, to use Corsair's on Aircraft Carriers and their first action was against the German Battleship "Tripitz" in March 1943. The first Royal Navy Corsair Squadron, No. 1830, was formed at U.S.N.A.S. Quonset Point, Rhode Island on the 1st June 1943.

Click to expand...

Anyone see a problem with this statement from the website? Supposedly the first missions were before there was even a Corsair squadron....Tirpitz was 1944.

Anyways, back to your post BronzeWhaler:

The British DID enable the Corsair to be launched from aircraft carriers!

Click to expand...

Hmm, Corsairs were launched from carriers quite easily, landing was the hard part

The Americans had the corsair designed and built originally (i'm fairly certain of this) as a land based aircraft for coastal defence kind of operations flying from shore

Click to expand...

The Corsair was originally intended for carriers - but the negative traits of the early Corsairs led the Navy to not put them on carriers originally, so the Marines got them.

Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea said:

the F4U's origin dated to early 1938 when the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics sponsored a design competition for a new carrier fighter.

Click to expand...

Vought F4U Corsair said:

In 1938 the US Navy ha ddecided that the time was long overdue to bring carrier-based aviation up to the same performance as land-based aircraft. On 30 June 1938 the US Navy ordered...the Vought XF4U-1

Click to expand...

You're quite wrong

However, the early problems are a good thing for the Brits. According to Norman Hanson, a No.1833 Squadron Corsair pilot,

The fighter had originally been ordered by the Navy for carrier use to replace the Grumman F4F, the Wildcat (Martlet to the Royal Navy), but it had proved to be such a handful in Fleet trials, and particularly in deck landing, that the new Grumman F6F - the Hellcat - had been adopted instead. This meant that the F4U - the Corsair - could now go to the shore-based squadrons of the Marine Air Corps, and to the Royal Navy, if they wanted it.

Click to expand...

So be happy very early Corsairs had so many problems. And now, to continue (and off-topic, included solely because it makes fun of Seafires and Sea Hurricanes)

The Royal Navy accepted it willingly, since the only alternatives in sight were the Seafire and Sea Hurricane - and these were just not carrier material. Their range was pathetically limited, even with drop tanks, and worse still their structure, whilst perfectly adequate for airfield flying, was not up to the rough and tumble life of carrier decks. In both cases a heavy landing, caused either by the vessel's pitch or by the pilot's hamfistedness, often brought the undercarriage through the wings.

Click to expand...

And back to Corsairs now

On 2 October, VF-17 flew their Corsairs off the Bunker Hill to Ford Island (Pearl Harbour). The reason for them not being deployed to the Pacific aboard the Bunker Hill was not due any fault of the Corsair or the VF-17 pilots, but logistics and the brasses continuing to not think the Corsair was carrier qualified even though VF-17 had qualified on F4U-1s (and was sent to Hawaii with -1As, which included many designs they suggested and that were found while training on carriers) proving it was fit for carrier duty. No other carrier had Corsairs aboard, they were all with Hellcats or Wildcats (escort carriers), and as such there were no parts for Corsairs on any other carriers should a Corsair need to land on one with damage. This decision was also in part due to some high ranking officers who thought Corsairs didn't belong on carriers (or still had problems) although VF-17 clearly illustrated that the Corsair could operate from carriers. Either way, VF-17 had fully carrier qualified and had set out to the Pacific aboard a carrier in late September-early October 1943. When given the opportunity to stay with AG-17 by converting to F6Fs, the pilots of VF-17 decided they would rather keep their Corsairs.

VF-17s credentials to fly from carriers was illustrated again on Noevember 11. VF-17 flew took off from Ondonga (New Georgia) at 0420, flew to a task force comprising of the Bunker Hill, Essex, and Independence until their fuel reserves got low. At which point they would land on the Essex and Bunker Hill (VF-33 landed their Hellcat's aboard Independence) to refuel and ream beofre resuming CAP. Around 0830 the Corsairs got low on fuel and VF-17 made 23 landings (all of the Corsairs involved) without a single wave off after several weeks without practice.

Before VF-17, there was VF-12, who I would assume carrier qualified as they flew off the USS Core and USS Enterprise. At the time VF-12 was flying from the carriers, they had many problems with the Corsair (which were soon corrected) and switched to the Hellcat before deploying so they would remain aboard the USS Saratgoa.

The Yankees could land it aboard carriers, they just deemed the Hellcat the better aircraft for carrier ops (easier to fly and land on carriers, which is quite important when the new pilots won't be getting much training), Hellcats were in the fleet before the Corsair was ready to be deployed (no Corsair spares - but lots of Grumman Hellcat and Wildcat parts), and the Navy brass (some simply not liking the Corsair, and some just believing that it was a handful to use on carriers - which I'd agree with).

Although yes, the Brits did have Corsairs aboard their carriers in numbers and operational before the US (not to mention the Brits were actually smart enough to use armoured flight decks).

And BronzeWhaler, no one ever disputed (as far as I remember) that the Brits didn't come up with a method to recover Corsairs better than the standard straight in approach


Almost entirely off topic (other than being about Corsairs, Brits, and Yanks):
If the Brits had wanted (and been able to clip the wings off the Corsairs on the carriers) a Major flying Corsairs form the Victorious found an airfield full of F4U-4s waiting to be shipped back to the US for overhauls, they had completed 500 hours while the British Corsair IIs had almost 2000 hours. Major Ronnie Hay (the one who found them) found the Navy Officer in charge and curiously asked if he could swap his Corsair II for a F4U-4, the Navy officer said he could since he was flying on the frontline, but he didn't because he figured the Admiral would see the gloss sea blue Corsair amongst the grey Corsair IIs on deck...he really should've had all the Corsair IIs from the Victorious fly back and swap them all for F4U-4s

Well i think even you would agree with me that its not much good launching a fighter from a cerrier...if you can't land it afterwards - if the corsairs were originally designed for carrier operations it just goes to show exactly how much thought the designers put into their work...they designed a plane that had to have its own particular landing method cos it was so hard to land on carriers! and another country had to develop this method! the Americans had given up trying to land the corsair on carriers so the brits did it for them. end of story - i want to make it clear (though its difficult to see how much clearer i can be to you on this ) that i don't in any way want to Britainise this amazing aircraft (i still think you guys made this word up!) but i think we deserve our due, don't you? 8)

Hot Space said:

Well let's settle this once and for all:

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/f4u.html

http://www.concentric.net/~Twist/airwar/f4u/f4u.shtml

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/corsair.htm

http://www.compass.dircon.co.uk/F4U.htm

http://www.warbirdalley.com/f4u.htm

http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/f4u.html

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/F4U.html

http://www.zap16.com/mil fact/vought f4u corsair.htm

As you can see from these few Sites I've found, there isn't ONE mention of the Brits helping with the Design of the Corsair

Hot Space

Click to expand...

Well Hotspace that was a waste of your time then wasn't it mate...cos we did! \/ \/ \/ \/

Of course you do, and personally I love Brit Corsairs, they did several interesting (and effective) attacks on Japanese oil refineries and harbours on the Asian mainland and Japan itself, not to mention several Canadians flew them.

I'm just pointing out mistakes (or what I think are mistakes), not trying to take any credit away from you Brits (and the Commonwealth pilots you had in the RN FAA)

Why not have have planes that can't land on the carrier deck? The US had observation aircraft that could land "on" landing craft and I believe most navy's had floatplanes launched from battleships. The Corsairs would just need to be picked up out of the water before they sank

Lastly, Britainize (or Britainise) is a cool word. I'll be sure to use it as much as possible from here on

Archer,

You know all Serial Number or Bu No for Vought F4U-1(Just -1 Birdcage), right? Just asking

Well of Course!

Don't you??

FVS Kiwimac

Why yes, with the help of a nice book (no, I don't memorize Bu Nos or a lot of other things about Corsairs in detail - just enough so I have a pretty good idea, then I look in books to make sure if I'm not fairly certain).

Flipping to Appendix II US Navy Corsairs and Appendix III Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Corsairs...

Books are good, they give you information

(Did you actually want them?)

I'm sure the US would rather have a system of landing planes like the corsair (expensive aircraft) rather than ditching them in the sea! supposing the sea is too rough? or its in the middle of a battle? the plane might sink and the pilot would drown! thats nonsense

Thats precisely why i sometimes feel like people are trying to take away or detract from the fact that britain helped the corsairs career by saying things like.."oh well they didn't NEED to land them on carriers they could just ditch them" i'm sure with thought you'll admit thats a bit extreme, besides if the americans were willing to do that they would've gone ahead with using the corsairs on carriers instead of removing them and waiting for the brits to pull through with the 'landing on' idea

Archer, i get the impression that you and I are going to differ on this particular subject til doomsday , whatdya say we just agree that Britain undoubtably helped with the Corsair but overwhealmingly it was an American effort? 8)

even though i have no part in this conflict i say we agree with bronzewhaler, cos after all, its true 8)