F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

[FLYBOYJ]

No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck.
are you a troll?

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....

Once again those little voices in your head coming from comic books, Black Sheep Squadron reruns, and old Osprey books are making their way through your brain causing some pretty bad fecal matter to transfer to the keyboard. Please refrain or you'll be gone for good. We have no time or patience for your continual nonsense.

 

[GrauGeist]

and the F4Us moniker "Ensign eliminator" did stem from landing issues, so I have read anyway.

You read correctly.

The USN's SOP for carrier landing was to approach directly a stern, which was a procedure developed over the years with types up through the F4F. As it happens, the Corsair's engine/cowling was far larger than any fighter they had before and this presented a serious problem for the pilots.

It was the Royal Navy that developed the 45° landing approach to counter this problem and proved very successful to the point that the USN adopted it as their proceedure.

 

[michael rauls]

You read correctly.

The USN's SOP for carrier landing was to approach directly a stern, which was a procedure developed over the years with types up through the F4F. As it happens, the Corsair's engine/cowling was far larger than any fighter they had before and this presented a serious problem for the pilots.

It was the Royal Navy that developed the 45° landing approach to counter this problem and proved very successful to the point that the USN adopted it as their proceedure.

Thanks for the info. I've several times read that the Royal Navy solved the problem but never how. Always kinda wondered.

 

[Dan Fahey]

Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan....

Once again those little voices in your head coming from comic books, Black Sheep Squadron reruns, and old Osprey books are making their way through your brain causing some pretty bad fecal matter to transfer to the keyboard. Please refrain or you'll be gone for good. We have no time or patience for your continual nonsense.

Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair's flipping over at end of the Carrier.
Have an Uncle that flew F8F's and Corsair's with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers.
at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
Came out with a broken wrist and shaken.
In fact there was another plane that was given the name Ensign Eliminator was the F7U Cutlass.

Do you find this information incorrect?
If so correct me and ditch the damn sarcasm !

D

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair's flipping over at end of the Carrier.
Have an Uncle that flew F8F's and Corsair's with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers.
at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
Came out with a broken wrist and shaken.
In fact there was another plane that was given the name Ensign Eliminator was the F7U Cutlass.

Do you find this information incorrect?
If so correct me and ditch the damn sarcasm !

D

"I seen pictures and videos of Hellcats, Dauntlesses, Wildcats, Bearcats and Helldivers flipping over the end of carriers as well!"

Read the previously posted responses to your dribble. The F4U (along with other aircraft) was given the "TERM" "Ensign Eliminator" but in the end it was one of the best carrier based aircraft to be operated by ANY Navy. The term you describe is called a "torque roll" and many other high performance piston engine fighters experienced this and probably every carrier based recip aircraft operated by the USN had at least one class 1 mishap due to this. It is a controllable occurrence when encountered. The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.

This clip shows F4U operating during the Korean War being catapult launched which all but eliminated the issue.

F4U Catapult launch korea - Yahoo Video Search Results

You're corrected, so now put the pointy hat on and sit in the corner!

 

[GrauGeist]

The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.

Don't forget to put the P-47 towards the top of that list.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't forget to put the P-47 towards the top of that list.

Yep - but I didn't mention that because Dan would say that it couldn't get off the ground!

 

[pinsog]

Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair's flipping over at end of the Carrier.
Have an Uncle that flew F8F's and Corsair's with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers.
at the end of his career had serious incident when is Corsairs brakes failed taxing and ran into other parked fighters.
Came out with a broken wrist and shaken.
In fact there was another plane that was given the name Ensign Eliminator was the F7U Cutlass.

Do you find this information incorrect?
If so correct me and ditch the damn sarcasm !

D

Hello sir. All of these gentlemen are correct, the F4U 'ensign eliminator' name/reputation came from landing on a carrier, not take off. Specifically, the problem was when it was down to 80 mph or so with the flaps and landing gear down and then they got a wave off, the pilot would shove the throttle forward and instead of the massive 13'6 inch prop spinning faster the aircraft would instead begin to try to rotate around the prop. At 80 mph or so, there wasn't enough lift on the wings or airflow over the controls to stop this from happening. All that being said, almost any late war, high powered single engine fighter would do the same thing at that airspeed, the difference being P47's, P51's, ME109's and FW190's weren't trying to land on a carrier, getting a wave off and then going to full power at 80 feet altitude and 80 mph. If you try that on any of those fighter's you will also end up upside down in the water. Instead, those fighters were landing, mostly, on nice long, wide paved runways at speeds well above stall and without some guy waving flags at him because he didn't like his approach.

 

[fubar57]

Good stuff sir. Unfortunately Dan rarely lets facts get in the way of posting

 

[CORSNING]

...........

 

[fubar57]

When I read a post the starts, "Having copied all of the Corsair's WWII carrier qualification reports, I can say the Navy showed no concern for any torque problems on takeoff. While that doesn't mean the problems weren't there, it's clear the examiners didn't think them important enough to even mention in their reports." and then read a post that includes, ".....Have an Uncle that flew F8F's and Corsair's......." who am I going lean? I've typed in every combo of F4U and carrier take-off accidents into Google Video and can't find any that show squadron after squadron decimating themselves on take-off. Anyone post a link..............Dan?

 

[Dan Fahey]

"I seen pictures and videos of Hellcats, Dauntlesses, Wildcats, Bearcats and Helldivers flipping over the end of carriers as well!"

Read the previously posted responses to your dribble. The F4U (along with other aircraft) was given the "TERM" "Ensign Eliminator" but in the end it was one of the best carrier based aircraft to be operated by ANY Navy. The term you describe is called a "torque roll" and many other high performance piston engine fighters experienced this and probably every carrier based recip aircraft operated by the USN had at least one class 1 mishap due to this. It is a controllable occurrence when encountered. The F4U was well known for this as was the Bf 109, the Avia S-199, the P-51 and even the Sopwith Camel to name a few. Your naive comments would have one believe that this would occur on every takeoff.

This clip shows F4U operating during the Korean War being catapult launched which all but eliminated the issue.

F4U Catapult launch korea - Yahoo Video Search Results

You're corrected, so now put the pointy hat on and sit in the corner!

Never said it happened on every take off...
You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.

Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
Something in the order of 15000 planes lost and incidents involving ground crew.

Remembering the article was talking about the loss new Ensigns trying to take off in the Corsair.
The number was quite high along with the Curtis Helldiver which think came on line about the same time.
Both planes ending in the sea until changes were made.
New Navy pilots started off as Ensigns and being a newby they were the ones that made fatal mistakes.
One thing learned about the carrier landings with Corsairs.
The first ones were made by experienced pilots not by inexperienced Ensigns.
Some may have been Ensigns.

Landing you have some time to correct your approach situation.
Taking off with a high torque plane, not enough deck and rudder.
Was not a lot of room for error.

Mentioned this before that our logistics system in fog of war often did not catch up to that day of the war.

It was wartime and the combatants were desperate to get Fighter Pilots on line as fast as possible.
The washout rate was horrible those that could fly but not make Fighter pilot ended up in bombers or other war plane.

In contrast it was a slaughter in Russia training anyone to fly.
If they survived flight school pilots were then slaughtered by the Germans if they could get a combat flight.

d

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Never said it happened on every take off...
You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.

Your posts:

"No because of take offs...the Corsair would flip over because of the torque of the prop at the end of carrier deck."

"Flyboy.. I have seen pictures and videos of Corsair's flipping over at end of the Carrier.
Have an Uncle that flew F8F's and Corsair's with the US Marines introduced me to that term Ensign Eliminator in High School.
His stories included losing classmates training take off and landing on carriers."

Dan, you're on a very short rope. I suggest you tread lightly.

 

[drgondog]

Never said it happened on every take off...
You are putting words in my mouth to justify your arrogance.

Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
Something in the order of 15000 planes lost and incidents involving ground crew.

Remembering the article was talking about the loss new Ensigns trying to take off in the Corsair.
The number was quite high along with the Curtis Helldiver which think came on line about the same time.
Both planes ending in the sea until changes were made.
An experienced pilot could probably get a loaded plane off a packed deck.
Helldiver was another problematic plane that was eventually sorted out.
Mentioned this before that our logistics system in fog of war often did not catch up to that day of the war.

It was wartime and the combatants were desperate to get Fighter Pilots on line as fast as possible.
The washout rate was horrible those that could fly but not make Fighter pilot ended up with bombers or other war plane.

In contrast it was a slaughter in Russia training anyone to fly.
The surviving flight school pilots were then slaughtered by the Germans if they could get a combat flight.

d

When you are digging your own grave and hit a septic tank, you should probably wave off and quit digging there.

 

[pbehn]

Are there any statistics for WW2 US Navy training accidents, I can only find them for the USAAF.

 

[pinsog]

Landing you have some time to correct your approach situation.
Taking off with a high torque plane, not enough deck and rudder.
Was not a lot of room for error.

d[/QUOTE]
Sir, all of these gentlemen are correct, it was the landings that were dangerous. If they were very heavily loaded on takeoff they would catapult them. If they weren't heavily loaded then they accelerated quickly and were fine, on take off they were already moving 30+ mph not including the headwind, add a 15 mph wind and they are over halfway to stall speed before they start to move.

On landing, they are down just above stall speed, their runway is moving away from them as well as moving up and down and might even be turning. Their landing gear and flaps are down and the engine is running much lower rpm. If their approach is bad, or the ship moves they will get a wave off. Now they are decending, at 80-100 feet, barely above stall, engine at low rpm and they have to now, in a short time, add power, pull up and also turn to avoid the ship and any parked planes. When they add power at that low an airspeed, the prop bites into the air and as well as turning faster it tries to roll the plane opposite of the way the prop is turning (think of a farm tractor, if the rear tires can't spin, the front end will lift up off the ground) They don't have enough airflow over the controls to stop the roll and they don't have enough altitude to recover so they go into the water upside down. Almost any big engined, single engine WW2 fighter will do this under these conditions, land based fighters didn't have this issue because they land at much higher speed on non moving airfields. Navy bombers didn't have the issue as bad because they had much bigger wings, more lift and smaller less powerful engines

 

[Shortround6]

Anecdotal evidence of a very limited sample, I knew a man who flew with VMF-124 (in it's second tour) and some of his tales about losses in training were rather eye opening.
And that is before they even got close to a carrier.

A lot of young men died in pilot (and general flying training) training before they ever got to carrier or combat training, blaming all the accidents/losses on carrier training seems like skewing the results in the direction you want to go.

Not saying there weren't take-off and landing accidents when operating from carriers. But they need sorting out and not lumped in with primary, basic, advanced and conversion to operational types training.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

When you are digging your own grave and hit a septic tank, you should probably wave off and quit digging there.

Go around, go around!

 

[pbehn]

Could the F4-U flown to the correct procedure as regards speed and sink rate etc get into a situation that it couldn't "go around" without rolling?

 

[GrauGeist]

Key note of the article I read highlighted the number of Training Accidents in the US.
Something in the order of [BOLD]15000[/BOLD] planes lost and incidents involving ground crew.

Now might be a good time to point out that Vought, Goodyear and Brewster all produced a total of 12,571 F4U types.

Not sure how that figure listed for accidents exceeds the total number of aircraft built...