Settle an argument for me, who developed the F4U's curved approach for carrier landings.

[GrauGeist]

The USN's doctrine for carrier landings were to approach upwind starboard while slowing, drop down ahead of the carrier and come about, passing to port and banking behind the carrier for final.

In a sense, a descending spiral.

 

[BlackSheep]

The USN developed the approach.

Now, before someone jumps up and screams "NO NO NO IT WAS THE ROYAL NAVY!!!"

Please let me remind one and all that every single RN squadron equipped with F4U type aircraft, yes, all, ALL, of them, received their corsairs in the US. The pilots were trained to operate the F4U in the US at USN air stations. They carrier qualified in the F4U aboard USN carriers under USN instruction. The info on which squadron trained where is available if one can bestir oneself to look.

When, long ago, I was conversing with a couple of US naval aviators with F4U experience and, in my youthful (so we're talking some 50-55 years ago) ignorance made mention of the claim of RN development, I was informed by the gents, after stifled scoffing noises, that there was only one way to approach a carrier in an F4U and keep the LSO in sight . . . everyone knew it and no one felt they had to claim it. Keeping the LSO in sight is pretty much a requirement. One US naval aviator of my acquaintance said to the effect that anyone with any experience - he'd been flying fighters since the spring of 1941 and had three combat deployments under his belt before climbing into his first F4U - can figure out the method after the first FCLP; the method was pretty obvious . . . worked for him the very first time going aboard a carrier.

Further, and contrary to the nonsense on the internet, the USN was operating F4Us in combat off carriers BEFORE the RN, period, full stop.

Sounds a lot like the Sherman was a death trap, not a match for anything, and all the Robson lighter stories…everyone assumes the other guy fact checked his work and cites him only for himself to be cited by the next generation of "experts"..

 

[BlackSheep]

While not disputing the above, it is perhaps easy to see why the story has gone down in history the way it has.

The Corsair got its long nose in the transition from the sole XF4U prototype to the F4U-1 production aircraft which first flew on 25 June 1942. It was March 1943 before USN squadrons began their carrier qualifications seemingly without much difficulty. The first FAA Corsair squadron didn't form until June 1943 and did its first deck landing practice on U.S.S. Charger in Sept that year. No doubt both navies had dummy deck landing practice prior to that (ADDLP in FAA parlance).

But turn the clock back to the end of 1941. At Christmas 1941 a hooked Spitfire Vb, another aircraft with a long nose, was decklanded for the first time on Illustrious. More trials were carried out on Victorious in March & April 1942 and the first front line squadron received Seafires on 23 June 1942 and first went aboard Furious at the beginning of Sept.

Another FAA aircraft notorious for its long nose was the Blackburn Firebrand which first flew in prototype form in Feb 1942. (During its extended development period it acquired a second ASI on the port side of the fuselage just forward of the cockpit to allow the pilot to keep an eye on the airspeed while flying the curved approach to the deck. An early form of HUD!).

So the FAA had gained experience of the long nose and visibility problem a few months before the USN.

And of course there was the experience of the RAF pilot who successfully landed his unhooked Spitfire on the U.S.S. Wasp on 9th May 1942 during her second Malta run after it suffered a drop tank failure.

During this time both navies had begun to work closely together. So was there cross fertilisation? Or was it just the logical solution to a problem that needed solved? Who knows.

The alternative to the curved approach, and the one favoured by Eric Brown, was to fly the aircraft straight in but crabbed slightly to starboard so the pilot could look down the side of the fuselage. Then apply corrective rudder just before touchdown. But then his skills were above average.

As long as we're talking landing long-nosed aircraft on carrier decks….

 

[PAT303]

As a guy who has flown military (fighters), commercial, and some civilian just about any aviation movie is WAY short on accuracy. Technique only, I squint a bit and try to enjoy the story.

Cheers,
Biff

As someone who has used rifles his whole life and actually worked on two movies here in Oz I understand the need for facts and reality to be abandoned in the name of entertainment, which is what movies are. If war movies were made factual there would be 2 hours of watching blokes bitching about everything from the food to the weather lol.

 

[GregP]

Hollywood isn't the only place to get aviation just plain wrong. The news media do an excellent job of it, too, on EVERY aviation-related story.

I am reminded of an accident over San Diego when a PSA 727 collided with a Cessna 182. The news media showed a Cessna 182 making a curving approach to and hitting the Boeing 727 on a cover picture in a news magazine. Now, the Cessan comes down final approach at about 85 - 100 knots and the Boeing 727 in generally decelerating through 170 knots on long approach down to the over-the-fence speed of around 127 knots depending on weight. So, realistically, who ran over who?

 

[WARSPITER]

The media overhype a lot too.

Just a few days ago there was a report of a four seater Cessna crashing in a local cemetery.
The report said by the end of the day police had recovered 200 bodies.

 

[special ed]

Still my favorite news interview. Cessna caravan, over loaded, crashed on the airport (MSY New Orleans). "Yeah, I seen it. It done a tailswoop and fell down"

 

[GrauGeist]

Assuming of course, that the media even gets the aircraft type correct.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The average journalist doesn't even know who is on which side.
In St. Paul there is a monument to the soldiers of the 1st Minnesota Regiment. It will routinely be described as a "confederate soldier".

 

[PAT303]

The media overhype a lot too.

Just a few days ago there was a report of a four seater Cessna crashing in a local cemetery.
The report said by the end of the day police had recovered 200 bodies.

Haha, coffee all over the keyboard, again.

 

[PAT303]

I like movie Midway, the Devastators were carrying underwing bombs and the carriers 25mm cannons threw up flak akin to 1970's Hanoi.

 

[SaparotRob]

I enjoyed the squadron of B-26s.

 

[BlackSheep]

I enjoyed the squadron of B-26s.

I guess 4 wasn't glamorous enough for the big screen…

 

[SaparotRob]

The real story seems more impressive.

 

[PAT303]

I enjoyed the squadron of B-26s.

I've read that the B26 that tried to kamakaze the Akagi might not of actually happened, it was witnessed by an officer named Fuchida who said it happened that way but instead there's speculation that the plane he saw was Lt Jame Muri who strafed the Akagi's deck as he overflew it, anyway another myth we can debunk?.

 

[GrauGeist]

Lt. Muri (pilot of Suzie-Q) mentioned seeing the "kamikaze" B-26, but wasn't sure who it was, since he was really busy at the time.

 

[BlackSheep]

"A Shot Across the Bow" depicts Lt Muir's escape.
The book "Midway-The Incredible Victory" quotes Lt Muri seeing a B-26 plunge towards the Akagi tower as he pulled up from the carrier deck.. Btw, after landing, the grand crew counted 500 plus holes in his plane.

 

[denoferth]

As a guy who has flown military (fighters), commercial, and some civilian just about any aviation movie is WAY short on accuracy. Technique only, I squint a bit and try to enjoy the story.

Cheers,
Biff

My particular favorite is the so called "history channel" penchant for showing a flight of SBD's each and every time the story line calls for Japanese dive bombers to attack USN ships.

 

[denoferth]

Sounds a lot like the Sherman was a death trap, not a match for anything, and all the Robson lighter stories…everyone assumes the other guy fact checked his work and cites him only for himself to be cited by the next generation of "experts"..

While assigned to the 485th E&I Sq at Griffiss AFB one of my wife's frend's husbands had been a tanker in Korea. Among the many stories he related was thier relief when they finally had their Shermans replaced with 90mm equipped M48's. As a confidence builder his commander had the new gun fired through the side of a line of Shermans. I seem to recall him claiming it passed through at least seven. Up to that time the only way to fight the Soviet tanks was to ambush them from the side and reverse asap. He was invalided out after his turret hatch spring broke causing the hatch to smash into his face while they were moving at speed over rough terrain.

 

[yulzari]

Hollywood isn't the only place to get aviation just plain wrong. The news media do an excellent job of it, too, on EVERY aviation-related story.

I am reminded of an accident over San Diego when a PSA 727 collided with a Cessna 182. The news media showed a Cessna 182 making a curving approach to and hitting the Boeing 727 on a cover picture in a news magazine. Now, the Cessan comes down final approach at about 85 - 100 knots and the Boeing 727 in generally decelerating through 170 knots on long approach down to the over-the-fence speed of around 127 knots depending on weight. So, realistically, who ran over who?

In learning to fly in a Cessna 150 in Jersey I recall I asked for permission to turn in on finals and was advised "you are number two to the BAC111 behind you".