Favourite Naval Fighter

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

VBF-13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean the F6F. The F4U wasn't designed for carriers. Since its first flight it had problems landing on carriers. It wasn't until after it was deployed to land then re-designed that it could even carrier-qualify for combat. I don't care what Vought imagined it designed. Are you understanding any of this? What am I missing?
 
The Vought V-166 was their submission in answer to the USN's BuAer Request for Proposal of '38, requesting a single-engine carrier based fighter.

The XF4U had two tailhook designs.
The first had the tailhook as a "stinger", extending from the tail. In this photo of the XF4U prototype, look closely at the very end of the fuselage and you'll see the retracted tailhook:


The "stinger" proved to be troublesome, so the tailhook was relocated to the XF4U's tail wheel assembly, as seen in this photo:


So in short: yes, the F4U was intended to be a carrier fighter from the start.
 
VBF-13 said:
The F4U wasn't designed for carriers. Since its first flight it had problems landing on carriers.
Click to expand...
Of course the F4U was designed for carriers, it just wasn't designed well. But it was still conceived and designed from the onset as a carrier fighter (folding wings, robust undercarriage, arrestor hook, etc.).

Just because an aircraft does not meet the needs of its requirement doesn't mean the aircraft wasn't designed to meet them. The Breda Ba.88 Lince was designed as a ground attack aircraft, but it was so crap that the few produced were left as decoys at airfields. The Ba.88 was still designed to meet its intended role, just terribly so. I can design a bicycle with square tires that fails in all aspects, but I still designed a bike.
 
Last edited:
VBF-13 said:
Yeah, I get that, GrauGeist . I'm just seeing it a little different. Maybe "tried but failed" to design brings us a little closer. It wasn't carrier-ready. It had all the right components, right from the start, I give it that.
Click to expand...
As far as use on a carrier, it did take a while to work the bugs out.
One thing that didn't help, was the USN's request for the change in armament, which meant shuffling the fuel tank locations, etc. after the wing design had been finalized.

I find it interesting that Hap Arnold really liked it and *if* the P-47 hadn't matured into the beast it was, there is a chance that the AAF may have picked up a few Corsairs for themselves
 
GrauGeist said:
I find it interesting that Hap Arnold really liked it and *if* the P-47 hadn't matured into the beast it was, there is a chance that the AAF may have picked up a few Corsairs for themselves
Click to expand...

Could you point to link on that? I'd be really interested in it. While very different in design, the two planes seem to have quite a bit of overlap in missions, and I'd love to read what Hap had to say.
 
GrauGeist said:
I find it interesting that Hap Arnold really liked it and *if* the P-47 hadn't matured into the beast it was, there is a chance that the AAF may have picked up a few Corsairs for themselves
Click to expand...

The Army buying a Navy product? Must have been desperate times indeed!

(I wonder how things would have fared had the Army kept up in co-developing the P-65/F7F with the Navy.)
 
VBF-13 said:
Yeah, I get that, GrauGeist . I'm just seeing it a little different. Maybe "tried but failed" to design brings us a little closer. It wasn't carrier-ready. It had all the right components, right from the start, I give it that.
Click to expand...


Well, when the XF4U first flew the Navy still had


and


In fact the Biplane Helldivers were aboard the Hornet until Feb/March of 1942.

Perhaps Vought can be cut a little slack?
 

Sorry, but (in answer to your question) you're missing everything!

By now you're aware that the F4U was designed for carrier use. The aircraft was fully operational for carrier use in August 1943 when the Fleet decided to concentrate on a single carrier fighter to simplify logistics. Since there were more Hellcat squadrons operational on carriers, the Hellcat was selected for simplicity. If there had been more operational Corsair squadrons, the Marines would have gotten the Hellcats.

At the time of the decision, the raised canopy version was in service, the oleo pressure had been increased to reduce the landing bounce, the solid tail wheel had been replaced with a pneumatic one, the tail wheel strut had been lengthened, and the stall strip had been added to the right wing to reduce the assymetrical stall. What redesign after this was necessary to make the Corsair a decent carrier aircraft?

Your sources - whatever they are - are based on old assumptions that were never true.

Cheers,


Dana
 
Not only the F4U-1D, but the F4U-1 was also an aircraft considered for carrier operations. and it wasn't even at the level to be called a 'failure'. The fact that the F6F had a better carrier capability does not mean that the F4U had a special and serious defect. Even in early 1943, it was described as excellent, and VF-17 proved it in action sorties later.

'The BuAer Corsair correspondence file includes a 24 August 1943 message (sent before the Bunker Hill trials) stating that these aircraft would be sent only to the Marines. However, the aircraft was kept carrier-capable in case (as happened) it was issued to carriers later on. Bunker Hill took VF-17 on her shakedown cruise, reporting back in December 1943. The ship had already recommended (in August) a raised cockpit and a modified tail hook; both were completed after the shakedown. At 30 knots or more relative wind, the accident rate on landing was normal; below 30 knots it increased and was probably worse than with the Hellcat. The ship's CO wrote that it was acceptable as a carrier aircraft, the new cockpit permitting a normal approach with the signal officer in sight at all times. There was some difficulty in landing because the aircraft reacted quickly to a change in throttle setting. Landing speed was about the same as that of the Hellcat, but the approach was flatter and there was less margin of error because of the Corsair's more limited visibility and tendency to bounce on the deck. In view of its excellent fighting qualities, the CO considered the Corsair a satisfactory carrier fighter. These comments were in response to a 20 October 1943 BuAer request for full data on Corsair carrier operations (the CO letter included full accident statistics). Corsairs had also been tested briefly (9–12 May 1943) on board the carrier Enterprise, during a brief post-refit refresher cruise. A 5 April 1943 report from the training carrier Wolverine had described the Corsair as 'an excellent carrier type, very easy to land aboard'.'

VBF-13 said:
But you're rating them in the air, primarily. Get them there, and get them home, how do they rate?
Click to expand...
Yes, in the air. And I would prefer Corsair's excellent combat capability because there was no 'special' problem on land and sea.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Could you point to link on that? I'd be really interested in it. While very different in design, the two planes seem to have quite a bit of overlap in missions, and I'd love to read what Hap had to say.
Click to expand...
I recall reading about that in one of my books about the development of the Corsair ages ago and as luck would have it, all my books are still in storage.

I do recall his sentiments were regarding the early test results of the XF4U, so that puts it pre-war of course, while the P-47 was still in the development stage (and hadn't flown yet).
 
Guys, I agree, I put my foot in my mouth when I said the F4U wasn't designed for carriers. It was designed for the Navy. But cut me some slack. From the outset, it wasn't carrier-ready. The design wasn't equipped to take the stage in carrier combat operations, there were too many nuances that yet needed to be worked out. I made a bad choice in words. You didn't let it slide, and understandably so. In hindsight, if it had been one of you, and the F4U were my better aircraft, I'd have probably been all over you, as well. I've no defense. It was a poor choice. I was thinking why we needed the F6F. We had it with the F4U. We weren't going to chance it. It wasn't designed right. There's what I was referring to.

And it wasn't some little thing. Grumman was turning out F4Fs like hotcakes, and the next thing you know, that whole bread-and-butter operation at Bethpage was thrown in the lap of GM, for the F6F. That's not to say I think the F4U was some schmuck. Far from it. It wasn't "ready." There's the word I should have used. It would have saved us a page of replies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

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
575
spicmart
S
A
Your favourite open cockpit monoplane fighter?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
B
63 Fighter Squadron plane
Replies
4
Views
495
Snautzer01
Menu
Log in
Register