That was in the pre war version of King Ottokar's Sceptre album.
In the post 1947 revision, it was replaced by a Me 109.
By the way, in the same album, Tintin boards a SM-72 to fly from Frankfurt to Prague.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That was in the pre war version of King Ottokar's Sceptre album.I believe that Borduria also had a Heinkel He112B, too.
It was seen in several episodes.
Didn't the Syldavian Air Force have the P.11c fighter?That was in the pre war version of King Ottokar's Sceptre album.
In the post 1947 revision, it was replaced by a Me 109.
By the way, in the same album, Tintin boards a SM-72 to fly from Frankfurt to Prague.
Could be referencing the fact that the FAA received mostly Brewster-built F3As, which had the reputation of being of poor build quality. (deserved, or not, I do not know)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:
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.
- 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.
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?
More myths.Cou
Could be referencing the fact that the FAA received mostly Brewster-built F3As, which had the reputation of being of poor build quality. (deserved, or not, I do not know)
Damn Krauts will do business with anyone.
You're just getting this now? Are you blonde or something?
Functionally.You're just getting this now? Are you blonde or something?
For British carrier operations the fixes were certainly necessary. If you can't fold the wings below decks, you can't operate from the carrier.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.
The "fixes" under discussion have nothing to do with cropping the wingtips.For British carrier operations the fixes were certainly necessary. If you can't fold the wings below decks, you can't operate from the carrier.
I think you'll find multiple posts from multiple members in this thread discussing cropping the wingtips. And besides, we established in the first few posts that the British didn't "fix" anything else. Was the F-4 Phantom II flawed and then "fixed" by the British when they modified the forward undercarriage and nose cone to be compatible with RN carriers?The "fixes" under discussion have nothing to do with cropping the wingtips.
From my understanding cropping the wing tips made a definite improvement to both the Seafire and Corsair, both had landing accidents that can be directly attributed to their tendency to ''float'' over the deck, in the Seafires case even landing with drop tanks fitted made the aircraft easier to land from the added drag. As to who did what, designers and engineers to this day look at what the competition manufacture and take design cues from them so I find it hard to believe that the US flyers wouldn't have worked out or practised curved approaches or side slipping as examples to improve the landing approach as soon as the problem of forward vision presented itself.The "fixes" under discussion have nothing to do with cropping the wingtips.
They modified the Corsair's wingtips in order to be able to stow them belowdecks - 8 inches per wing.From my understanding cropping the wing tips made a definite improvement to both the Seafire and Corsair, both had landing accidents that can be directly attributed to their tendency to ''float'' over the deck, in the Seafires case even landing with drop tanks fitted made the aircraft easier to land from the added drag. As to who did what, designers and engineers to this day look at what the competition manufacture and take design cues from them so I find it hard to believe that the US flyers wouldn't have worked out or practised curved approaches or side slipping as examples to improve the landing approach as soon as the problem of forward vision presented itself.
That's not how the guy in "Devotion" flew it.They modified the Corsair's wingtips in order to be able to stow them belowdecks - 8 inches per wing.
RN armored carriers had a much lower hangar height than USN carriers.
The slightly improved sink rate was an unexpected but welcome side effect.
As far as "curved approach" goes, this was standard USN flight operation doctrine.
When a flight returned to the carrier, they orbited counter-clockwise and as one aircraft was recovered, the next aircraft in the pattern came out of the orbit and landed. Then the next and the next and so on until the flight recovery was complete.
In otherwords, their landing approach was initiated with a bank to port: curved.
Adding the stall flap was another improvement.They modified the Corsair's wingtips in order to be able to stow them belowdecks - 8 inches per wing.
RN armored carriers had a much lower hangar height than USN carriers.
The slightly improved sink rate was an unexpected but welcome side effect.
As far as "curved approach" goes, this was standard USN flight operation doctrine.
When a flight returned to the carrier, they orbited counter-clockwise and as one aircraft was recovered, the next aircraft in the pattern came out of the orbit and landed. Then the next and the next and so on until the flight recovery was complete.
In otherwords, their landing approach was initiated with a bank to port: curved.
There is a truth to that, Winkle Brown was quoted as saying the airframe rotated around the prop.That's not how the guy in "Devotion" flew it.
You will find very few photos of Seafires with clipped wingtips. Closer inspection of many that appear to show clipped wingtips reveal that the tips have been folded down (as designed for the Seafire II to XVII). While it may have helped stop them floating on landing, it also increased their take off run. And at least some of those photos that do show clipped wingtips relate to aircraft used by the Air Spotting Pool from shore bases on D-Day over Normandy.From my understanding cropping the wing tips made a definite improvement to both the Seafire and Corsair, both had landing accidents that can be directly attributed to their tendency to ''float'' over the deck, in the Seafires case even landing with drop tanks fitted made the aircraft easier to land from the added drag. As to who did what, designers and engineers to this day look at what the competition manufacture and take design cues from them so I find it hard to believe that the US flyers wouldn't have worked out or practised curved approaches or side slipping as examples to improve the landing approach as soon as the problem of forward vision presented itself.
Can we look at how the British might have wrecked the Corsair? I recall reading somewhere that the Air Ministry or Australian tried a Bristol Centaurus on a Corsair.
The Brits should've stuck the Double Wasp onto the Tempest or even Typhoon in order to make the best FAA aircraft of the war.Not Australia, the Aussies never operated the Corsair, the Kiwis did but none were fitted with a Centaurus. I think you might have seen this on a what if modeling site, I don't think the British fitted a Corsair with a Centaurus. I have seen a Sea Fury fitted with Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp though...
View attachment 817321_ADP8342
Details here of the Sea Typhoon or Sea-phoon proposals and why nothing came of them.The Brits should've stuck the Double Wasp onto the Tempest or even Typhoon in order to make the best FAA aircraft of the war.