The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair

[SaparotRob]

The things one learns here.

 

[Ambaryerno]

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.

Except that's not the case.

Although this report is dated April, 1943 the actual trials aboard Wolverine occurred the previous october. The Americans were ALREADY using the curved landing pattern, so it's not a case of the British "figuring out" how to operate it, the Americans already DID.

 

[Ambaryerno]

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.

This would be after VF-17's carrier qualifications, which were carried out in April. My copy of Tillman is packed away, but the citation for the April date is p13.

 

[Simon Thomas]

VF-17 got through carrier qualifications with no personnel casualties. We busted a lot of wheels, blew a lot of tires, and totaled several of our airplanes, but everyone eventually made his five qualifying landings aboard Charger.
The Jolly Rogers, Tom Blackburn, p54

 

[ThomasP]

re

Although this report is dated April, 1943 the actual trials aboard Wolverine occurred the previous october.

I believe the part of your statement in bold above is incorrect.

The first production Corsair was flown in Jun'42. The Navy accepted its first two production Corsairs in Jul'42, with nine more following in Aug'42.

My info says that USS Wolverine commissioned in Aug'42 and while she subsequently had a number of different aircraft land aboard to test her equipment and train the crew in aircraft take-off, landing, and handling, she did not begin operating as a training carrier until Jan'43.

As far as I know the first F4U carrier trials were held in late-Sep'42 aboard USS Sangamon:

"In fall 1942, Lieutenant Sam Porter tested the feasibility of operating the Navy's bent-wing fighter from the deck of the escort carrier USS Sangamon steaming in the Chesapeake Bay. After four terrifying landings, he called it quits, certain the airplane was on the verge of killing him."

NOTE The problems with unacceptably poor visibility over the nose, dangerous asymmetric stall, and unacceptable oleo bounce, were all identified by Porter during these tests. Porter also predicted that less experienced pilots would encounter undue problems with torque roll.

USMC squadron VMF-124 formed in Sep'42 and received its first F4U in Oct'42. VMF-124 subsequently deployed to the SWPA via troop and aircraft transports, eventually arriving in Espiritu Santu, where the F4Us were readied and then flown off of land strips to Guadalcanal. VMF-124 did not carrier qualify on the F4U until later in the war (mid- to late-1944?).

The first F4U squadrons to carrier qualify were USN VF-12 and VF-17. They formed in Jan'43, and underwent carrier qualification ops from Feb'43 to early-Apr'43 on USS Charger and USS Wolverine.

 

[GregP]

Perhaps the Corsairs liked tea better than coffee?

 

[GregP]

Except that's not the case.

View attachment 788320

Although this report is dated April, 1943 the actual trials aboard Wolverine occurred the previous october. The Americans were ALREADY using the curved landing pattern, so it's not a case of the British "figuring out" how to operate it, the Americans already DID.

U.S. Navy F4U Acceptance trials began in February 1941.

The first production Corsair was delivered on 24 Jun 42.

Carrier suitability was a major issue requiring several major changes to the landing gear and a stall strip was needed on the left wing to avoid wing drop at stall in landing configuration. The Corsair was not considered hit for carrier operation until the stall strip "fix" was implemented and deck bounce was more or less fixed.

The trials above were after the fixes. Coincidentally, the British were actually landing theirs on their own carriers VERY soon after they got them, which was about Nov 1943, the same month when the U.S.A. started re-installing tail hooks and landing them on carriers . Before that, they were shore-based.

So, you can infer whatever you want from the above test report. It doesn't change the basic Corsair timeline.

 

[don4331]

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.

The dumping overboard was proscribed by the USA. With the end of the war, the Lend Lease act was terminated. So, RN had choice - pay "MSRP" for war weary airplanes, or return them. The USA did need (want) them, so told the RN to declare them as loses -i.e. push the overboard and they did.

The converse is during the war, RR waived the license fee for all the Merlin engines built in USA. But following war wanted the equivalent of $20k in royalties for every engine still in service (I think engine only cost something like $10k at the time). It is surprising that as many Mustangs escaped the crusher as have...

 

[Engineman]

The dumping overboard was proscribed by the USA. With the end of the war, the Lend Lease act was terminated. So, RN had choice - pay "MSRP" for war weary airplanes, or return them. The USA did need (want) them, so told the RN to declare them as loses -i.e. push the overboard and they did.

The converse is during the war, RR waived the license fee for all the Merlin engines built in USA. But following war wanted the equivalent of $20k in royalties for every engine still in service (I think engine only cost something like $10k at the time). It is surprising that as many Mustangs escaped the crusher as have...

I believe this is correct about much lend-lease. However, the details would be interesting but I bet it is extremely complicated and probably has different specifics for many of the different deals that were done.

Eng

 

[Sabrejet]

So far I haven't seen anything that shows evidence of stall strip/stall spoiler prior to FAA adoption. Anyone? And I mean primary-source, not book/Wiki quotations.

This thread is beginning to reek of a Brit-bashing agenda.

 

[pbehn]

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

Obviously.

 

[EwenS]

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.

Under Lend Lease the choices for all types of equipment were -
1. Return to US control (who had plenty of everything anyway, and scrapped most of what was returned aircraft wise immediately).
2. Pay to keep it and use it. What with? Britain was pretty much bankrupt by the end of the war.

So the quickest solution to the problem was to deep six them all, which the US was happy with as it avoided their disposal costs. And It wasn't just US aircraft that headed for the bottom of the ocean. Plenty of photos of British types that were surplus to requirements going the same way e.g. Barracudas (no nasty comments about that being the best thing for them please!).

With the massive downsizing of the British military post war, we just didn't need so many aircraft. For the RN, there were plenty of Seafires and Fireflies still in storage or rolling off production lines in Aug 1945, to meet operational needs for the foreseeable future. Those types were brought home from Australia. We could even supply them to France to kick start the Aeronavale.

All sorts of war surplus ended up in waters around the world. Munitions in the English Channel and North Channel, naval aircraft and engines off Australia, Ceylon and South Africa, U-boats off Northern Ireland, Japaneee cruisers in the Malacca Straits etc etc

 

[EwenS]

There was / is a huge difference between "service trials" towards acceptance of an aircraft type into service or qualifying it for the flight deck on the one hand and your general service pilot learning to fly and deck land it. The former task was being carried out by experienced test pilots.

Eric "Winkle" Brown was happy making a straight in approach to a flight deck in a Seafire by flying a "crabbed" approach and using the rudder to straighten up immediately prior to touchdown. He was a test pilot with incredible flying skills, happy not to use the assistance of an LSO / DLCO most of the time.. That method was beyond the capabilities of most squadron pilots of the time. Hence the need for the curved approach.

1830 squadron lost 3 pilots in its first month of training without seeing a carrier deck (25% of its pilots and 30% of its aircraft). On joining Illustrious on 9 Dec 1943 it suffered 4 deck landing accidents (from 14) with one fatality, and that was just the first day!

The Corsair was not, for young inexperienced pilots coming to it for the first time, an easy aircraft to fly in the same way that the Hellcat was.

 

[Sabrejet]

More waffle and still no proof....

 

[SaparotRob]

Who needs proof when you can have waffles?

Bacon on the side, please.

 

[GregP]

The dumping overboard was proscribed by the USA. With the end of the war, the Lend Lease act was terminated. So, RN had choice - pay "MSRP" for war weary airplanes, or return them. The USA did need (want) them, so told the RN to declare them as loses -i.e. push the overboard and they did.

The converse is during the war, RR waived the license fee for all the Merlin engines built in USA. But following war wanted the equivalent of $20k in royalties for every engine still in service (I think engine only cost something like $10k at the time). It is surprising that as many Mustangs escaped the crusher as have...

Thanks for the info. I suspected the dumping was from our side.

 

[GregP]

So far I haven't seen anything that shows evidence of stall strip/stall spoiler prior to FAA adoption. Anyone? And I mean primary-source, not book/Wiki quotations.

This thread is beginning to reek of a Brit-bashing agenda.

Not on my part, the Brit-bashing. I have nothing but respect for the British.

They did a bang-up job in WWII and were steadfast Allies. It would be hard to think of a way for them to have done better... other than to not get attacked in the first place.

Thanks, all you Brits!

 

[SaparotRob]

I didn't think of it as Brit bashing. More like "why do they get the credit for figuring out flying them off carriers when the USN was already doing it?" Myth y/n?

 

[Sabrejet]

Well there's the thing: so far lots of talk but nothing that proves either y or n.

 

[GregP]

We've heard rumors for years about this, but I have not investigated it until now because it really didn't make much difference what the reason was why the Corsairs were ground-based for so long; they were and that's a fact. When they got to carriers, they did well. Not better than the Hellcat, but well.

A LOT of the overall success of a particular aircraft is due to it's assignments. The Hellcats were in the thick of most of the battles that happened after their deployment and were in a target-rich environment. The Corsairs were constrained by the location of whatever ground bases they were assigned to and didn't get the chance for the same amount of combat until they got to carriers. They did fine when they had the chance to do so.