Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
fubar57
General
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.
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:
- Thread starter
- #6
Thank you so much!
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 774
- Sep 30, 2021
Location of U.S. Naval Aircraft, World War II
Click on the day, month and year (e.g., 2 Feb 1942) to view the Location of U.S. Naval Aircraft report for that particular timeframe. NOTE: All of these records are unclassified or have been declassified. Due to the age of the records, type of typewriter font, and capability of current OCR...
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Similar threads
