The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair

[RCAFson]

According to the pilot manuals, the Wildcat should easily dive away from the Zero.

I gave you a link to the flight test report, which says otherwise.

We also have to remember that Zeros were often used on long range missions, where they couldn't afford to pursue diving F4F-4s. This was certainly the case during Rabaul-> Guadalcanal Zero missions.

 

[EwenS]

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.

They didn't see actual combat until Sep 1943, and weren't carrier-approved until early 1944.

???

12 F4U-1 of VMF-124 flew into Guadalcanal on 12 Feb 1943, and flew their first combat sortie that afternoon, cover for a rescue mission. Next day it was an escort mission to take PB4Y-1 to Bougainville. Their first claims, and losses, were on the 14th Feb. That squadron was in theatre for the next 6 months, being joined over that time by about 7 more IIRC.

VF-17 was equipped with F4U-1 and worked up on the new carrier Bunker Hill, first going aboard on 28 June 1943. When the carrier reached San Diego in Sept, VF-17 was replaced aboard by a Hellcat squadron to simplify Pacific Fleet logistics. VF-17 was then sent to the South Pacific.

When US carriers hit Rabaul on 11th Nov 1943, aircraft from VF-17, by then shore based in the Solomons, were used to provide additional fighter cover. These were refuelled and rearmed that day on the Bunker Hill, although that was very much a one off operation.

 

[PAT303]

If I'm reading the above report correctly they did go onto carriers but were quickly replaced by Hellcats then were shore based for the rest of '43?.

 

[GrauGeist]

The USN had to make a decision.

Do they operate both types aboard a carrier, which would have meant reduced supply per type or pick a single type for dedicated air groups?

They decided the latter and they chose the F6F for several reasons. One of which, was it's ability for F4F pilots to quickly transition. Another reason, was that it was more docile than the F4U.

The Corsair was given to USMC air elements, mainly operating from land bases and thus, had it's own dedicated logistics chain, which allowed the Carrier groups to focus on a single type for their logistics.

 

[WARSPITER]

The USN had to make a decision.

Do they operate both types aboard a carrier, which would have meant reduced supply per type or pick a single type for dedicated air groups?

They decided the latter and they chose the F6F for several reasons. One of which, was it's ability for F4F pilots to quickly transition. Another reason, was that it was more docile than the F4U.

The Corsair was given to USMC air elements, mainly operating from land bases and thus, had it's own dedicated logistics chain, which allowed the Carrier groups to focus on a single type for their logistics.

That is a good summation and is part of the carrier problem story as well. I have read several accounts over time that the Corsair had to be land
based because it wasn't working out well on carriers. More likely that the explanation above led to this assumption as the F4U was a good aircraft
and another use was found for it.

The myth/non-myth argument stems from both the FAA and USN finding their own way of 'fixing' F4U problems around the same time. Thus we get
some people saying we did it and others saying no, we already did. Probably a case of they both did under their own trial and solve conditions.

 

[GrauGeist]

Right, the F4U was very capable, but the USN had to decide between the two.

The USAAF had similar decisions, but was based entirely on logistics, as they had four primary types, versus the USN's three.

 

[fannum]

Those disregarding the value of sharp stall strips as a retrofit are showing a lack of knowledge. I can attest from experience that they are quite effective, and rescued many designs from dangerous vices, especially those conceived in the middle of the last century. Range of speeds from stall to cruise kept stretching, and aero science was slow to catch up.

Not only stall strips but vane and wedge turbulators, flow fences, gurney flaps, fillets, and wingtip or stab dihedral saved many planes from expensive and perhaps economically fatal redesigns. Great examples are the Jodels, early Lear jets, Cessna Caravan, MiG-15 and the F-4 ... which by the last S model was a flying package of aerodynamic kluges.

You'll still find those aero tack on tricks on some of the early models of current jet fighters.

Check out some of the tricked up light planes used in the short take off/landing contests so popular with Canadian/Alaskan bush pilots. They utilize EVERY wizard tweak imaginable and are flying science projects.

My personal eye opening came when asked to make initial flights of a completely rebuilt Culver. All went well until I engaged in some mild aerobatics, a common practice of mine, mainly to see if I could shake loose hardware or tools left inside. I pulled out of slow roll into a turn, ready for it to stall toward the inside wing, and was shocked when it snapped the opposite direction, entering a 2-3 turn spin before I could recover. Whew!

My first thought was misrigging, and I called a friend with Culver experience. He related they had that issue with the first models built, but it should have been fixed with the leading-edge angle stall strip on the inner wing. I checked, and the rebuilder had removed it ... they thought it was ugly!

While I did fly a CAF FG Corsair briefly in the '60s, I don't recall the stall strip, but was highly impressed by how responsive it was, especially in roll, in both directions. The P-51s I flew often were sluggish by comparison ... not bad, but not as sporty, and more of a difference between roll directions.

 

[NTGray]

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.

Every aspect of maneuverability. It was acknowledged by our fighter pilots that a Wildcat should not engage a Zero in a one-on-one dogfight. Instead, Wildcat pilots learned how (and then taught others how) to use the Wildcat's strengths to beat the Zero.
A Wildcat had more hitting power than a Zero (and a Wildcat could take more punishment than a Zero). A Zero would disintegrate from one solid burst, while a Wildcat had to be hit again and again before falling.
A Wildcat had superior dive speed. It could bounce a Zero, fill it full of holes (or worse) and then keep going and get away.
Wildcat pilots developed better teamwork, leading to the expression "One Wildcat is no match for a Zero, but two Wildcats can take on four Zeroes." (Read up on the Thach Weave.)
Speaking of teamwork, Wildcats had working radios; Zeroes generally did not. So a Wildcat team leader could give verbal instructions to the rest of the team, while a Zero team leader could only point, or waggle his wings.
This is why Wildcats actually had more victories than defeats against Zeroes by late 1942. Not by as large a margin as the Hellcat would enjoy later on, but the ratio was still positive. A flight of Wildcats flown by trained, skilled pilots was quite capable of defeating a flight of Zeroes.

 

[SaparotRob]

Though frequently mentioned, what exactly is "sea level"? A Wildcat diving away from a Zero at sea level seems counter productive. So, is sea level a statistical starting point (that no one actually routinely operated at) or an altitude range?

 

[NTGray]

Though frequently mentioned, what exactly is "sea level"? A Wildcat diving away from a Zero at sea level seems counter productive. So, is sea level a statistical starting point (that no one actually routinely operated at) or an altitude range?

It probably has an exact definition in terms of air temperature and pressure, but I've always understood it just to mean within a couple of hundred feet of the water. I.e. not twenty or five or even one thousand feet up. Differences of a hundred or two hundred feet in altitude aren't significant in terms of air density, which at higher values--that is, lower altitudes--creates greater resistance to forward motion, but also supplies more oxygen to an (unboosted) carburetor.

[Edit: I found the definition. "Sea level" is considered to be when the air temperature is 59° F and pressure is 29.92 inches of mercury]

 

[Writer]

I have a friend, now in his mid-90s, who was in the U.S. Marines and who flew F4U Corsairs in the immediate post-war period. Being interested in the subject of deck landings on an aircraft carrier, I asked him recently about the problems of landing the Corsair on deck. He simply replied: "Problems? There were no problems landing the F4U on a Carrier. You just had to get it right."

 

[Ambaryerno]

"...You just had to get it right."

Which honestly is the case with ANY carrier landing.

 

[PAT303]

That is a good summation and is part of the carrier problem story as well. I have read several accounts over time that the Corsair had to be land
based because it wasn't working out well on carriers. More likely that the explanation above led to this assumption as the F4U was a good aircraft
and another use was found for it.

The myth/non-myth argument stems from both the FAA and USN finding their own way of 'fixing' F4U problems around the same time. Thus we get
some people saying we did it and others saying no, we already did. Probably a case of they both did under their own trial and solve conditions.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oELswcifnGA
When it went wrong it went really wrong.

 

[Frog]

The Aéronavale apparently never complained about such carrier landing problems. Accidents with the French F4U7s, basically an AU-1 with a F4U4 P&W R2800-83 W or WA engine, were caused by propeller pitch control problems : the airframes were newly built but the engines were not, being refurbished by P&W.

 

[drgondog]

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.


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.

Wow - a self appointed Fact Checker that was so sorely absent during the Debate. Curious regarding your specifics of 'lies and nonsense'?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sorry, we missed the political post. It has been removed. Everyone knows the rule about politics.

I will go through the thread later when I have more time to see if it needs to be cleaned up some more.

 

[NTGray]

Wow - a self appointed Fact Checker that was so sorely absent during the Debate. Curious regarding your specifics of 'lies and nonsense'?

Having been corrected and warned by the admins, I will neither repeat the offense nor comment further on the topic.

 

[J.D.]

Excuse me. Late to the party here. As an Aussie, 'I have no dog in this fight' but I have honestly never heard any claim that it was the British who fixed the Corsair. I do have a copy of Eric Brown's 'Wings of the Navy' and his test flying reports make for some interesting reading. The Corsair was not easy to fly and according to Brown, suffered from serious control harmony problems and an inadequate stall warning, making for a handful to land on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier.

I can't see anywhere where Brown makes any claim that the British were ever involved in 'fixing' it. And if anyone were, it would have been Brown himself.

While Brown is full of praise for the Corsair from a performance standpoint and definitely recognises its achievements, particularly from land bases, his opinion was that it succeeded in spite of itself.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Excuse me. Late to the party here. As an Aussie, 'I have no dog in this fight' but I have honestly never heard any claim that it was the British who fixed the Corsair. I do have a copy of Eric Brown's 'Wings of the Navy' and his test flying reports make for some interesting reading. The Corsair was not easy to fly and according to Brown, suffered from serious control harmony problems and an inadequate stall warning, making for a handful to land on the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier.

I can't see anywhere where Brown makes any claim that the British were ever involved in 'fixing' it. And if anyone were, it would have been Brown himself.

While Brown is full of praise for the Corsair from a performance standpoint and definitely recognises its achievements, particularly from land bases, his opinion was that it succeeded in spite of itself.

I've read it in many places both online and in print. In fact, you'll find the claim touted here often enough to be an occasional bone of contention.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I've read it in many places both online and in print. In fact, you'll find the claim touted here often enough to be an occasional bone of contention.

It's such a Bri'ish thing.