The same could be said about the Meteor.
Favourite Naval Fighter
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The same could be said about the Meteor.
Blaming pilots for crashing an aircraft that easily lost flight control at stall speed is not really appropriate is it?, anyway I have woken the F4U fan club so I'll just let the long tedious gestation into carrier operations and it's high accident rate speak for themselves, Hellcat during the war, Sea Fury after.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
You can paint your mischaracterizations any way you want, but the simple physics of a plane that has lost lift are undeniable and can be observed in any model you wish to mention. And if a pilot screws the pooch on a landing, presuming his plane is full operable or otherwise not shot up, then what shall we call it 99% of the time, "pilot error", or as usually worded in the USN of the day "poor technique"? If the shoe fits as they say. Oh, and the 1%? That's LSO error.
Obviously you don't pay attention and can't can't seem to ween off the myths. The USN was operating F4Us in combat off carriers before the FAA, January 1944 versus April 1944. Last calendar I looked at had January before April. Is it different where you are?
Last edited:
MACHIA
Airman
F4F Wildcat.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Actually that's mine as well.
Wouldn't be here without it. My father flew -3's in action at Lae/Salamaua, Tulagi, and Coral Sea; and -4's at Midway and in the Solomons.
F6Fs and F4Us racked up more credited shootdowns, but the F4F operators, USN & USMC, wiped out the cream of the pre-war, supposedly super-dooper, IJNAF, especially in the Solomons.
Hi again Pat,
You're asking questions that have already been answered. The first F4U-1 Corsair was delivered to the Navy on 31 July 1942. The type was declared operationally suitable for carrier duty in March 1943. It was NEVER declared unsuitable for carrier operations. In August 1943 the Fleet decided that there already were more Hellcat squadrons operational on carriers and that it was best to maintain a single fighter type on all carriers whenever possible. The F4U was only then ordered removed from carrier duty.
On 1 December 1943 VF-17 delivered a summary report of its Corsair months on carriers. Of 36 aircraft assigned and 438 landings, only four were destroyed in carrier landings during the shakedown cruise. For the operational period (NOTE - the Corsair was declared operational on carriers!), 36 new aircraft were brought on board. In 319 landings only two aircraft suffered deck mishaps before the Corsair was ordered removed from carriers in August. As for killing ensigns, the squadron didn't suffer a single fatality or serious injury in 757 traps. Since VF-17 was - at that time - the last USN squadron flying Corsairs on carriers, the whole ensign-killing reputation could not be considered accurate.
In January 1944 BuAer's Flight Test Department issued a summary paper noting a general opinion that the "...F6F type is somewhat better suited to operations by extremely inexperienced personnel. On balance, however, it was agreed that the F4U was the better military ship as a day fighter airplane." The undated memo ended, "It was therefore comcluded and is recommended that the F4U type airplane again be employed as a combat carrier type."
In April 1944 - four months later - VF-301 reported the results of tests of revised F4U landing gear trials on board Gambier Bay. 113 landings were made with no bounce at all; again, no one died. A report from later that month made note of VF-12's previous tests - no one died.
On 13 May 1944 three successful test landings were made on board White Plains - no one died.
Repeat - NO ONE HAD DIED LANDING A CORSAIR ON A CARRIER, and crashes were relatively infrequent.
In July 1944 - eleven months after the Corsair was moved from US carrier operations - the CNO ordered that 4 CV groups and all 5 CVB groups (Midways) should be equipped with F4U-4s (which were just then rolling off production lines). That December the first new Corsair squadron was carrier qualified.
So, ensign killer? MYTH. Aircraft unqualified for USN carrier operations? MYTH. Hellcat was a better fleet fighter? I can accept a discussion here, based on pilot quality. But impartial review by BuAer's test pilot considered that an experienced pilot in a Corsair was flying a more capable fighter than the same pilot in a Hellcat. Newly minted ensigns however, stood a better chance landing a Hellcat - but in combat far too many pilots died in all types of aircraft.
If this doesn't make sense, it's OK. It's the best (and last) I have to offer on the subject.
Cheers,
Dana
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I know better, by now, than to ask your source for this information. Feel free to provide it, but I won't be holding my breath.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It's not that he won't, he can't - this is why he didn't and dodges it with the "facts speak for themselves" statement.
His allegations have all been proven wrong by authorative figures, dates and references, so in the end, actual facts speak for themselves.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Yeah, I get that. I've seen the sort on other forums too.
A definite claim such as that should either have a link in the post itself, or the poster should cough one up after this much prodding, in my humble opinion.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I have several sources to refer to in this case and even mentioned the USN's NASC report, which is a 100% solid source in itself, but when you have both Mr. Leonard AND Mr. Bell providing information on the subject, it's best to sit back, be quiet and learn.
- Thread starter
- #91
From what I can find the first time Corsairs were used operationally was by the FAA on the Tirpitz raid, anyway it's clear every single article written about the F4U is wrong and the members on this site is right about it.
https://www.jdsf4u.be/ this site is full of misinformation?, and this one as examples? Vought F4U Corsair | Classic Warbirds
Funny thing about your post is that back in 2008 there was a similar thread about the Corsair on this site and the same points I brought up were discussed back then, anyway I will be quiet.
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
As I said, you don't pay much attention. Goody for you, you found an F4U enthusiasts web site . . . did you read the part where it says at https://www.jdsf4u.be/dates-f4u-corsair:
JANUARY 29, 1944 , First Corsair combat operations from U.S. carrier, USS Enterprise, by VF(N)-101
and
APRIL 3,1944 , First Royal Navy combat missions from HMS Victorious.
Obviously you did not.
Just as obviously whoever gushed out at Vought F4U Corsair | Classic Warbirds missed that part too.
Real history is such a bite for the uninformed and slapdash.
Zippythehog
Staff Sergeant
- 790
- Jan 7, 2017
A6M3 22a. Most aesthetically pleasing of the variants and a solid performer.
Post war- Sea Fury.
Post war- Sea Fury.
Hi Pat,
I don't want to pile on here, but yes - both sites are full of misinformation. On the first site, for example, look at the descriptions of the F4U-4B and F4U-4C. The truth was that they were the same aircraft, with the -4B being a redesignation of the -4C. The second site repeats the myths about why the Corsair was taken off carriers.
None of this is their fault or you fault. For most of us the "record" comes from secondary sources, books written by authors dealing with the facts available at the time, usually shortly before a deadline come due. Once those books are written they become facts forever, and it takes years for corrections to replace them in most minds. Or - better yet - the old stories make a more exciting tale and turn up on the History Channel.
What has changed is the National Archives. A large number of documents that were buried in federal record centers have be processed, catalogued, and made available to researchers. It takes years to review those documents, but - slowly - new understandings of a story emerge. It took two years of digging on the Corsair before I felt I had enough of an understanding to write my own book s on the early versions. (Even then one reviewer noted that I had been wrong about why Corsairs came off US carriers.)
The question becomes: what facts were used? One aircraft manufacturer's website noted a switch from .30-Cal to .50-Cal armament in the back seat of one of their aircraft, but that change never happened - a fifty just couldn't fit. But how, I asked, could a company be wrong about its own aircraft? It was simple - the company hired an author to write up the stories of their aircraft for the internet. The author had a deadline, and most books on that aircraft repeated the error about the fifties.
I've made the same mistakes, especially in my younger years. (Yeah, that's the ticket - I wasn't wrong, I was just a kid...) Anyhow, I was publishing a photo of an EC-121T over Nam and couldn't find anything on the plane's mission. I asked a friend who flew Air Force Connies about the mission and he explained it was just another version of the College Eye AWACS-type. Some years later the truth came out about the 121T's involvement in a classiied program called Igloo White, but my small book was already in print.
So yes, there are myths in all parts of history. (But it MUST be true - I read it on the internet!) In this case you just bumped into some folks working with updated data that bumped some of those myths aside.
Sorry if I came down too hard in this thread - we all play with the cards we are dealt, and the problem here is what you read, not that you believed it.
Cheers,
Dana
R Leonard
Staff Sergeant
Damn, Dana, I thought your name was creeping forward from my cobwebbed brain.
Cheers!
Rich
Cheers!
Rich
Admiral Beez
Major
I like its Canadian-made cousin as well. But alas, not carrier qualified.
Harold A. Skaarup web pages
