The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair

[Ambaryerno]

It's a story that's been floating around for ages. It's SO prominent that it turns up in Wikipedia, many documentaries and books on aviation history, and IIRC even in the Smithsonian:

It took the British to "fix" the Corsair to make it safe to operate from the carriers.

The problem is, the "fixes" that made the Corsair suitable for carrier operations...weren't necessary. And were also introduced months (if not longer) before the Royal Navy even received their first shipments!

As a bit of a timeline:

• Late-1930s: The US Navy adopted a curved landing approach for all carrier aircraft.
• The first flight of the XF4U-1 came in May, 1940.
• By November, reports of the War in the Europe revealed that the XF4U-1's initial armament was insufficient, so the aircraft was redesigned to increase the armament to six .50cal in the wings. The resulting reduction in the size of the aircraft's wing fuel tanks required the extension of the fuselage to accommodate a new fuel tank, leading to the aircraft's distinct long nose.
• Formal acceptance trials began in early 1941.
• The first production F4U-1 made its maiden flight in June, 1942.
• The first production F4Us were delivered to the Navy in July.
• Carrier trials aboard USS Wolverine in October, 1942, led the Navy to issue a report declaring that the Corsair was well-suited to carrier operations, and no more difficult to handle than any other type.
• Late 1942: Ground crews fabricate and modify the first stall spoilers installed on the leading edge of the starboard wing in an attempt to rectify the Corsair's vicious spin characteristics in a "dirty" configuration (full flaps, landing gear extended) at low speeds (it's dubious whether the strip was more than a placebo).
• The F4U-1 Corsair made its combat debut on February 12, 1943.
• VF-12 and VF-17 both complete carrier qualifications without incident in April, 1943.
• The first of what will eventually be known as the F4U-1A, with the raised cockpit and Malcolm Hood canopy, is delivered in August, 1943.
• In November, 1943, VF-17 successfully operates from USS Bunker Hill.
• The Fleet Air Arm receives their first shipment of Corsairs in the second half of November, 1943.

The main "innovations" the British are always attributed to make the Corsair suitable to carrier operations are the curved landing approach, and the implementation of the raised cockpit and Malcolm Hood.

However, the timeline is pretty clear: Not only had the US navy already adopted a curved landing approach even before the Corsair first flew, (though credit where credit's due, the British did develop it first) but the raised cockpit had also already been implemented on the production lines before the British even received their first shipment of the aircraft, much less could fly, evaluate, and "fix" them.

So why does the myth persist it took the British to tame the Hog and teach the Yanks how to fly them off the flattops?

 

[NTGray]

So why does the myth persist it took the British to tame the Hog and teach the Yanks how to fly them off the flattops?

Excellent question. Why would an untrue story spring to life for no reason at all? I suspect that there is some information missing here.

 

[Ambaryerno]

Excellent question. Why would an untrue story spring to life for no reason at all? I suspect that there is some information missing here.

It wouldn't be the first time that something patently untrue got repeated until it became accepted as if it were fact.

 

[swampyankee]

It wouldn't be the first time that something patently untrue got repeated until it became accepted as if it were fact.

That's the entire reason for the survival of conspiracy theories.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

 

[Sabrejet]

I think you'd need evidence to disprove it, if it is a myth; the FAA Museum guide explained as much to me, and they have done some very in-depth research on KD431. Anecdotal "We did xxx" without primary-source evidence is just rumour.

 

[pbehn]

A curvd approach to landing is almost as old as aviation itself. Th view over the nose of WW1 airplanes was poor and they wanted to see the wind sock and be sure the landing area was clear.

 

[Ambaryerno]

I think you'd need evidence to disprove it, if it is a myth; the FAA Museum guide explained as much to me, and they have done some very in-depth research on KD431. Anecdotal "We did xxx" without primary-source evidence is just rumour.

We have actual documentation and records of these things.

We know when the Corsair was cleared for carrier duty by the Navy's own records. We know when squadrons qualified for carrier operations by the Navy's own records. We have manufacturing records for when certain features were introduced right down to the serial numbers.

There's more than ample evidence that the myth is just that: A myth. That's where the burden of proof lies.

 

[Sabrejet]

So where's the evidence?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

My understanding is that the Corsair's landing difficulties mostly revolved around the asymmetric stall at low speed, and the bouncing upon touchdown, as well as excessive torque on a bolter power-up.

Of course visibility forward was poor, but as P pbehn mentions, that had long been the case and a turning approach had long been a solution.

 

[Frog]

The Myth was spread by Grumman to promote more F6Fs...

 

[EwenS]

The introduction of the Corsair to RN service took place some months earlier than noted by the OP.

The FAA began forming Corsair squadrons in the USA on 1 June 1943. Personnel came both from Britain and from those trained in the USA undervtge Tower Scheme. Between then and 1 Oct 1943 it formed 8 squadrons there (1830, 1831, & 1833-1838 inclusive), each with an initial complement of 10 aircraft and 12 pilots. 1835 was disbanded in Nov to release personnel and aircraft for an OTU squadron, 732, which remained in the USA until disbanded in July 1944. These were worked up in the USA before being ferried to Britain. Britain received 95 early production F4U-1 "birdcage" Corsair I, which were replaced by F4U-1A Corsair II before thee squadrons left for Britain.

1830, 1831 & 1833 were destined to form the 15th Naval Fighter Wing on Illustrious. They left the USA in mid-Oct being ferried to Britain and arriving at the beginning of Nov. After a further period of training, 1831 was disbanded on 10 Dec 1943 to increase the complement of the other 2 squadrons to 14 aircraft. Illustrious with 1830 & 1833 left for the Indian Ocean on 29 Dec 1943.

1834 & 1836 were ferried to the UK in Nov 1943 and were used to form the 47th Naval Fighter Wing on Victorious. They had to await her completing a refit before going aboard in March 1944.

1837 & 1838 sailed for the UK in Jan 1944, and almost immediately were sent to Ceylon as part of the response to the Japanese fleet arriving in the Singapore area.

The RN continued to form Corsair squadrons in the USA through to 1 April 1945 when 1853 formed.

If there was/is a myth, I don't believe it emerged from British sources. Way back in 1979, Norman Hanson had his WW2 memoir "Carrier Pilot" published. He was the first Senior Pilot in 1833 squadron and rose to command the squadron from March 1944. In that he noted how Illustrious' Corsair squadrons had to wait until well into 1944 before some of the improvements found their way to the Indian Ocean. The one that sticks in my mind was the "stall spoiler" modification to the wing as well as the undercarriage cure for bounce on landing.

The curved approach to the flight deck became necessary in the RN with the introduction of the Seafire and the trials with the Blackburn Firebrand. A hooked Spitfire was first deck landed in late Dec 1941. The first operational Seafire squadrons received their aircraft in June 1942. The Firebrand flew for the first time in Feb 1942.

The other "myth" about the Corsair concerns its removal from the Essex class in late 1943. That was done to simplify USN Pacific Fleet logistics (thereafter only a need to support the F6F Hellcat). The RN had no connection to that.

What is not in doubt is that the Corsair was a much larger, heavier and more powerful aircraft than the novice pilots coming to it had flown before. As a result there were a fair number of losses during training in the early days. Norman Hanson's reaction on first seeing "the bent winged bastard" and having heard the "horror" stories about it, was to go back to his room and type out his last will and testament! That was mid-July 1943.

 

[NTGray]

It's a story that's been floating around for ages. It's SO prominent that it turns up in Wikipedia, many documentaries and books on aviation history, and IIRC even in the Smithsonian:

It took the British to "fix" the Corsair to make it safe to operate from the carriers.

The problem is, the "fixes" that made the Corsair suitable for carrier operations...weren't necessary. And were also introduced months (if not longer) before the Royal Navy even received their first shipments!

So why does the myth persist it took the British to tame the Hog and teach the Yanks how to fly them off the flattops?

I don't think that "It took the British to 'fix' the Corsair to make it safe to operate from carriers" is a fair statement of the "myth." That sentence is too broad and non-specific, and I do not see anything in the Wikipedia article about the Corsair that approximates that wording. When I Googled the topic, what I found was a number of articles that described the problems with the Corsair that had to be solved, and they pretty much agreed with each other. None claimed that "the British fixed it."
Could you clarify your argument a bit more?

 

[SaparotRob]

The earliest reference I can find is in the thread Visibility over the nose: inline v. radial engine. August 25, 2010. Post #13.

 

[pbehn]

The earliest reference I can find is in the thread Visibility over the nose: inline v. radial engine. August 25, 2010. Post #13.

As I understood things the "curved approach" for a F4U Corsair was special. The plane came in at almost deck/landing height and the interaction betwen the "batman" and pilot was what made it different, it was a team skill that had to be learned. 80 odd years after the event I dont particularly care about the flag waving stuff about who did what first, I am just impressed that they did.

 

[GregP]

The Planes of Fame flies the oldest Corsair still flying. It started life as an F4U-1, was upgraded to F4U-1a, and then to F4U-1d.

The -1 was a "birdcage" canopy.
The -1a had a 3-piece canopy with two canopy support across the canopy fore and aft near the top of the canopy.
The -1d had a 1-piece, full blown canopy, with no interfering supports in the plexi area.

Those are not the ONLY changes, but are the easiest from which to make an identification.

From what I have heard (from ONE corsair pilot), the aircraft has a "mind of its own" when landing at standard gear service values. That is, you never know which way it will go (left or right) when the main gear touches down and have to be on top of it. Since we are NOT in the Navy and not at war hauling ordnance, we typically operate it at about half of the strut pressure called for in the tech order, and it tracks decently when landing. I understand it failed carrier suitability when it was tested by the U.S.A., but the British didn't "fix it," they just operated it from carriers successfully by figuring out how to do that in a manner safer than a then-standard approach.

That, in turn, embarrassed the Navy and they decided that the Corsair was carrier-suitable since it was being flown from British carriers. It wasn't a case of it not being suitable as much as it was a training thing. By adjusting the landing pattern, you could see enough to make operations safer. The British had the attitude of "figure out how to operate this thing from a carrier," and we had the attitude, "does it pass the standard carrier-suitability test?".

So, I don't believe they made any "fixes." Instead, they figured out how to modify the approach so it was at least safer than a straight-in approach. They MAY have figured out a stall strip on one wing root and it may have been us that figured that out; I can't recall just now, but the main fix was never a mechanical fix; it was an operational change to the standard landing pattern more than anything else. That from several former Corsair pilots who gave regular talks up until several years ago. Basically, we haven't had too may WWII vets give talks since the pandemic, and most of the ones I have known have passed away in the last few years, as we might expect.

 

[Simon Thomas]

• VF-12 and VF-17 both complete carrier qualifications without incident in April, 1943.

From "F4U VOUGHT CORSAIR" by Barrett Tillman, p22&25.

Blackburn's VF-17 experienced a maddening series of incidents aboard USS Bunker Hill (CV-17) during her summer 1943 shakedown off Trinidad. Despite apparently normal landings, several Corsairs failed to engage the arresting wires, bounced over the barriers, and in Blackburn's words, "strewing expensive debris in all directions, often as not breaking in two at the engine mount.​

Yep, getting the facts is not easy.

 

[GregP]

I tend to seriously doubt that "often as not breaking in two" part. That is, I doubt the statement; not Barrett Tillman's recounting of it. If they did, maybe these guys were dropping it in from 25 feet? It wasn't designed for that stress level ... NO carrier airplane is.

People who are "given" a car as a teenager often tend to hot rod it and not take care of it. I have often wondered if they did the same with airplanes acquired under Lend-Lease. I DO know the RN simply pushed the Corsairs over the side when the war ended and they were "done with them." That doesn't say much for them being especially "fond" of what appears on the surface to be one of the better Naval piston fighters ever produced.

But, I'm looking at it from 80 years later, too. So, things might have been different in real life and the dumping might have been proscribed by the U.S.A. I can't really say at this time. We were sending piston fighters in droves to ;omg-term storage at the time. Maybe we just didn't want 'em back.

 

[SaparotRob]

As I understood things the "curved approach" for a F4U Corsair was special. The plane came in at almost deck/landing height and the interaction betwen the "batman" and pilot was what made it different, it was a team skill that had to be learned. 80 odd years after the event I dont particularly care about the flag waving stuff about who did what first, I am just impressed that they did.

Could the FAA's superior flight deck handling abilities be attributed to using lesser amounts of blue paint?

 

[Airframes]

No, it was superior amounts of pink gin ................