F4U in Europe

What do you mean, African or European ducks?

GrauGeist said:

Here's their 747

View attachment 657853
(src: interwebs)

Click to expand...

Always loved the song Aces High with the Churchill speech, "We shall fight on the beaches…."

Specifically the USN range and radius definitions were from
CO NAVAER OO-45RA-500 U.S. Navy Service Airplane Characteristics and Performance Data Sheets as of 1 July 1944, Introduction.

Still waiting for the claimed correction to a Britmodeller message. Grumman Duck, if the 4th to 6th column is blank use the 3rd column data

Found this while looking for something else.

Admiralty Fleet Orders, Admiralty Fleet Orders | Royal Australian Navy

214/1944. Corsair (F4U and F3A) Aircraft – Interchangeability of Spare Parts

(N.S. Air/A.M.R. 2600/43 – 13 January 1944)

Corsair (F4U-1 with low hood) and Corsair II (F4U-1 with raised hood) are manufactured by Chance-Vought (United Aircraft Corporation) and Corsair III (F3A-1 with raised hood) by Brewster Aeronautical Corporation.

2. The airframe spares for Corsair I and II are interchangeable, except as to the hood fittings (See paragraph I above) and certain other modifications, but there is little or no interchangeability between the Corsair II and III although both manufacturers apply the same part numbers to spares performing equivalent functions.

3. All Major airframe components will be identifiable by a plate marked "F4U" when produced by Chance-Vought "F3A" when produced by Brewster.

4. As the products of the two manufacturers are not interchangeable the composition if individual Corsair squadrons is confined to either mark II (F4U) or mark III (F3A). The mark I (F4U-1) with low hood is being used solely for training purposes.

5. On receipt from America for spares of these types into store depots in the United Kingdom and abroad, care must be exercises to identify the parts by the type symbol (F4U and F3A) shown on the invoice (Form 600) and the manufacturer's tab attached to each part, and in the case of major airframe components by the change plate referred to in paragraph 3 above. Spares for the two types must be stowed and accounted for separately.

6. All demands on depots for Corsair airframe spares must indicate the Mark Number and maker of the aircraft for which the spares are required, in order to avoid the possibility of supply of spares which may prove to be unsuitable. It should be noted, however, that although the majority of the spares are not "interchangeable", many will be found to be "replaceable", that is, capable of being fitted, with some adjustments by drilling or reaming, to the aircraft produced by the other manufacturer. Consequently, stores depots in dealing with demands for spares of one type which are unavailable in stock should advise the availability (if this should be the case) of the corresponding spares of the other type.

Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Found this while looking for something else.

Admiralty Fleet Orders, Admiralty Fleet Orders | Royal Australian Navy

4. As the products of the two manufacturers are not interchangeable the composition if individual Corsair squadrons is confined to either mark II (F4U) or mark III (F3A). The mark I (F4U-1) with low hood is being used solely for training purposes.

Click to expand...

This does not surprise me. Problems with fit and assembly were worked out separately in each plant. All sorts of drafting standards were worked out after WWII, based on lessons learned during WWII.

Howard Gibson said:

This does not surprise me. Problems with fit and assembly were worked out separately in each plant. All sorts of drafting standards were worked out after WWII, based on lessons learned during WWII.

Click to expand...

Actually interchangeability was quite good with most US built aircraft with the exception of Brewster produced products (as shown in this report). This manufacturer was horrible, could barely produce their own products, let alone someone else's.

Eric Brown, who may have been the only pilot to evaluate the Corsair and the FW-190, addressed the match up in excellent "Duels in the Sky." In fact, I think it was the cover illustration.

Late to the party by a couple of years but FWIW:

At the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference a variety of military and industry pilots swapped cockpits and wrote evaluations of each aircraft. The consensus: the 51 above 25k ft, the F4U below. No less an authority than the late Col. Rex Barber of Yamamoto fame said that if the US had to build one fighter, it shoulda been the Corsair.

The only real-world comparison between the two came in 1969 during the brief Honduras - El Salvador border dispute. The leading Honduran pilot (in F4U-5s) notched two Mustangs--and a Corsair.

Whilst I agree the F4U could probably replace the Thunderbolt, I don't see it handling the Mustangs job. I stated somewhere upthread the Mustang could (and did) do the Corsair's job and that while a great aircraft, the F4U could not do the Mustangs job.

Perhaps by 1945/6 the Corsair may have had the range and high altitude performance issues sorted, doesn't really help the bomber offensive much though.

The Corsair is rather conflicted. It didn't get onto US carriers until late. They may very well have been due to desire to standardize on the F6F for carrier use.
Trying to use P-51s from carriers might have worked, I am guessing that the operational losses would have been the highest of the 3. Wither they would have been too high is another question, depending on the opposition?
But as built the F4U-1 did not have the range or altitude for bomber escort in Europe.
The F4U-4 if the fuel system was changed might have done very good work, if the war had lasted past May of 1945
But the engine in the F4U-4 was the same generation engine as the Engines in the P-47M and N. Pretty much too late for Europe.

Shortround6 said:

The Corsair is rather conflicted. It didn't get onto US carriers until late. They may very well have been due to desire to standardize on the F6F for carrier use.

Click to expand...

VF-17 worked up on the F4U-1 in 1943 and took them to the Pacific on the new carrier Bunker Hill as part of CVG-17. On reaching San Diego at the end of Sept, they found that for logistical reasons the decision had been taken to standardise on the F6F-3 on the carriers. So VF-17 was detached to fight from land bases in the Solomons while VF-18 with F6F-3 joined the carrier as a replacement. CVG-17 was also the first group to take the SB2C to combat with VB-17.

During the attacks on Rabaul in Nov 1943 some Corsairs from land based units landed on the carriers to refuel and rearm before resuming their missions and returning to their land bases.

It was then Dec 1944 before F4Us reached the carriers in the Pacific. This time it was USMC units moved from South Pacific backwaters to allow a doubling of the fighter complements on the CVs in the light of the kamikaze menace.