Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When did they do away with that? It would seem a straight-in approach was planned initially for the F4U-1 with VF-17.Late-1930s: The US Navy adopted a curved landing approach for all carrier aircraft.
All of the info is elsewhere in the forum. We did all this about a year ago with dates of first USN carrier dates and the orders to standardise on the F6F for supply convienence.
The same place I got the scan of the carrier trial results also had one that tl;dr was:All of the info is elsewhere in the forum. We did all this about a year ago with dates of first USN carrier dates and the orders to standardise on the F6F for supply convienence. Much documentation is here somewhere. I am not computer savvy enough and have limited forum finding stuff ability to know exactly where.
The same place I got the scan of the carrier trial results also had one that tl;dr was:
"Marines need fighters ASAP, send every Corsair we have now."
With the US carrier forces still rebuilding for much of early 1943 (Enterprise and Saratoga out of action for repairs from the Guadalcanal campaign, their air groups badly depleted and needing to be rebuilt, and the first Essexes were still fitting out) it makes sense that the carrier groups would be a lower priority to receive the new fighters than the Marines that were in the war zone NOW and were desperate for equipment. With every F4U available being rushed out to the Pacifc, that naturally meant the Hellcats were what was available in the States to build the carrier groups around, which then led to the logistics decision once the distribution of aircraft was established.
USN testing of a captured Zero showed that it was superior in every aspect to the F4F-4 except level speed at sea level and high speed rolls.True. But an untruth always gets started for a reason, whether the reason is malicious, a mere prank, or a simple misunderstanding. The myth (if it is a myth) started somewhere, for some reason. So, where and why was it started?
As I said, more information seems to be called for.
Edit:
I realize that in a criminal trial it is not necessary to prove who DID do the deed; all that is called for is to prove that the defendant DIDN'T do it. (Well, technically, to create "reasonable doubt" that he did it.) But this issue is not a criminal trial, so I really want to know how the "myth" got started if it is indeed a myth.
To illustrate with some other myths:
The myth that the Japanese Zero was some kind of super-plane got started because it really was superior in one very noticeable way: American pilots were surprised and awed by its maneuverability. But it wasn't long before Jimmy Thach and others figured out how to use the Wildcat's strengths to overcome the Zero's strengths, and it turned out that the Zero was not a super-plane after all.
Similarly, it seemed that everybody agreed a couple of weeks ago that Donald Trump "won" that debate because he seemed stronger, more confident, more commanding, and so on, and it wasn't until later that people began to realize that strength and presence are not criteria that are used in deciding who "won" a debate. Somebody who struggles to speak the truth makes a better debate argument than somebody who confidently spouts transparent lies and nonsense. (If this were not the case, Stephen Hawking would never have convinced anybody of anything.) So in both cases there was a reason why the myth got started, even though later evidence showed that the myth was just that, a myth.
So, if it is only a "myth" that the British showed us how to land a Corsair on a carrier (and the OP does present some interesting evidence to support that thesis), how did that myth get started?
Don't forget the Wildcat's ability to dive like a block of lead.USN testing of a captured Zero showed that it was superior in every aspect to the F4F-4 except level speed at sea level and high speed rolls.
The USN compared the diving performance and found:Don't forget the Wildcat's ability to dive like a block of lead.
The Zero was NOT a good diver as it has a relatively low max dive speed. Otherwise, it was fine. The A6M5 Model 52 sort of "fixed" that by going with thicker wing skins, but that only pushed the dive speed up by about 20 - 30 mph, if memory serves. The Wildcat SHOULD have had a good diving advantage by dint of dive speed alone.The USN compared the diving performance and found:
"...In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine
cuts out in pushovers..."
So if the Zero might suffer a momentary loss of power if the nose is pushed down from level flight, but if the dive is entered via a roll or in a turn, then the F4F-4 has no advantage.
The tests conducted by the USN were of the two aircraft flying side by side.The Zero was NOT a good diver as it has a relatively low max dive speed. Otherwise, it was fine. The A6M5 Model 52 sort of "fixed" that by going with thicker wing skins, but that only pushed the dive speed up by about 20 - 30 mph, if memory serves. The Wildcat SHOULD have had a good diving advantage by dint of dive speed alone.
Seriously, this would completely invalidate one of the key tactics that allowed Wildcat pilots to turn the tables on the Zero in the first place. IIRC even Japanese accounts expressed frustration by the Wildcat's ability to scoot away in a dive and escape.The Zero was NOT a good diver as it has a relatively low max dive speed. Otherwise, it was fine. The A6M5 Model 52 sort of "fixed" that by going with thicker wing skins, but that only pushed the dive speed up by about 20 - 30 mph, if memory serves. The Wildcat SHOULD have had a good diving advantage by dint of dive speed alone.
I think it's more likely that the Zero had better initial acceleration, and the dive tests simply weren't long enough for the Wildcat's greater weight and higher do not exceed speed to take over.Was it the F4F that didn't have a "do not exceed" IAS?
The USN compared the diving performance and found:
"...In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine
cuts out in pushovers..."
So if the Zero might suffer a momentary loss of power if the nose is pushed down from level flight, but if the dive is entered via a roll or in a turn, then the F4F-4 has no advantage.
And REAL maple syrup, please.Who needs proof when you can have waffles?
Bacon on the side, please.
| Month | F6F | F6F | F4U | F4U | F8F | F8F |
| Month | Total | To British | Total | To British | Month | Total |
Jul-42 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
Aug-42 | 0 | 0 | 11 | |||
Sep-42 | 1 | 0 | 24 | |||
Oct-42 | 2 | 0 | 55 | |||
Nov-42 | 3 | 0 | 110 | |||
Dec-42 | 10 | 0 | 178 | |||
Jan-43 | 22 | 0 | 217 | 0 | Jan-45 | 0 |
Feb-43 | 57 | 0 | 292 | 0 | Feb-45 | 3 |
Mar-43 | 137 | 10 | 369 | 0 | Mar-45 | 4 |
Apr-43 | 268 | 20 | 484 | 0 | Apr-45 | 9 |
May-43 | 418 | 42 | 623 | 20 | May-45 | 27 |
Jun-43 | 598 | 70 | 792 | 45 | Jun-45 | 75 |
Jul-43 | 808 | 90 | 988 | 94 | Jul-45 | 131 |
Aug-43 | 1058 | 110 | 1194 | 140 | Aug-45 | 151 |
Sep-43 | 1353 | 130 | 1465 | 175 | Sep-45 | 163 |
Oct-43 | 1698 | 160 | 1750 | 215 | Oct-45 | 178 |
Nov-43 | 2098 | 180 | 2086 | 269 | Nov-45 | 189 |
Dec-43 | 2556 | 200 | 2471 | 325 | Dec-45 | 208 |
According to the pilot manuals, the Wildcat should easily dive away from the Zero.The tests conducted by the USN were of the two aircraft flying side by side.
I seriously doubt the US anything saw the Corsair as an excellent carrier fighter. They were not in Service until 2 Feb 1943 on Guadalcanal.Great point that's often over-looked..
In early 1943 the US Navy considered both the F4U and F6F to be excellent carrier-based fighters but during this period the US Marines desperately needed newer fighters in the Solomon Islands to replace their worn-out F4Fs. With Grumman ceasing production of the F4F in favor of newer more advanced F6F, the ready available F4U seemed like the best candidate as the Wildcat's replacement within US Marine air units.
The F6F was just becoming operational with the US Navy during this time. With it's more docile handling characteristics it was thought that carrier pilots could be commissioned at an even faster rate so the US Navy decided to continue equipping US Marine air units with the F4U and made the F6F the standard shipboard fighter.
This makes perfect sense, as the supply chain was already fully established for the F4U so why change anything when you have Grumman solely concentrated on F6F production to fill the need for future shipboard fighters? It was the simplest answer which allowed for both requirements to be met in the shortest logistical time-frame possible.