SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
The things one learns here.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Except that's not the case.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.
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.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.
Although this report is dated April, 1943 the actual trials aboard Wolverine occurred the previous october.
U.S. Navy F4U Acceptance trials began in February 1941.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.
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.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...
Obviously.Could the FAA's superior flight deck handling abilities be attributed to using lesser amounts of blue paint?
Under Lend Lease the choices for all types of equipment were -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.
Thanks for the info. I suspected the dumping was from our side.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...
Not on my part, the Brit-bashing. I have nothing but respect for the British.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.