Favourite Naval Fighter

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

And this doesn't even mention the first combat use of the F4U from carriers on 11 Nov 1943, when land-based VF-17 (which was fully carrier qualified) flew out to provide CAP for the fleet while the carrier based air groups attacked Rabaul. VF-17 landed aboard ESSEX and BUNKER HILL, refueled, and launched to provide a second CAP mission, driving off a Japanese air attack, before returning to its land base. VF-17 had been part of BUNKER HILL's air group until it was beached at Pearl Harbor following the USN's decision to standardize on F6Fs for carrier duty.
 
slaterat said:
Is Eric Brown a qualified source to criticize the F4U?
Click to expand...
Well done, Sherlock, lol. Very insightful. It did have issues, then. Interestingly, the F6Fs also had to do the zig-zag. I suppose they were more stable, though, in that the carrier pilots I knew at least never once mentioned the directional and "nose-over" issues described in the book. Grumman, also, had a good carrier-fit in the F4F. It just made sense it would have one in the next one. And then get into the ruggedness and the parts and mechanics crews. And in a bombing run it's fitting with two 1000 pound bombs on the wings and a drop tank on the belly.

The F6F was ready to take the stage right out of the box. There's why I think it got the call. I always believed that, anyway. This book showed the F4U wasn't quite ready. Even after chopping it down, it wasn't. It couldn't even land without finesse. The F4U wasn't ready, at the time. There's how I'm seeing it. Later, I'm not that familiar to say.
 
Greg Boeser said:
And this doesn't even mention the first combat use of the F4U from carriers on 11 Nov 1943, when land-based VF-17 (which was fully carrier qualified) flew out to provide CAP for the fleet . . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's that, but I did not count it since that mission was a one-off . . . except, I believe, for Kepford, who landed and launched twice as I recall. And VF-17 was land based, not carrier based. Interestingly, and what probably led to the no accidents during the mission was that Tom Blackburn kept his squadron doing FCLP when not flying combat. He did not want them to lose their edge . . . obviously it worked.
 
Perhaps the best way to resolve this issue is to pull out of this nosedive we're in. The F4U, while it certainly could fit, wasn't designed for carriers, while the F6F was designed for nothing but carriers.
 
PAT303 said:
Killed too many of it's own pilots, more died landing the thing than were shot down by the Japanese.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the "died landing" part, the claim has some merit.
We don't know(?) about pilot losses, but US Navy kept meticulous records of plane losses.
The numbers of "directly shot by enemy" fall short of those "not directly shot down by the enemy".
 
GrauGeist said:
Well, what have we here?
An F4U-1 of VF-10 aboard the Enterprise - what are the odds??

View attachment 626706

VF-10 was USN (based on USS Intrepid CV-11), by the way...
Click to expand...


VF-10 operated F4U-4s off Intrepid July through September of 1945, so this can't be one of them. F4U-4s were factory finished, in the then, overall gloss dark sea blue. National markings would have been of the bar type, top right wing bottom left wing, not these plain both wings roundels. VF(N)-101 operated off both Enterprise and Intrepid in F4U-2s but they are distinctive in the presence of a wing mounted radar unit. The VF(N)-101 planes were two tone blue above with typical light grey undersides out to the wing fold and standard star and bar national insignia. At the time (January - July 1944) that VF-10 operated off Enterprise alongside VF(N)-101, VF-10 operated F6Fs, an average inventory of about 60 F6F-3. The first VF-10 F4U deployment aboard Intrepid (February - April 1945) the squadron operated F4U-1Ds which by then were also in the same overall dark blue as in the later July through September deployment.


A VF(N)-101 F4U-2 aboard USS Enterprise in January 1944. Note markings and wing mounted radar.

Your photo is clearly a birdcage F4U-1 in 1943 period markings, not as those above for VF(N)-101 in January 1944. I found a copy of your photo here at pinterest.com https://www.pinterest.com/pin//

where it is claimed that this is an F4U-1 aboard USS Enterprise in March 1943. Markings are right for that period, but in March 1943 VF-10 was operating an average of 35 Grumman F4F-4s . . . the entire month.

In April 1943 a single, one, F4U shows up in the VF-10 inventory, but that is with the squadron's shore based echelon at Espiritu Santo and it is reported there weekly until the end of the month when it, and most of the other CVG-10 aircraft drop off the squadrons' inventories as the ship returns to Pearl Harbor.

Could this be that single F4U making an appearance on the Enterprise flight deck? Maybe, perhaps. It looks certainly well used and sports a pretty high side number, usually indicative of a USMC type, not a 1943 vintage USN carrier type. So, my bet is that if it is indeed aboard Enterprise in March 1943, then it is that it is a single F4U, formerly of USMC use, obtained through the CASU at Espiritu Santo, and it is making just a brief visit.
 
I also prefer the Corsair, the Hellcat is mainly mentioned as the best carrier based fighter for World War II, but I would choose the fighter I want fly.

Contrary to many prejudices, she was beautiful not only in shape or performances but also in agility and maneuverability. Remember she was out-turning AAF fighters on the Patuxent River and had the agility of a big cat. Great control harmony for all three axis with low control forces for maneuverability made the agile fighter. These features are not only claimed by Corsair pilots, but also by other aircraft pilots, such as the Hellcat's test pilot, the Corky Meyer. He even said that flying the Corsair was the dream of a fighter pilot.

However, due to the biases caused by exaggerated images by early-stage accidents, the Corsair is often considered to be an fighter with low maneuverability. It is frustrating to see such claims gaining credibility based on interviews by japanese ace that Corsair and Lightning were only just fast. They do not mention the fact that both the IJN and IJA of the Rabaul Kōkūtai, once a great elite Japanese air force, rated the Corsair as the best opponent, including Hellcat and other fighters.

I afraid that her beauty will be forgotten as the description of World War II becomes simpler and simpler over the years.



Beautiful airplane....
 
But you're rating them in the air, primarily. Get them there, and get them home, how do they rate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SaparotRob
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
622
spicmart
S
A
Your favourite open cockpit monoplane fighter?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
Menu
Log in
Register