Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
It would have been ideal for CAS during and after D-Day.Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!
I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt usIt would have been ideal for CAS during and after D-Day.
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us
After VE and VJ day the world was full of aircraft no one wanted. Here is a picture of RAF Thruxton in May 1945, it says in the caption that they were returned to USA but many werent, just as Typhoons werent always returned from Germany. With Corsairs in the Pacific I think they wanted to clear the hangers for use as hospitals or similar, sorting out the mess of ex POWs and civilians in Singapore Hong Kong etc.The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
I understand that but most of ones we could get to the ETO would have 6x.50in gunsSome, not a lot, had 4 x 20mm cannon.
As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us
if we would have sent them what fighter do you think would be the biggest threat to usAs CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.
Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.
Not all. At least one squadron returned to the U.K. in 1946 to fly its aircraft ashore. After that who knows what happened to them. Those ashore in the U.K. probably joined all the other Lend Lease aircraft sold off to the scrapman. At least one survives to this day at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton.Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?
Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?
IIRC, one condition of Lend-Lease is that everything sent had to be returned (it was lent, after all) or destroyed.Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?
Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?
The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat.
Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this.I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?