Corsair and Hellcat in Europe

The Corsair's cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren't well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.

It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don't design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don't fit.

swampyankee said:

The Corsair's cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren't well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.

It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don't design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don't fit.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.

Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.

They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.

This wasn't the Pacific where you could cruise along forever at 5000' at 150mph. If you were going over the continent in 1943 you had better be cruising as fast and high as you can. Say 250gal internal plus a 150gal drop tank gives 400gal less reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' 40gal less 15 minutes of combat at 275gph (69gal) and a 20 minute reserve for landing at 75gph (25gal) leaves just 266 gallons total at 250gph makes for a one hour escort mission.

The P-47 held 300gal internal and it had a really short Euro combat radius. Corsair and Hellcat were great planes in the Pacific but would have been on a very short leash in Europe.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.

Click to expand...

I'm relying on reports from people who flew them, as are you.

swampyankee said:

The Corsair's cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren't well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.

It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don't design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don't fit.

Click to expand...

The book shows that Brown did, but that does not mean that most other pilots do. Brown had less than average stature. It is inappropriate to evaluate his opinion as an average pilot. It only demonstrates that a pilot with a below average stature could fall into trouble with Corsair's wide cockpit - not for average or above stature. even when he was on the Spitfire IX, he had lower results than other test pilots. I would like to see data that Corsair's cockpit size did not acceptable most average pilots, If that's true.

In the case of a British pilot, I have only two evaluations.

Ronnie Hay, an ace of Royal Marines, praised Corsair's cockpit size.

"With the Corsair you felt as if you were literally strappcd into an armchair in your sitting room, the cockpit was that large. You honestly felt like a 'king' sitting up there, with virtually unlimited visibility through the bubble canopy of the Mark II."

Norman Hanson, one of the pilots who received the Corsair for the first time in the FAA units, rated the cockpit of Corsair as:

"The cockpit was meticulously arranged with all dials readily visible, and every lever and switch comfortably and conveniently to hand, without any need to search or grope (Intinitly superior, I may say, to the cockpits of British aircraft of that time - which by comparison suggested they had been designed by the administrative office charwoman)."

No information on the difficulty of control by cockpit size was found in their evaluation.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I yield to the expert, never mind that the above Marine spent 3 yrs in one. Oh, by the way . . . He is 5'9" in height.

Click to expand...

One good example.

P-39 Expert said:

Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.

They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.

This wasn't the Pacific where you could cruise along forever at 5000' at 150mph. If you were going over the continent in 1943 you had better be cruising as fast and high as you can. Say 250gal internal plus a 150gal drop tank gives 400gal less reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' 40gal less 15 minutes of combat at 275gph (69gal) and a 20 minute reserve for landing at 75gph (25gal) leaves just 266 gallons total at 250gph makes for a one hour escort mission.

The P-47 held 300gal internal and it had a really short Euro combat radius. Corsair and Hellcat were great planes in the Pacific but would have been on a very short leash in Europe.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Your assessment is pretty much correct. However, the F4U-1/-1A did carry more internal fuel than the P-47 in mid-1943. However, the wing tanks were non-self sealing.
- Internal fuel; defines the distance home. Once engaged by enemy, drop tanks are dropped . . . so the air combat and the trip home MUST be calculated on internal fuel (this was explained to me by another member). So even though it got its second drop tank in April 1943, it still would not have outdistanced the P-47.
- Engine rated for optimum performance at Medium altitudes, although Corsair can go to 30,000 + ft.
- Cruise speeds are lower (than heavy bombers in ETO) to conserve fuel. Essentially, true fuel consumption rates would have to be re-calculated for increase cruising speed and increased altitude of ETO operations.

P-39 Expert said:

Bottom line on the Corsair/Hellcat escorting B-17s in Europe: Range.

They held about 250gal internal but burned 250gph at max continuous/max cruise.

This wasn't the Pacific where you could cruise along forever at 5000' at 150mph. If you were going over the continent in 1943 you had better be cruising as fast and high as you can. Say 250gal internal plus a 150gal drop tank gives 400gal less reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' 40gal less 15 minutes of combat at 275gph (69gal) and a 20 minute reserve for landing at 75gph (25gal) leaves just 266 gallons total at 250gph makes for a one hour escort mission.

The P-47 held 300gal internal and it had a really short Euro combat radius. Corsair and Hellcat were great planes in the Pacific but would have been on a very short leash in Europe.

Click to expand...

What flight operations chart are you using for the 250 gph figure? The figures that I have for the Hellcat show a maximum of 213 gph while traveling at a TAS of 351 mph at 25,000 feet (boost at 49.5" Hg & mixture in auto-lean). And while I do understand the importance of airspeed in the ETO, fuel burn rate could be cut in half (106 gph) by reducing boost to 36" Hg while flying at the same altitude. This basically doubles the range and still keeps TAS around 280+ mph, which I believe would be fast enough to remain tactically viable.

Did the Thunderbolt normally fly at 350+ mph TAS while escorting bombers? If this was true then it too would have a far more limited range as well at that speed, as it's fuel burn rates in similar mission profiles and engine settings were virtually identical to the Hellcat.

But I do agree wholeheartedly that it would have been completely unnecessary to employ the Hellcat or Corsair as long range escorts because they both lacked the required high altitude performance and the USAAF already had three fighters which could perform the task as well or better than the two Navy fighters (and the P-39 wasn't one of them - sorry, couldn't resist! ).

swampyankee said:

The Corsair's cockpit design was widely, and justly, excoriated due its inability to accommodate pilots who weren't well above average height, which was about 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) at the time.

It was, bluntly, a stupid mistake. You don't design an airplane so 75% of the pilots don't fit.

Click to expand...

While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.

During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.

And while the F4U-1D did get some votes for "most comfortable cockpit", the P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-4, P-61B, and P-51D scored higher in this category (in that order).

Food for thought....

DarrenW said:

While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.

During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.

And while the F4U-1D did get some votes for "most comfortable cockpit", the P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-4, P-61B, and P-51D scored higher in this category (in that order).

Food for thought....

Click to expand...

Resp:
In any grouping of evaluations, there will always be 'better' and 'worse' ratings. Grumman has always made good reliable aircraft. However, one must admit that the Hellcat was a much better fighter than the Wildcat. Grumman was quick to refine them. How many Fighters did Vought make? North American had a chance to produce the P-40, but believed that they could do better. I believe NAA made the correct decision. The Corsair was a 1938/1940 design; the first single engine fighter to obtain/exceed 400 mph in flight. The rest is history. We can debate it, but it will not change anything.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
In any grouping of evaluations, there will always be 'better' and 'worse' ratings. Grumman has always made good reliable aircraft. However, one must admit that the Hellcat was a much better fighter than the Wildcat. Grumman was quick to refine them. How many Fighters did Vought make? North American had a chance to produce the P-40, but believed that they could do better. I believe NAA made the correct decision. The Corsair was a 1938/1940 design; the first single engine fighter to obtain/exceed 400 mph in flight. The rest is history. We can debate it, but it will not change anything.

Click to expand...

12571 Corsairs?
over 660 of them after V-J day.
Until the F4F Wildcat Vought had built many times more navy aircraft than Grumman.

Shortround6 said:

12571 Corsairs?
over 660 of them after V-J day.
Until the F4F Wildcat Vought had built many times more navy aircraft than Grumman.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I was referring to type/models of fighters, which there was one . . . the Corsair. It is interesting in that the Navy chose to keep the Corsair well into the next conflict. Although the F7F also saw Service in Korea.

Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers.
They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane.
Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)

Shortround6 said:

Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers.
They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane.
Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

Vought had built hundreds of biplane fighters, scouts and dive bombers.
They had also built about 260 Vindicators. While it is common to disparage the Vindicator it made it's first flight Jan 4th 1936 making it the navy's second carrier borne monoplane.
Both companies got outside help with production. Eastern Aircraft took over both F4F and Avenger production freeing up the Main Grumman plant for F6f production only. Goodyear and Brewster were brought in as extra F4U production and Naval aircraft factory built Kingfishers.
Vought flew their first jet about 1 year before Grumman flew theirs, unfortunately Voughts plane was saddled with the Westinghouse engine (although some aspects of the Pirate were a bit suspect anyway.)

Click to expand...

Resp:
Roger. It is may understanding the the Corsair was their first modern mono wing fighter. Brewster had problems (mainly management) in producing the F3A, but the FAA flew them in combat w/o complaint. The US retained them in the US for training only. Does anyone have a written assessment by the FAA on their Brewster Corsairs?

While the Hellcat was better in some ways than the Corsair, e.g., low-speed handling and ergonomics, it was less versatile and had, overall, slightly poorer performance.

From what I've read, all FAA Brewster built Corsair were relegated to training status. Please don't "Resp:" this. I know what you're quoting, I'm not stupid

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
Roger. It is may understanding the the Corsair was their first modern mono wing fighter. Brewster had problems (mainly management) in producing the F3A, but the FAA flew them in combat w/o complaint. The US retained them in the US for training only. Does anyone have a written assessment by the FAA on their Brewster Corsairs?

Click to expand...

From what I have read, Brewster has very serious management problems which manifested themselves as poor productivity, poor quality, poor labor-management relations(Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Archives - A History of Total Health), and even purported instances of sabotage.

According to "Florida Warplanes" by Harold Skaarup, only the Mk.IIs and Mk.IVs saw combat. The 430 Mk.IIIs must have been divided among the 26 second-line squadrons

DarrenW said:

While there are always exceptions to every rule, I'm under the impression that the cockpit layout of earlier Corsairs was generally not well received, which may have been one of the reasons for the complete redesign when the F4U-4 came along.

During the Joint Fighter Conference held in October 1944, the F4U-1D ranked 3rd for "worst cockpit" (only the P-38L and P-61B ranked higher in this category), and these were primarily naval aviators doing the scoring. However the F4U-4 ranked second in "best all-round cockpit" (behind the F6F-5), which COULD have been do to the changes made in cockpit layout. The F4U-1D received no votes in this particular category.

And while the F4U-1D did get some votes for "most comfortable cockpit", the P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-4, P-61B, and P-51D scored higher in this category (in that order).

Food for thought....

Click to expand...

Yes, early Corsair seems to have a problem with the cockpit 'layout'.

Boone T. Guyton, the Corsair's chief test pilot, also pointed out that there was a problem with the layout of the cockpit. He regretted that the solution was not reflected before the production line started.

"At this time a serious mistake was found in the arrangement of controls in the F4U-1's cockpit. Unfortunately, it had gone into production, slipped by all of us, and reached the combat zone. At least one pilot died as a result. while I could rationalize the error as unforeseeable, it should not have been. As Vought's chief experimental test pilot and most experienced naval aviator, I should caught it."

There was a pilot who was shot down due to unintentional emergency landing gear extended in combat. Because the emergency landing gear could not be retract again, His Corsair was caught by A6Ms.

"What the hell do you mean by putting that emergency landing gear bottle next to wing purging? Do you know what's happening?"

So, that's what he heard.

Perhaps including it with other problems to have been fixed with later variants, but it would have been just minor changes until cockpit was completely redesigned on the F4U-4.

However, it still has nothing to do with the opinion that most of the average pilots are limited in control or visibility because of the Corsair's wide cockpit design. For the pilots of various origin and times, the Corsair was evaluated as a maneuverable machine and easy to fly. If the it's cockpit was specially interferes with control and visibility compared to the other cockpits, most pilots would have said that - especially the combat pilots. However, except for the early Birdcage type, that opinion is not noticeable. Except for the frontal view from the ground due to the long nose, the Corsair with a raised cabin(In other words, bulged or semi-bubble) was seems well received. As far as I can see, unlike the layout, the control and visibility seem to belong to 'comfort'.

Well, this is an interesting subject, but I find it difficult to get the data. I did not even know the average stature of the USN and USMC pilots during World War II. Conversely, I was wondering how could assure that 75% of the pilots do not fit with it.

swampyankee said:

While the Hellcat was better in some ways than the Corsair, e.g., low-speed handling and ergonomics, it was less versatile and had, overall, slightly poorer performance.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, exactly, It's not the low-speed handling but the handling in landing conditions. Corsair was an agile aircraft with a very light stick force, but the stick force of the elevator became excessive if it cuts the throttle. for touchdown to the aircraft carrier, the Corsair suffers from sluggish handling and low stability both when switching from a power approach to power off landing condition. The vertical stabilizer of the Corsair was advantageous in terms of agility because most of the sections are made of control surfaces, but the area of the pin was too small for terms of stability when rudder deflected. Moreover, flaps also decreased stability. It provides low stall speed and great combat flap due to it's excellent efficiency, but the flap's high chord ratio with low tail gear causes directional stability problem during touchdown. Lastly, a sudden fall of lift curve in throttle closed and decelerating situation causes a sharp wing drop. If pass all this safely, Corsair will finally complete the landing.

The interesting thing is that the design for better fighter makes an worse carrier based airplane. Vought seems chose the performance first, instead of maintaining this subtle balance.

DarrenW said:

What flight operations chart are you using for the 250 gph figure? The figures that I have for the Hellcat show a maximum of 213 gph while traveling at a TAS of 351 mph at 25,000 feet (boost at 49.5" Hg & mixture in auto-lean). And while I do understand the importance of airspeed in the ETO, fuel burn rate could be cut in half (106 gph) by reducing boost to 36" Hg while flying at the same altitude. This basically doubles the range and still keeps TAS around 280+ mph, which I believe would be fast enough to remain tactically viable.

Did the Thunderbolt normally fly at 350+ mph TAS while escorting bombers? If this was true then it too would have a far more limited range as well at that speed, as it's fuel burn rates in similar mission profiles and engine settings were virtually identical to the Hellcat.

But I do agree wholeheartedly that it would have been completely unnecessary to employ the Hellcat or Corsair as long range escorts because they both lacked the required high altitude performance and the USAAF already had three fighters which could perform the task as well or better than the two Navy fighters (and the P-39 wasn't one of them - sorry, couldn't resist! ).

Click to expand...

250gph straight from the pilot's manual.

P-39 Expert said:

250gph straight from the pilot's manual.

Click to expand...

What, the one you penciled in yourself? Does not exist.

Yes, I'm calling you out on this one.