Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I gave you a link to the flight test report, which says otherwise.According to the pilot manuals, the Wildcat should easily dive away from the Zero.
???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.
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 landThe 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.
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.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.
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.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?
Which honestly is the case with ANY carrier landing."...You just had to get it right."
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.
Wow - a self appointed Fact Checker that was so sorely absent during the Debate. Curious regarding your specifics of 'lies and nonsense'?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.
Having been corrected and warned by the admins, I will neither repeat the offense nor comment further on the topic.Wow - a self appointed Fact Checker that was so sorely absent during the Debate. Curious regarding your specifics of 'lies and nonsense'?
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.