DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
The British devised a lot of wonderful things during the war but unfortunately the Corsair's carrier landing approach wasn't one of them.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Some of the other pervasive myths about the Corsair were the British clipped the wings 8 inches to solve the sink rate - the 8 inch wing reduction was to allow it to fit in the carrier's hangar, the sink rate was a by product.
The stiff Oleo was a problem that Vought was aware of and the issue was resolved by VF-17 and Vought's engineer Jack Hospers, who changed the air-oil ratio.
The stall strip was also a result of teamwork between VF-17 and Jack Hospers.
The F4U-A1 was a result of VF-17 (and Hosper's) efforts.
The stiff Oleo was a problem that Vought was aware of and the issue was resolved by VF-17 and Vought's engineer Jack Hospers, who changed the air-oil ratio.
The stall strip was also a result of teamwork between VF-17 and Jack Hospers.
The F4U-A1 was a result of VF-17 (and Hosper's) efforts.
Just go to the majority of website or facebook comment sections. lol
Great!
Ummm. . .what did he say??
I know the standard "enter the pattern, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach" used at general aviation airports, and I used to own a house where I could sit in the back yard, look straight up, and watch the Cessnas and others make the turn from downwind to base leg for the nearby GA field. So what did the British contribute (or not contribute) to Corsair carrier approaches?
As I understand it, in the Corsair the approach was at just above deck height, this kept the "bat man in view and minimised bounce, but I dont see how such a thing could be "patented" it is the logical thing to do.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Read the book and find out!
There's a whole chapter of how his squadron took delivery of some of the first F4Us and got carrier qualified, well before any Corsairs reached the FAA.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Tom Blackburn was CO of VF-17, the original fighter squadron assigned to CV 17, Bunker Hill. Equipped with F4U-1s during the shakedown cruise of Bunker Hill, they worked out the necessary procedures for operating F4Us from a carrier. As mentioned above, recommendations by Blackburn and others involved in the trials were incorporated into the F4U-1A. VF-17 recieved F4U-1As prior to Bunker Hill's departure for duty in the Pacific, but the squadron was beached at Pearl Harbor in favor of standardizing carrier-borne squadrons with F6Fs. VF-17 operated from shore in the Solomons late '43 to early '44.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And it seems he (Blackburn) was rather disappointed when VF-17 was assigned as a shore based unit
Here is an article, at the Smithsonian web site, that says pretty much the same thing I've read in other places. They talk about the oleos and the stall strip being fixed by Americans, but still credit the British with changing the landing approach. If it's a myth, why is it so durable?
www.smithsonianmag.com
How the Navy Tamed the “Killer Corsair”
A little piece of aluminum solved the WW2 fighter’s vicious behavior problem.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Hard to tell. Maybe because the FAA were first to fully implement carrier operations with Corsair??? There are a lot of falsehoods out there that eventually become fact after being shared enough times. There's actually a thread on this forum which has countless examples of this sort of phenomenon.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Because sources like this keep repeating it.Here is an article, at the Smithsonian web site, that says pretty much the same thing I've read in other places. They talk about the oleos and the stall strip being fixed by Americans, but still credit the British with changing the landing approach. If it's a myth, why is it so durable?
How the Navy Tamed the “Killer Corsair”
A little piece of aluminum solved the WW2 fighter’s vicious behavior problem.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Wouldn't you be? Months training on board your carrier, and then poof! No more ice cream.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Harder to keep up with the action, I can understand any fighter's disappointment with that. When you want to scrap, you gotta be where the scrap is!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Absolutely! Especially when he jumped through hoops to get his squadron trained and combat ready.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
You callin' them gedunk pilots?!
AFAIK was more on 1.6:1
The FAA had both. With a few exceptions, such as the Chesapeake (SB2U), it wholeheartedly welcomed the US carrier types with open arms, especially combat aircraft. Not only were they well built for the job, they were available in numbers. The Avenger, Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair saw extensive use in FAA squadrons on British carriers.
Now, we've mentioned this before, guys, this continuous dispelling of long held myths with factual evidence has to stop...
Seriously though, I'm surprised how long-legged this one has gotten.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I've always thought it remarkable how adaptable the RN was, with carrier ops, in working with American types, what with the different kit and specs that that implies.
Say what you will about the British, but they are masters of getting the best out of the equipment they have, mediocre or otherwise. That doesn't mean they'll accept any old junk, but when forced to use indifferent types, such as the Skua and Fulmar, they still managed to sink major naval assets and produce fighter aces flying against superior types.
The US stuff was a godsend to the FAA, not just because of its quality, which was exemplary (you should read just how glowingly Eric Brown speaks about these aircraft, with the exception of the Corsair), but they were able to be delivered and pressed into service very quickly. This was, of course because of the poor state of the FAA before WW2 broke out, which meant that anything that proved to be good was pushed onto the field and thrown at the enemy.
