F4u variants used at Iwo Jima

Dandy

Recruit
3
1
Jul 7, 2022
Hi guys, I'm currently looking for all the F4u variants used during the battle of Iwo Jima. I was wondering if the f4u-4 was already in service and served at Iwo Jima.
Thank you so much.
 

mjfur

Senior Airman
365
335
Sep 23, 2006
I believe the F4U-4's where just being accepted/worked up in service during the Iwo Jima battle, Feb.-Mar. 45.

Some early F4U-4 losses in the Atlantic around the same time frame. 80799 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Apr 10, 1945 (BuNos!)
80802 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Mar 25, 1945 (BuNos!)
80805 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Mar 28, 1945 (BuNos!)

If you do a word search for "Iwo" on the above link you will find losses for F4U-1C, -1D & FG-1D airframes during the Iwo battle, but not any F4U-4's.
 
Last edited:

EwenS

Staff Sergeant
1,003
1,953
Oct 19, 2021
Antietam was only commissioned on 28 Jan 1945, and sailed on her shakedown cruise on 2 March. She sailed for the Pacific on 22 May 1945.
 

Dandy

Recruit
3
1
Jul 7, 2022
I believe the F4U-4's where just being accepted/worked up in service during the Iwo Jima battle, Feb.-Mar. 45.

Some early F4U-4 losses in the Atlantic around the same time frame. 80799 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Apr 10, 1945 (BuNos!)
80802 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Mar 25, 1945 (BuNos!)
80805 (VBF-89) attached to USS Antietam (CV-38) lost in central Atlantic Mar 28, 1945 (BuNos!)

If you do a word search for "Iwo" on the above link you will find losses for F4U-1C, -1D & FG-1D airframes during the Iwo battle, but not any F4U-4's.
Thank you so much!
 

Geoffrey Sinclair

Senior Airman
414
748
Sep 30, 2021

A quick look at 31 March 1945 has the VBF-89 on Antietem and VBF-2 at San Diego part of CVG 2 with F4U-4
 

45South

Recruit
5
3
Feb 12, 2022
The Corsair was a difficult airplane to fly off aircraft carriers. Source Carrier Pilot author Hanson
 

EwenS

Staff Sergeant
1,003
1,953
Oct 19, 2021
It wasn’t so much the flying off as the landing on that was the problem.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it, in the context of Hanson’s comments, is that it was more difficult to deck land than the types pilots had previously been used to up to that time. Hanson, as the Senior Pilot of 1833 squadron, was amongst the first FAA pilots to encounter “the bent winged bastard” when the squadron formed up on 15th July 1943, only 6 weeks after the first FAA squadron had formed. Until then his experience was on Fulmars and IIRC Sea Hurricanes. Add to that, that many of the pilots were coming straight to the squadrons out of flight schools so lacked experience of such high powered aircraft and of deck landing in the first place.

As noted above, it had its technical problems that took some time to resolve. But look how many pilots did go on to successfully fly it off carrier decks. US, British & Commonwealth and postwar French, Argentinian etc etc. So it was not so difficult to master it once the initial problems were ironed out.

It required a new deck landing approach, that had to be worked out, but one that the FAA had already successfully adopted for the Seafire by mid-1943. A curved approach rather than straight in. That was due to the long nose.

While the USN removed the F4U from its fleet carrier decks in early 1944 (except for some night fighters) that was not because of deck landing difficulties. It was to reduce the logistics burden of supporting another aircraft type in the fleet. They were happy to reinstate it in Dec 1944 when it was determined that the carriers needed more fighters. And they increased the numbers throughout 1945.
 

Big Jake

Airman 1st Class
114
79
Apr 15, 2007
Florida
A good friend of mine has a lot of hours flying both P-51s and F4Us. According to him, the F4U is a "sweetheart" and "much easier"
to fly and land in comparison to the P-51. Of course it's one pilot's opinion and one who has many thousands of hours.
 

Users who are viewing this thread