I think it's one of those stories which gets a bit exaggerated, but there is some truth in it to the extent that the institutional inertia created by the early problems with the F4U in Navy / carrier service (some USN units flew them from land) was put paid by the obvious success FAA was having with them flying from carriers, with the benefit of the improvements Vought made. The FAA worked out their own approach and as we know, also had slightly different Corsair variants with the clipped wings etc.
F4U in Europe (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think it's one of those stories which gets a bit exaggerated, but there is some truth in it to the extent that the institutional inertia created by the early problems with the F4U in Navy / carrier service (some USN units flew them from land) was put paid by the obvious success FAA was having with them flying from carriers, with the benefit of the improvements Vought made. The FAA worked out their own approach and as we know, also had slightly different Corsair variants with the clipped wings etc.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That's because there are many on here who are smart enough, have researched enough or have the actually experience to separate realistic speculation in lieu of fantasies and opinionated BS. If this disturbs you there are many other places in cyberspace that may suit your needs.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Mr. Leonard has.dispelled the myth many times over, how the FAA "solved the F4U's issues".
One of the key points, is that the FAA pilots were all trained in the U.S. before going operational.
The F4U's carrier-based problems were solved by Vought after feedback.
The FAA's clipped wings (8" removed from either wing) weren't for performance, it was to facilitate stowage aboard RN carriers.
The USN didn't use the Corsair aboard it's carriers as a primary, because it already had Hellcats, not because of "issues".
The list goes on, but this has all been covered in great detail in other threads.
One of the key points, is that the FAA pilots were all trained in the U.S. before going operational.
The F4U's carrier-based problems were solved by Vought after feedback.
The FAA's clipped wings (8" removed from either wing) weren't for performance, it was to facilitate stowage aboard RN carriers.
The USN didn't use the Corsair aboard it's carriers as a primary, because it already had Hellcats, not because of "issues".
The list goes on, but this has all been covered in great detail in other threads.
They say that this also affected the sink rate though, is that not true?
So no middle ground on it at all? It's 100% a myth?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This is from Wiki - I left the references in there...
The U.S. Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, though getting it into service proved difficult. The framed "birdcage" style canopy provided inadequate visibility for deck taxiing, and the long "hose nose" and nose-up attitude of the Corsair made it difficult to see straight ahead. The enormous torque of the Double Wasp engine also made it a handful for inexperienced pilots if they were forced to bolter. Early Navy pilots called the F4U the "hog", "hosenose", or "bent-wing widow maker".[42]
Carrier qualification trials on the training carrier USS Wolverine and escort carriers USS Core and USS Charger in 1942 found that, despite visibility issues and control sensitivity, the Corsair was "...an excellent carrier type and very easy to land aboard. It is no different than any other airplane."[43] Two Navy units, VF-12 (October 1942) and later VF-17 (April 1943) were equipped with the F4U. By April 1943, VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualification.[44]
At the time, the U.S. Navy also had the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which did not have the performance of the F4U, but was a better deck landing aircraft. The Corsair was declared "ready for combat" at the end of 1942, though qualified to operate only from land bases until the last of the carrier qualification issues were worked out.[45] VF-17 went aboard the USS Bunker Hill in late 1943, and the Chief of Naval Operations wanted to equip four air groups with Corsairs by the end of 1943. The Commander, Air Forces, Pacific had a different opinion, stating that "In order to simplify spares problems and also to insure flexibility in carrier operations present practice in the Pacific is to assign all Corsairs to Marines and to equip FightRons [fighter squadrons] on medium and light carriers with Hellcats."[46] VF-12 soon abandoned its aircraft to the Marines. VF-17 kept its Corsairs, but was removed from its carrier, USS Bunker Hill, due to perceived difficulties in supplying parts at sea.[47]
The Marines needed a better fighter than the F4F Wildcat. For them, it was not as important that the F4U could be recovered aboard a carrier, as they usually flew from land bases. Growing pains aside, Marine Corps squadrons readily took to the radical new fighter.
This was well documented in the book "Jolly Rogers" written by Tom Blackburn, C/O of VF-17
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There is a middle ground, sure.
VF-12 and VF-17 were the first two units to work up and operate the F4U and were fully qualified by spring of '43, which was about the same time the F6F was going into service.
The early F4U had to go through several iterations to sort out above-mentioned issues, like the oleos, which tended to make it bounce on recovery as well as the canopy configuration, etc.
The F6F did not have to go through the same process, so it was quicker to deploy in strength, even though it's performance was not as high as the F4U's.
But in '43, the war's situation dictated numbers over performance, so the F6F won out. Bunker Hill (CV-17) was fully equipped with Corsairs by Fall of '43, by the way.
It might be interesting to note that the USN thought that the F4U's performance during trials was equal to any other carrier type.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Well, Joe beat me by a minute! 
Right, this is in part what I was referring to. Tail wheel as well right? I think also as with every time aircraft got a bit more powerful than the previous generation, there was a learning curve. There was the nickname 'ensign eliminator' in the early days, mainly due to issues with torque on takeoff power. As a kid, I was with my dad in 1974 when he interviewed a few F4U pilots and they were talking about this issue.
F4U had some teething issues, and not just on carriers, but almost all aircraft types did. Another issue frequently mentioned was oil leaks and oil getting on the windscreen, leading to the need to wire shut the cowl flaps on the top of the fuselage. I assume the F6 had some problems too though they don't seem to have been as widely discussed?
There was a passage by a high scoring USMC F4U Ace who had a bit of a rant about all the problems with the early F4U and all the maintenance they had to do on it. Just kind of a reality check. Sadly my google-fu is failing me and I can't find it.
I still think it was one of the best fighters of the war.
I was referring specifically to the operational history. If you go through Shores in the MAW series, Spit IX almost always came out ahead in encounters with the German and Italian fighters. Spit V was more often a bit below parity. I do believe this often had to do with being able to preform better at ~ 20 - 25,000 feet. But not only that.
In general, I also gather that the Spit IX did a lot better against Fw 190s and not just at high altitude. Right?
Spit Mk IX had several minor technical improvements over the V beyond the improved altitude performance which did add up. IIRC the Bendix carburetor for example instead of the old float type meant that it could nose-over into dives, which was quite helpful (and a nasty surprise for some Axis pilots when they first appeared). I believe the four blade propeller conferred some advantages. Didn't the Spit IX have a better initial climb rate? I'm not sure if that is related. They had flush riveting and a streamlined rear view mirror, which meant less drag and therefore a bit higher speed retention. Later Mk IX had the larger rudder.
The Spit Mk IX also eventually (by 1944?) had the Mark II gunsights which were a huge improvement, I'm not sure of the V got these or not. Most had the C wing and some of them also had the E wing, both of which seemed to work better in terms of stoppages. I'm not sure precisely what the difference was from the earlier Spit VB but they seem to have better reliability with the guns.
Spit IX did have a somewhat higher wing loading.
All in all, many small changes along with the big one of the higher altitude performance, and it seemed to add up to a notable improvement in outcomes.
The first Mk IX was produced about a year after the first MkV while the last MkV was produced two years after the first Mk IX generally you cant generalise.
I recognize it's quite complicated and there were many sub-variants and different configurations, engines, boost settings etc.
That said, I believe you can make general comparisons between Spit V and Spit IX, albeit with caveats.
For convenience, I'll summarize some WW2performance org testing which shows the following performance markers:
Test year / Variant / Engine / Climb low / climb medium / Speed low / Speed medium / Best Speed
Apr 1941 / Spit VA / Merlin 45 / 3140 / * / * / * / 375
Jun 1941 / Spit VB / Merlin 45 / 3240 / 3250 / 331 / 351 / 371
Mar 1942 / Spit VC (Trop) / Merlin 45 / 2660 / * / * / 354
Nov 1942 / Spit VC / Merlin 45 / * / 3710 / * / * / 369 (+16 lb boost - climb rate is at 8,800 ft, best speed at 13,000 ft)
May 1943 / Spit VB / Merlin 50 / 4270 / 3800 / 334 / 350 / 350 (+16 to +18, ROC 2320 at 20,00 ft)
Oct 1942 / Spit IX / Merlin 61 / * / 3860 / 330 / 380 / 403 (ROC is at 12,600 ft and 3020 fpm @ 25,200 ft, speed 380 at 15,400 ft, 403 at 27,000 ft)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 4620 / 4700 / 336 / 384 / 407 (ROC @ Sea / 7,000 ft, Speeds at Sea / 10,00 ft / 22,000 ft. - Low Alt ver)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4390 / 4530 / 329 / 396 / 415 (ROC at Sea / 11,900 ft, Speeds at Sea / 15,900 ft/ 27,000 ft - Hi Alt ver)
Aug 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4310 / 4310 / 326 / 358 / 413
Oct 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 5740 / 5080 / 330 / 364 / 397 (this is +25 boost ROC at Sea / 5,000 ft, Speed at Sea / 8,000 ft / 20,000 ft)
So based on that, while speed performance is generally the same at sea level, even there Spit IX seems to have a better climb rate. Above about 5,000 feet Spit IX seems better across the board, with significantly better speed and climb at middling as well as higher altitudes.
That said, I believe you can make general comparisons between Spit V and Spit IX, albeit with caveats.
For convenience, I'll summarize some WW2performance org testing which shows the following performance markers:
Test year / Variant / Engine / Climb low / climb medium / Speed low / Speed medium / Best Speed
Apr 1941 / Spit VA / Merlin 45 / 3140 / * / * / * / 375
Jun 1941 / Spit VB / Merlin 45 / 3240 / 3250 / 331 / 351 / 371
Mar 1942 / Spit VC (Trop) / Merlin 45 / 2660 / * / * / 354
Nov 1942 / Spit VC / Merlin 45 / * / 3710 / * / * / 369 (+16 lb boost - climb rate is at 8,800 ft, best speed at 13,000 ft)
May 1943 / Spit VB / Merlin 50 / 4270 / 3800 / 334 / 350 / 350 (+16 to +18, ROC 2320 at 20,00 ft)
Oct 1942 / Spit IX / Merlin 61 / * / 3860 / 330 / 380 / 403 (ROC is at 12,600 ft and 3020 fpm @ 25,200 ft, speed 380 at 15,400 ft, 403 at 27,000 ft)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 4620 / 4700 / 336 / 384 / 407 (ROC @ Sea / 7,000 ft, Speeds at Sea / 10,00 ft / 22,000 ft. - Low Alt ver)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4390 / 4530 / 329 / 396 / 415 (ROC at Sea / 11,900 ft, Speeds at Sea / 15,900 ft/ 27,000 ft - Hi Alt ver)
Aug 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4310 / 4310 / 326 / 358 / 413
Oct 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 5740 / 5080 / 330 / 364 / 397 (this is +25 boost ROC at Sea / 5,000 ft, Speed at Sea / 8,000 ft / 20,000 ft)
So based on that, while speed performance is generally the same at sea level, even there Spit IX seems to have a better climb rate. Above about 5,000 feet Spit IX seems better across the board, with significantly better speed and climb at middling as well as higher altitudes.
Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials
Spitfire Mk IX Performance Testing, wartime flight trials
www.spitfireperformance.com
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
I am not sure those tests represent a later war Mk.V with clipped wings, cropped supercharger and increased boost. They were little rocket ships down low, with similar power output but without the weight penalty of the Mk.IX
- Thread starter
- #295
Actual question though was the speed and turning compared to what would have been the land based version of the corsair i would aussme it having the 2,000hp R-2800 it would be a little faster and a little better at turning plus the other question if the spit the P-51 and the F4U went againist an canonn armed german fighter which could take the most hits i would aussme the corsair being carrier designed would be better at taking fire because of having to be bulit tougher for carrier ops
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
No aircraft is going to shrug off cannon hits, so it is usually a better idea to build an aircraft that can AVOID hits rather than take them. Even the mighty IL2 with its armored bathtub was found to be very vulnerable if operated without local fighter cover.
An F4U will go down if hit by a burst of minengeschoss 20 or 30mm, just like a Spitfire will.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
There wasn't much point in putting more than 250 gallons of fuel internally in the F6F. With the 250 internal and 150 external, the F6F could match the combat radius of a loaded TBF/TBM Avenger, so if you can match the radius of your longest-legged strike plane, everything after that is diminishing marginal returns. On one mission in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Americans located the Japanese fleet at the edge of the combat radius of the US planes. The Japanese were fleeing, and flight operations into the wind caused the American fleet to largely go the opposite way. The US launched only F6F, each with a bomb and a drop-tank, to attack the Japanese force partially because the higher cruising speed of the fighters meant they could reach the Japanese force quicker, before they could get farther away, as every mile they gained at 30 knots was going to mean two that the American planes had to fly round trip.
The F4U (without the unprotected wing tanks) had just a bit less internal fuel than the F6F, but as we discussed earlier, the Navy at least had the intention to use external tanks for the F4U that did not have to be dropped in combat. We were not able to determine whether these tanks were actually used and to what extent. The same dynamic applies to the F4U though as the F6F.
The F4U (without the unprotected wing tanks) had just a bit less internal fuel than the F6F, but as we discussed earlier, the Navy at least had the intention to use external tanks for the F4U that did not have to be dropped in combat. We were not able to determine whether these tanks were actually used and to what extent. The same dynamic applies to the F4U though as the F6F.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Unlike most mass produced fighters of the time, Grumman performed very few modifications to the F6F as a whole and most people would have a difficult time differentiating between an F6F-3 and -5 if it weren't for the change from tri-color to a glossy sea blue paint scheme.
Most notable improvements for the F6F-3 were the addition of ADI in early 1944 and removal of lower engine cowling cooling flaps/exhaust side bulges.
The F6F-5 incorporated aileron spring tabs, an aerodynamically tighter cowling, adaption of night fighter windscreen for day fighter variant, and removal of rear window (mid-production -5s and later). Rear fuselage/tail section was strengthened. Provisions were also made for the replacement of two machine guns with 20 mm cannon, and six rockets could be carried. Lastly the -5 had the pitot static port moved to a different location in order to improve the accuracy of airspeed indicator readings.
drgondog
Major
Why specifically do you believe that?
- Thread starter
- #300
Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken
